Work from home if you can should stay in place, surely?

[Ninefeettall]

Just thinking about June 21st and Boris said as recently as yesterday or the day before that 'Work from home if you can' will be scrapped from 21 June. Surely if the Indian variant is a problem (which we don't know for sure yet) then this is a really, really, really easy win? 'If you can' doesn't have to include people who need to be in the office for mental health reasons or who can't work properly from home, but there are vast numbers of young, unvaccinated or partially vaccinated office workers who have now been working from home for a year, doing their jobs perfectly well if not better who could just keep doing that and not add to the commuters or office workers spreading the variant about.

@Thefourbells

Its the humans in the office that I like.

That was the worst part of it for me. Plus the pressure to do after work social stuff. I like my colleagues fine but I have my own friends, my own family and that's more than enough for me.

Always found too many people completely overwhelming.

And therein lines the difference.

Some people like being around others all day, others prefer their own company or just peace and quiet.

They're both fundamentally different positions, we've always had to adjust to the extroverted world of the open plan office, which has always been considered normal, and now people who struggle in that environment have had a taste of something different which works better for them.

Not everyone enjoys being around other people all day long and can find it grating/exhausting.

I always remember my son (also v introverted) being persuaded by my MIL to go and play with some children he didn't know at the park. When she said "wouldn't you like like make a new friend?", he looked at her like she had three heads and said "I already have a friend". He was 3 at the time

I was like, I get where he is coming from!!!

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

It's a small minority that are in permanent contracts in unionised workforces.

Delivery drivers - self employed
Care workers - only if they work directly for a public sector body and most don't
Refuse collectors - no, outsourced to private sector
Supermarkets - mix of direct employees and agency staff, mostly 0 hours contracts
Warehouse workers - mostly agency and on 0 hours contracts

The list goes on.

Young people at the bottom of the career ladder. Wfh is not likely to work for them.

@Thefourbells

I always remember my son (also v introverted) being persuaded by my MIL to go and play with some children he didn't know at the park. When she said "wouldn't you like like make a new friend?", he looked at her like she had three heads and said "I already have a friend". He was 3 at the time

I was like, I get where he is coming from!!!

I remember a comedian did a bit on how you get to a certain age (referencing their 30's) when you don't want more friends, your friends you have now are the ones you're stuck with for the duration and you feel like saying 'i'm not hiring right now' at the thought of having any more.

Obviously everyone's different, but I can relate to that. I get on fine with people in work but I don't want to be around them 40 hours a week, or outside of 9-5.

Young people at the bottom of the career ladder. Wfh is not likely to work for them.

In some cases it won't. At the same time many will prefer it. Many more at the start of their careers will have become accustomed to a more convenient way of working and haven't had decades of tiring commutes and spending the majority of their life stuck in a stuffy office.

I like wfh. I have a clinic end of this month and then one per month. I would like once per week at work (husband is of Mondays as his do) work give me my hour lunch break 3 til 4 so I can get kids and I'm in for them. However I've said I'll happily go back to work full time if needed providing I work am and then get travel time and my lunch break and then wfh for evening - they have said this would be fine

Young people at the bottom of the career ladder. Wfh is not likely to work for them.

It's working well in my organisation, it means new graduates can choose where to live that is more financially viable to them whilst they are on the lower end of the pay spectrum, it works particularly well for short term contracts so they're not needing to uproot themselves and find HMOs for short periods of time. We did a staff survey and it was overwhelmingly "voted" for to WFH across all age groups, there were only a few outliers who were actually mostly men in the 40+ category.

@SingleDontWantToMingle
It doesn’t make it right, does it? Even if it’s just some essential workers (nurses and teachers, say), the impact would be huge.

@nameme8746
In my scenario, those who can’t work from home aren’t penalised or at a disadvantage. Of course Covid has altered things - many more people are at home. That will impact on those who can’t. It’s no skin of my noise but I would say many who are ‘happy’ working from home are not actually more productive, they are just happy. Customer service across many industries has fallen dramatically. Your industry might be doing it well (you’ve done it for while) but many aren’t.

I am still convinced working from home is a perk. That’s lovely but it would be nicer if this was fairer all round and it wasn’t only certain groups gaining the benefits.

I am still convinced working from home is a perk. That’s lovely but it would be nicer if this was fairer all round and it wasn’t only certain groups gaining the benefits.

Since when has employment ever been fair? This isn't primary school. Some jobs pay more, some have more annual leave, some have nicer indoor conditions, some have more flexibility. That's life, what you do will determine how you can do it. Some people simply can't work at home, nurses, factory workers, supermarket workers, it just can't happen, so what are we do? Penalise those who can? It's a petulant attitude.

I work for a government department and the late at is that we will be back in the office vs WFH 50/50 from the end of June, regardless of the roadmap.

It's a piss take and I'm not happy

*latest

Since when has employment ever been fair? This isn't primary school. Some jobs pay more, some have more annual leave, some have nicer indoor conditions, some have more flexibility. That's life, what you do will determine how you can do it. Some people simply can't work at home, nurses, factory workers, supermarket workers, it just can't happen, so what are we do? Penalise those who can? It's a petulant attitude.

Well said.

[quote BustopherPonsonbyJones]@SingleDontWantToMingle
It doesn’t make it right, does it? Even if it’s just some essential workers (nurses and teachers, say), the impact would be huge.

@nameme8746
In my scenario, those who can’t work from home aren’t penalised or at a disadvantage. Of course Covid has altered things - many more people are at home. That will impact on those who can’t. It’s no skin of my noise but I would say many who are ‘happy’ working from home are not actually more productive, they are just happy. Customer service across many industries has fallen dramatically. Your industry might be doing it well (you’ve done it for while) but many aren’t.

I am still convinced working from home is a perk. That’s lovely but it would be nicer if this was fairer all round and it wasn’t only certain groups gaining the benefits.[/quote]
Nurses and teachers could strike and have done in the past but they tend to strike for improvement to their own conditions of employment, organised by their respective TU. I'm not aware of strikes, in recent history at least, where nurses and teachers have gone on strike to demand increases in pay for retail staff etc. Are you thinking of a general strike? How do you think that would be organised without TUs (outside of the PS)?

The other thing to keep in mind is that benefits are often linked to working a certain amount of hours - if many key workers went on strike, they could well lose their benefit entitlement, as well as their jobs. It's likely to be too much to risk for most people.

Just because striking has worked in the past, doesn't mean it would now. The only sectors of the workforce for whom striking would make a blind bit of difference are those that have a TU to organise it in the first place and those that are in professions that mean they are difficult to replace - usually due to the amount of training and certification that they have to undergo before they can work ie teachers, nurses, doctors. I'm sorry but many of the jobs that have become essential during the pandemic aren't held by people who had to train for years to be able to do those jobs.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

We have a punitive benefits system - don't work / don't look for work then you get sanctioned.

With 5% of the working age population claiming unemployment benefits and 11% still in furlough (after over a year, many of these people are effectively unemployed). That's a big chunk of the working population who could potentially take the place of those in un / low skilled roles, should those people choose to strike. If those who choose to strike are in agency / 0 hours contracts then they just lose their job with no compensation.

I haven't said I think this is right, I have said however, that this is a labour market that has been deliberately engineered so that there is always a pliable labour force available.

@Iremembertheelderlykoreanlady

I work for a government department and the late at is that we will be back in the office vs WFH 50/50 from the end of June, regardless of the roadmap.

It's a piss take and I'm not happy

Have the public sector unions said anything yet?

They did last year and then the government went quiet on the subject and everyone carried on WFH.

Not that I'm aware of sadly

@User135644

Young people at the bottom of the career ladder. Wfh is not likely to work for them.

In some cases it won't. At the same time many will prefer it. Many more at the start of their careers will have become accustomed to a more convenient way of working and haven't had decades of tiring commutes and spending the majority of their life stuck in a stuffy office.

I think it's more a matter of how you're going to train new/young staff if they're not in the office around other more experienced workers.

@nameme8746 We did a staff survey and it was overwhelmingly "voted" for to WFH across all age groups

That's from the staff's point of view. What about the employer who may not enjoy the same level of productivity? What about their customers who may not be experiencing the same level of customer service as previously? WFH has to work for everyone, employees (current and future), the organisation itself, and it's customers.

@Ninefeettall

Just thinking about June 21st and Boris said as recently as yesterday or the day before that 'Work from home if you can' will be scrapped from 21 June. Surely if the Indian variant is a problem (which we don't know for sure yet) then this is a really, really, really easy win? 'If you can' doesn't have to include people who need to be in the office for mental health reasons or who can't work properly from home, but there are vast numbers of young, unvaccinated or partially vaccinated office workers who have now been working from home for a year, doing their jobs perfectly well if not better who could just keep doing that and not add to the commuters or office workers spreading the variant about.

If Boris wants to hit his zero emmissions target, quickest and easiest way to do this is to continue the WFH strategy

We did a staff survey and it was overwhelmingly "voted" for to WFH across all age groups

We did one and it was the opposite. A hybrid approach was the most popular option but more preferred full time in the office than full time at home.

If Boris wants to hit his zero emmissions target, quickest and easiest way to do this is to continue the WFH strategy

Currently where I live traffic monitoring shows traffic is at usual levels. Public transport usage is way down. I’m not convinced what you say is true, certainly not in terms of transportation.

If Boris wants to hit his zero emmissions target, quickest and easiest way to do this is to continue the WFH strategy

What about the emissions from people hearing their houses now as well as the offices?

If Boris wants to hit his zero emmissions target, quickest and easiest way to do this is to continue the WFH strategy

I calculate my organisations carbon footprint for work and ours has gone up, taking into account WFH emissions relating to home heating etc.
So, no.

That's from the staff's point of view. What about the employer who may not enjoy the same level of productivity? What about their customers who may not be experiencing the same level of customer service as previously? WFH has to work for everyone, employees (current and future), the organisation itself, and it's customers.

Staff productivity has increased, we surpassed our income targets for the year despite Covid and we aren't a customer facing organisation. Our organisation has already permanently changed its WFH policy to only requiring 2 days a month in the office due to the resounding success. We were already a pretty agile company tbh, I've been WFH for years (partially) but this surpassed everyone's expectations.