The costs of WFH must not fall on employees

AN ODT article about Contact Energy caught Civis’ eye last month. As a result of trialling before, during, and after the 2020 Covid19 lockdown, ways of working away from the office, Contact plans to reduce the amount of office space it occupies in Dunedin. It says that staff surveys and feedback have shown most workers prefer the flexibility of working from home

(WFH).

Contact intends most of its staff to work in the office only about 25% of their time (it’s a relief to learn that it realises some, such as technical workers at power stations, aren’t able to work from home). In Wellington it’s already reduced its office space from four floors to one.

Contact’s communications spokesman said there were financial, productivity, health, and work/life benefits from ‘‘a flexible working arrangement’’.

Employer talk of ‘‘flexibility’’ should ring alarm bells, but WFH can have advantages.

Civis used to spend about 30 minutes daily getting to and home from work. In some cities that could exceed a couple of hours daily. So work/life balance (and, probably, carbon emissions) could be improved by WFH, providing employees don’t find themselves working longer hours because there’s no set timetable.

WFH could be helpful for parents, though it also raises the question of distraction by children (affecting women more than men, Civis suspects).

Research in 2013 showed a 13% increase in productivity when an online travel company’s staff worked from home 4 out of 5 days a week. The increase was attributed to fewer at work distractions, lack of commuting, shorter lunch breaks, and fewer days off sick.

But there were caveats.

The participants were highly selected, having no children, a work room that wasn’t their bedroom, and high quality broadband internet on equipment the firm installed at home for them.

When WFH became a longterm policy, half of those who had found the experiment productive disliked it longterm, because of feelings of isolation.

The business was basically a call centre. For other, more knowledge or thinkingbased, businesses, serendipitous productivity from interaction with other workers could be lost.

A recent London report notes Covid19related WFH having adverse mental health effects, from isolation. And for some, the daily commute and trips up and down stairs at the office were the only physical activity in their day. Moving only in virtual space means sitting for hours on end, uninterrupted by physical activity, increasing the risk of many health problems, including stroke, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, falls and hip fractures.

Another issue occurs to Civis, from experience as a business owner working partly from home.

Reducing office space by threequarters is obviously a financial gain for companies introducing WFH: lower rent, power, office fittings, cleaning, and insurance. But what of costs to employees, especially as Contact has already, in Auckland and Wellington, moved into much smaller office spaces, and will do so in Dunedin, so that WFH will be not a choice for, but a requirement of, its employees?

One assumes that employers will supply computers and software (and broadband subscriptions?) to their WFH staff. Will they supply desks, ergonomically safe chairs, and other furnishings for their work spaces? And will they recompense the employees for providing, lighting and heating that space?

Being selfemployed, Civis was able to claim the costs of home office furnishings, and an appropriate part of the running cost and maintenance of the home as taxdeductible business expenses. But employees can’t do that.

Unless such employers come to an arrangement with each employee about adequately covering such expenses (which could be a pretty complicated accounting exercise), or significantly increase their pay in compensation, the savings they make on office space are being funded by their employees. But shouldn’t the employer be paying for work space costs?

Will employers compensate their employees properly for the costs they incur to enable WFH?

And will they share the rewards of any increased productivity with those employees?

If not, why not?