Prospects for Leo’s home working plan look remote
If world of work is to change forever, it’ll be about providing choice
Back in April, in the early days of the Covid-19 crisis, I remember speaking by phone to two separate owners of small businesses on the same day.
One was delighted and said to me he had 12 staff and they are all working from home incredibly well. “I think I will get rid of the office at the end of this,” he said.
The other said he had six staff, all working from home and “you know what, I don’t think any of them is doing a tap”.
Nearly a year into this crisis and many of us have got better at working from home, while others are facing another unbearable, depressing and unproductive few weeks ahead.
So, if the world of work is going to change forever after this pandemic, as Tánaiste Leo Varadkar suggested last week, it will be about providing choice.
The Tánaiste’s strategy document on remote working is timely and shows his ability to have his finger on the pulse when it comes to what people are talking about.
But it is only a strategy or discussion document. Working out the details is likely to be a long and fraught process.
At its core is the idea of employees having the right to request to work remotely. This would presumably place an onus on employers to show there were very good, tangible and assessable reasons as to why that person could be refused.
This opens up a complex legal process which would have to be reflected in a nuanced piece of legislation. That is why employers group Ibec – while welcoming the strategy – talked about balance.
Balance cuts both ways. If employers are happy to save money by having more staff work from home, there have to be protections to ensure people are not “always on” for emails and calls. Legislation on this is also promised and has to happen especially if some employers see remote working as a chance to simply drive down costs.
A survey conducted last October found that 94pc of people would like to work remotely after the crisis. That doesn’t mean they want to work exclusively from home or a local office hub, but they might want a mix or a ‘blended’ solution.
Blended solutions become very difficult for employers to deliver when it comes to the thorny issue of long-term commitments on office space. You only have to take a walk through some of the plush, relatively new, offices of accountancy firms, law firms or financial services providers in the heart of Dublin, to see the lavish space provided.
How could they justify retaining all or even most of that space, where there are fewer staff in the office at different times?
Aside from the nuance of drafting legislation around the right to request remote working, there are wider issues at play.
Remote working doesn’t necessarily mean working from home, but could involve local hubs where employers could rent desks for employees much closer to home, thereby reducing road and public transport congestion.
This change comes at a time when employment itself is becoming more casualised through short-term contracts and self-employment. It could accelerate that change.
Remote working is potentially a huge game-changer for parts of rural Ireland. Lower housing costs, lower rents, no commute and the chance to return to your home town, are all enticing for people.
Yet, if remote working truly takes off, international firms currently investing in Ireland might ask why they are paying Irish wages at all.
They might consider Irish corporate tax rates but staff or contractors working anywhere in the world.
Right now, the big international tech firms are still in high-growth phases where I doubt they seriously look at their cost base. That won’t always be the case.
Rural remote working is a pipe dream unless you have access to good broadband. The Tánaiste’s strategy includes a reference to speeding up the rollout of the National Broadband Plan, which is a pre-requisite for rural Ireland availing of opportunities that may arise from this. It needs detail.
The strategy also flags the potential downside of mass remote working on cities. Already there are people questioning the ability of New York City to bounce back from all of this.
New York has seen something of an exodus as people move further out for more space and cheaper housing. Professionals working from home are now looking at moving somewhere else in the US in growing numbers.
Why not live in Denver, Colorado, in Austin, Texas or Butte, Montana, and retain your New York office job, but just hardly ever go there? Around 20pc of jobs in New York City were in retail, restaurants and culture, which have all been decimated by Covid.
Big financial service employers in Manhattan are having the same conversations about remote working, which could fundamentally alter the city.
Others argue that an exodus like that would lower housing costs which would attract younger people into the city, and begin a whole new process of rejuvenation.
Here, Dublin city centre has been devastated by Covid – yet apartment and house prices are not falling. Population growth is still driving demand for housing, which helps to keep prices up.
The Varadkar document is timely but is just the beginning – it will remain a pipe dream unless it is pursued after the crisis eases.
If remote working takes off firms might ask why they should pay Irish wages
Rural remote work is just a pipe dream without access to good broadband