The working-from-home wars rage on – but there is a point we are all missing

The world of work is mired in utter confusion. Once, there was complete clarity. Employees were expected to be at their workplace five days a week, usually from nine to five, possibly earlier or later. Monday to Friday was the norm for most, with Saturday and Sunday off.

Then Covid struck. Lockdowns meant that people discovered they could do their jobs just as well from home. Technology had improved so much that high-resolution virtual meetings via Teams or Zoom could be held from anywhere.

When the outbreak ended, there was a reluctance to return. Workers had enjoyed the freedom and financial benefit of not having to commute, they loved wearing more relaxed clothes and being able to go to the gym or walk the dog and be around the family more. Their work-life balance was achieving some sort of equilibrium and with that, their wellbeing was boosted.

So, instead of a flood back to the office, there was a trickle. Gradually, over time the flow increased, so that today, three or four days in the office is standard, with the remainder of the working week working from home, or WFH. Hybrid or flexible working is now so common that it’s specified in job contracts.

But it’s not universally accepted, not in the way Monday to Friday was. Instead, there is widespread debate: which is best, some degree of WFH or turning the clock back to how we were, pre-pandemic?

An illustration of the lack of certainty came this week. On the very day Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, said that a flexible arrangement is beneficial for productivity, Amazon announced for its staff a return to five days a week.

Here we are, two years post-pandemic, and still, there is no definitive answer. If anything, the disagreement is intensifying. For Labour, Reynolds is set to enshrine a looser working pattern in statute with the New Deal for Working People Bill. In response to Amazon’s return-to-office order, digital PR agency Reboot Online found that Google searches for “legal right to work from home” increased by 3,950 per cent, suggesting that there was an increasing employee frustration and a wish to understand their rights.

In another new survey, four out of 10 respondents said they would quit their jobs if they were forced to be at their desks five days a week. Equally, though, other organisations take the same firm view as Amazon.

Their argument is that productivity suffers, younger staff do not learn from older ones, and creativity and instant decision-making, based on casual chats in the lift or at the water cooler or someone popping their head round the door, dip. So far, there is no solid evidence to support these claims.

There is plenty of anecdotal support for the counterview, of an improvement to health and welfare. But again, this is not scientific and is drawn from interviews and individual experience.

The row rages on. With the government intent on legislating for WFH, it’s likely to become more political with Labour, historically the party of ordinary people, buoyed by the trade unions, versus the Tories for the bosses.

It’s not even so clear-cut as all that, however. There are workers who choose to go in five days; similarly, many corporates frown upon Amazon’s draconian approach. They were appalled by the behaviour of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Reynolds’s predecessor, when he toured Whitehall and published a league table of government departments based on how many staff were present.

Rees-Mogg distributed printed cards bearing the official government crest, which he left on empty desks saying: “Sorry you were out when I visited. I look forward to seeing you in the office very soon. With every good wish, Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.”

The note duly found its way to social media, and the Tory business secretary was accused of displaying a “condescending” attitude to civil servants and of being passive-aggressive. Other, employers absolutely do not wish for that.

Some businesses have welcomed hybrid as enabling them to move to smaller, cheaper premises and to reduce their expenses bills. Lunches, taxis, photocopying – they and other items have all decreased.

The fact is that we’re stuck. It’s not black and white, there’s no conclusive yes and no. We’re going to be like this for some time, until tangible proof as to which is better finally emerges. It has not arrived yet because it’s too soon.

There is another truth, however. Which is this was beginning to occur before Covid. City firms were already getting used to writing off Mondays and Fridays and accepting that staff would drift in at the beginning of the week and disappear towards the end.

That move was on the rise. Increasingly, digital meant that people could work anywhere. The pressure was building for a seismic shift. That was provided by Covid. All the virus did was act as the catalyst. It would have occurred sooner or later – the crisis simply made it sooner.

The likelihood of resolution is not made any easier by age differences. The younger you are, the more likely you are to regard WFH as unexceptional; the older you are, the more likely you are to struggle with it, believing workers belong in the office.

Similarly, as with everything in this dispute, the lines are blurry. Some younger workers do not have the space where they live to WFH. They would rather be at the office. They may, too, miss the social aspects of being among colleagues, finding WFH isolating and dispiriting. Likewise, there are older employees who relish being at home, believing their career path has peaked and their prospects won’t be damaged.

One senior partner of a law firm was moaning that the juniors could not be persuaded to come in, that the office in a costly part of London was a sea of empty desks. He was asked if he was there for five days. “No way, I love being at home.” He failed to realise that the others were taking their cue from him, that they could not be expected to be present if he wasn’t.

The controversy may never end. Society may break in two – between those who go in five days a week and those who follow a hybrid schedule. There might well not be a decisive verdict. We may have to get used to agreeing to disagree.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.