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.

I cannot cope with it any more and many other people who live alone are also on the verge of despair.

Yes, IF productivity and customer service levels can be upheld by working from home. Unfortunately, as most people have experienced over the past year, customer service levels have dropped through the floor. There needs to be a middle ground, where the people who can be fully productive and efficient at home continue to do so, but those who can't need to get back to their usual workplaces.

@Dongdingdong

Why would employers make their life much more difficult logistically than it needs to be? I think most companies will go back of all in the office

All those people who’ve sold up and relocated hundreds of miles from their office on the promise of WFH forevermore are going to have a rude awakening, if indeed that is really what has happened and it’s not just estate agent PR spin. Part of me thinks it must be the latter as surely no one would be that presumptuous stupid.

The few who've moved on the back of WFH are very naive indeed. What if their employer goes bust? Then they'd be looking at a much narrower range of opportunities either to WFH with a new employer or try to find work closer to their new home.

@Flibbitygibbit

Completely agree. My boss keeps on at us to go in. I’m not. I’ve worked really hard at home which he seems to have unnoticed.

I don't want to be rude but surely if your boss thinks you're more productive and wants you back then you can't unilaterally decide you're not, any more than you could have declared that you would be henceforth working from home back in 2019?

@Kazzyhoward

Yes, IF productivity and customer service levels can be upheld by working from home. Unfortunately, as most people have experienced over the past year, customer service levels have dropped through the floor. There needs to be a middle ground, where the people who can be fully productive and efficient at home continue to do so, but those who can't need to get back to their usual workplaces.

Absolutely this.

I’m a teacher so only WFH during periods of closure and isolation. I don’t have any issues with people WFH forever but the shitty customer service for the past year had to stop. I am sick of ‘because of Covid’ used and accepted ... unless you’re a teacher and then you’re blamed for everything connected to Covid.

Where I work there are plenty of 40-something who earn a decent salary and have zero desire for promotion. They'd be happy to WFH all day every day.

They may have zero desire for promotion, but are they happy to see their influence on company direction and policy lessen compared to people at the same level who have more of a presence because they’re visible? Who has most influence in a meeting, the person in the room or the person on zoom?

Will they be happy to miss out on good projects, because management barely see them and naturally the guy showing up in the office is top of mind?

I agree there are some people who literally don’t give a shit about any of that, just want to do their jobs and disappear, but most people will wake up to the fact that having minimised ‘soft power’ is problematic.

@Jennyfromtheculdesac

The more of these threads I read the more convinced I am that those who enjoy full time wfh really are at the selfish and lazy end of society.

Or maybe they are disabled, like me, and find it to be the safest way to work, not to mention the easiest and cheapest adjustment that can be made? Don't generalise or make assumptions.

For me 1-2 days in the office would be ideal.. to catch up with colleagues I'd otherwise not see, i.e from other teams. Its impossible to talk to a big group over video calls as only one person can speak at a time.
@TheKeatingFive that article is too much of a blunt instrument. In reality it's more complex.

But isn't your first point exactly the sort of problem that the article was pointing to - for your 1-2 days to fulfill what you want it to everyone would need to have the same ones. And at that point your employer needs the same office space, but it just sits empty three-four days a week. Rotas make much more sense logistically, but then what you identify as the key advantage of being in the office - seeing not just your own team mates but cementing your wider work relationships - is lost, there will be people you never see.

We’re in the process of mapping this out having now got less space than we’ve had throughout the pandemic.

We’ve managed to be in 2-3 days a week throughout with the bigger office space. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I know a lot of people dislike wfh but I can really see the positives behind it continuing as it allows more of the country to open up, whilst still stopping large numbers from mingling. If wfh continues, people won’t use public transport to get the office and mix with large groups who possibly spent the weekend mingling in a pub or with large groups of friends/family etc.

If wfh does continue though, furlough needs to as well and a lot more support for small businesses etc.

@TheKeatingFive, you're assuming that 'management' will be in "the office" and not WFH, too. All our senior managers are WFH now, including the highest executives. Almost the only people onsite most days are the people using unusually expensive equipment or involved in site/building/equipment maintenance. And a few cleaners. I like to sneak in on weekends... I'm afraid of the 1 way system on ordinary work days.

Yesterday departmental meeting (chaired by senior manager from his dining room) we were all told about how the top CEO is being forced out of his office along with anyone else who can WFH. A lot of the disabled colleagues are ones who most dislike forced WFH, actually, fearing hot-desking will mean no decent provision when they do need to come on site.

I think WFH has left a lot of managers having to reassess their management style. The ones who need to see the whites of their staff's eyes have struggled. The ones who dont trust have struggled.

I know in my company the MD is of the old school and doesnt believe people are working unless he can actually see them sweat and has really struggled. Fortunately I am a bean counter so under his radar.

The managers who have succeeded have been the ones with a clear sense of what their teams are supposed to be doing. They have been able to motivate from a distance. Shirkers have been dealt with.

you're assuming that 'management' will be in "the office" and not WFH, too

I agree there are differences in company culture and some businesses are more amenable to wfh than others.

However, ultimately I think most will drift back to a mostly office environment. Not just because of the reasons outlined already, but because it has clear advantages for younger hires, clear advantages for clients and ultimately it will only take a small coterie of influential types to shift the power base back to the office. 3 or 4 gathered in a room can have influence beyond the same numbers working remotely.

If wfh continues, people won’t use public transport to get the office

If wfh continues, people won’t use public transport to get to the office, public transport provision will become poorer so fewer people will want to use it, so provision will get even worse...

It’s a spiral to the bottom until we’re all just sat alone in individual cars belching out diesel fumes getting more and more unhealthy. But at least it’s not covid, right?

I think many people aren't bothered about the potential for a two-tiered society where one class stays at home, and the other services them. Human nature I guess. I hope this doesn't become what our society looks like.

We should also be aware of: potential issues with public transport (keyworkers need to be able to get to work - can people not see that?); Companies outsourcing a lot of these WFH roles; the experience of students and young people starting out; the decimation of pension funds; further decline of town centres; more abuse of women behind closed doors; women thinking that they can do childcare for young children and work as well (they can't); the loss of London/SE weighting; insularity; MH problems ...

I also think that there's probably a lot of people who are being somewhat less productive than they say. How much that matters and how much it has been noticed will probably become clearer in time.

So I'm hoping we can get further back towards 'normal', maybe with more flexibility for all and improved balance ... But not at any cost.

To add, there will also be political pressure from government to get people back, because of city centre economies, public transport and commercial property (which is integral to many pensions funds, so generally important).

I also think that there's probably a lot of people who are being somewhat less productive than they say. How much that matters and how much it has been noticed will probably become clearer in time.

I’ve seen a lot of comments to the effect of “I’m more productive at home because I’m working longer hours”, which is frankly the opposite of productivity. If you’re spending more hours doing the same job you’ve become less productive.

@RedRosie

I think many people aren't bothered about the potential for a two-tiered society where one class stays at home, and the other services them. Human nature I guess. I hope this doesn't become what our society looks like.

We should also be aware of: potential issues with public transport (keyworkers need to be able to get to work - can people not see that?); Companies outsourcing a lot of these WFH roles; the experience of students and young people starting out; the decimation of pension funds; further decline of town centres; more abuse of women behind closed doors; women thinking that they can do childcare for young children and work as well (they can't); the loss of London/SE weighting; insularity; MH problems ...

I also think that there's probably a lot of people who are being somewhat less productive than they say. How much that matters and how much it has been noticed will probably become clearer in time.

So I'm hoping we can get further back towards 'normal', maybe with more flexibility for all and improved balance ... But not at any cost.

I have to say as a factory worker it does make me laugh when people say them WFH makes it "safer" for me and others who can't WFH. It literally makes no difference to me at all as I don't use public transport to get to work and I still have to be in work with about 100 others.

@JeanClaudeVanDammit

If wfh continues, people won’t use public transport to get the office

If wfh continues, people won’t use public transport to get to the office, public transport provision will become poorer so fewer people will want to use it, so provision will get even worse...

It’s a spiral to the bottom until we’re all just sat alone in individual cars belching out diesel fumes getting more and more unhealthy. But at least it’s not covid, right?

This is the one that really worries me - I think we were already really struggling to implement the shift to public transport that we desperately need for the climate, and Covid has not just stopped progress but sent us back considerably. People are also shockingly naive about it - on other threads people have said that commuting those couple of days a week will be so much more pleasant because trains will be quieter. They seem to really think that train companies will choose to continue running half empty trains forever, or that the government will subsidise them to do so forever more.

@JeanClaudeVanDammit

I also think that there's probably a lot of people who are being somewhat less productive than they say. How much that matters and how much it has been noticed will probably become clearer in time.

I’ve seen a lot of comments to the effect of “I’m more productive at home because I’m working longer hours”, which is frankly the opposite of productivity. If you’re spending more hours doing the same job you’ve become less productive.

Well said.

I have chosen to wfh permanently, having been given the option. I dont pretend to have chosen to do so on the back of protecting people and the NHS. I would openly admit I enjoy the work/life balance wfh gives me. I appreciate people are saying wfh impacts businesses in cities, but I think most people have based their decision on how much better wfh is for their family, and won’t sacrifice their own happiness so that a coffee shop in the city can remain open. Brutal but true.

And I can’t muster up any sympathy for the railways. The train companies have treated the public like crap for years with poor service, late or none existent trains and massive price increases. Why would people want to go back to travelling by train based on the service received pre covid?

This is the one that really worries me - I think we were already really struggling to implement the shift to public transport that we desperately need for the climate, and Covid has not just stopped progress but sent us back considerably.

I work with public transport bodies in my role and yes, it’s really worrying what we’re seeing happening. Other places around the world which haven’t had significant covid restrictions (New Zealand, Singapore) have still had reductions of c.20% in patronage which makes it financially unviable in the longer term. Where I live, traffic is almost back to pre pandemic levels but public transport usage is still way down which does suggest a lot of people have switched to car travel.

but I think most people have based their decision on how much better wfh is for their family, and won’t sacrifice their own happiness so that a coffee shop in the city can remain open. Brutal but true.

But for most people who aren’t actually contracted to to
Wfh, it won’t be their decision, it’ll be their employers, who in turn will be influenced by government pressure and incentives.

@Livelovebehappy

And I can’t muster up any sympathy for the railways. The train companies have treated the public like crap for years with poor service, late or none existent trains and massive price increases. Why would people want to go back to travelling by train based on the service received pre covid?

I don't think anyone is expecting you to feel sympathy for train companies, but maybe some for train users, since all of those issues are set to get worse not better - or indeed some concern for the impact on us all if train users switch to using private cars?