Back to office? Pay people for their commutes
For many people, the workfrom-home revolution never happened. Many jobs, especially lower on the income ladder, require in-person attendance, meaning those who were lucky enough to stay employed at the height of the pandemic were never granted the benefit of clocking in from home.
Others who had been remote have long since returned to the office. The more we learn about COVID, and the longer we’ve had access to vaccines, the more some companies have decided to treat exposure as a risk like any other.
But there remains a large cohort who have been working from home for more than two years, have weathered various return-to-work initiatives and are resisting yet another push from business leaders to get back to their cubicles. Why, these workers wonder, should we upend a system that has been working and has granted all sorts of unforeseen benefits in terms of work-life balance?
As of late last year, according to Gallup, some 25 percent of U.S. workers were working from home exclusively, with another 20 percent at home at least some of the time. That total is down from early in the pandemic, when nearly 70 percent of the workforce was either all or partly home-based, but the numbers have been consistent for the past year.
The arguments in favor of at-home vs. in-office work have been well documented. There is a benefit to in-person collaboration that can’t be replicated online, according to one line of thinking. This isn’t just something bosses made up — there’s a long history of innovation that only happens in close-quarters contact, which is why cities have throughout world history been hubs of dynamism and growth. On the other hand, they didn’t have Zoom in ancient Babylon.
A less commonly articulated reason behind the in-office push is that too many bosses simply don’t trust that employees are working when they can’t see them. If an overseer can’t see it, it didn’t happen. And it doesn’t help to have high-profile CEOs nationwide demanding workers put in face time on pain of employment.
It’s no surprise workers would be less than enthusiastic about returning to such an environment.
There’s also the question of real estate. Companies spend a lot of money on offices, and if there’s going to be a fancy space that’s been paid for, someone ought to at least be sitting in front of a computer there.
But there’s an aspect of remote work that doesn’t get discussed often enough but is a major factor in many employees’ reluctance to return, and that’s the commute. The office is in many respects neither good nor bad — it’s just a different place to sit. Many who swear they’ll never go back into work are ambivalent about the office itself; it’s everything that’s required to get there that matters.
Commutes are wasted time. The average commute time in Connecticut is nearly a half-hour one way, which means five hours a week that can’t be used for anything else. In the state’s southwest corner, where so many jobs are concentrated and housing so hard to come by, the commute can be much longer. We’ve priced people an hour or more away from their jobs.
Commutes by train, at least, allow a rider to read, or sleep, or zone out. Most Connecticut commuters drive, and so arrive at their destination agitated from life on state highways.
In an era when so many people have a new appreciation of the value of their time, a commute-free life is something people are not willing to give up easily.
Companies are making all sorts of enticements to bring people back in, and civic leaders, especially in New York, are eager to get back to the before-times
and support the thousands of businesses that themselves depend on commuters arriving by the thousands each day. But few, if any, have taken the radical step that maybe ought to be common sense — pay people to commute.
Employers pay for time spent at work, but not for getting there. But that time is just as valuable to an employee, and yet they get nothing in return. It shouldn’t be a wonder that people aren’t eager to give up five or more hours a week for the privilege of sitting in traffic.
You can already hear the complaints, about how such an idea is anti-business and would drive people away from Connecticut. But it doesn’t have to be a mandate. It would just take a company, acting on its own, to take the sensible move and tell people their time has value.
There are already indications that companies are losing out by not offering work-from-home as an option. Connecticut has more jobs than people to fill them, and if workers find a better deal elsewhere, they’re going to take it. Flexibility plays a big part in those decisions.
For employers that recognize the changing reality of work but still desire a busy office, it’s a simple solution — pay people for their time. Offer a discrete bonus for commuting, above their salary. From the minute they leave home until they get back at night, they’re on the clock.
It’s either that or wait for a competitor to start offering it.