WFH: a middle-class scam?
To the Financial Times
It was the comment made by an anonymous investment banker [about working from home] that caught my eye. Nobody, the banker said, “will really know how much/little someone is in the office on a day-to-day basis. Performance will be more bluntly judged according to results.”
I do not agree that judgement by results is a more blunt measure than judgement by presence. Surely it is the other way around. Presence is only important where the function cannot otherwise be fulfilled (supermarket checkout staff; bus drivers). The remark sounds more like an inability and/or reluctance to trust employees to get the job done on time and to the required standard, if out of sight. Such control-freakery now looks very outmoded. Businesses should value managers capable of establishing work patterns which maintain professional standards while retaining valued staff. It requires a different mindset from the traditional command and control model. Heather Thomas, London
To the Financial Times
The letter from Heather Thomas reflects how the “work from home” movement has quickly become politicised. It is being pushed by academics, journalists, technology providers and self-interested employees, who use emotive language to demonise any manager who questions this new mantra. The political Left and trade unions are also firmly behind it, which is not surprising given it is so clearly in the interests of employees.
Given the significant concerns over online GP consultations and strong student reactions to increased online learning, there is clearly another side to this argument. While some staff may be more productive working from home, anyone who looks around on any week day can see that many others are using their new-found flexibility to do things other than work. Why would they want to give this up? Whether WFH represents a tectonic shift in working patterns that will help to improve the UK’s woeful productivity performance, or whether it is an opportunistic middle-class scam designed to secure five days’ pay for three or four days’ work, remains to be seen.
Roy Massey, London