Janine Starks is a financial commentator with expertise in banking, personal finance and funds management.
OPINION: My friend Dave works in the IT department of a European bank.
He’s a typical WFHer (work from home), middle-aged and fairly well-off. That’s the most dominant demographic.
Dave now looks more like a bin man than a banker, but he’s one of the most happy and relaxed blokes you’ll ever meet. He nails his work, the dogs are walked, the mountain bike is ridden and the Amazon courier is his best mate.
But last week something terrible happened. His manager dared to suggest he return to the office one day a quarter.
John Cowpland/Stuff
Tech support worker Jadon Shiva is relieved to be back in an office after more than a year of working from home.
READ MORE:
* Hybrid working: How do businesses find the right mix between office and home?
* ‘Worse than a level 4 lockdown’: CBD businesses struggle with lack of customers
* Will working from home mean the end of the office as we know it?
Yes, you read that right. For eight hours every three months they want Dave to sit at a desk and look his colleagues in the eye.
Much to our amusement (that would be me and his wife falling about laughing), he’s not happy. Before he parts with £7 ($14) for a train fare, he wants to know where he’ll be sitting and a guarantee there will be two screens available.
Such is the passion of those who love to WFH that any mention of altering these pandemic arrangements is met with much huffing and pushback.
The pandemic appears to have caused one of the fastest and deep-rooted cultural changes the employment market has seen in decades. This isn’t a fly-by-night trend. It’s more of a revolution.
Of course, Dave climbed down off his curtain rail when we told him other friends had to return two or three days a week in what’s now known as “hybrid working”. There are even a few poor sods who had to “RTO”. It’s a less common acronym, but return to office has gone into battle with work from home.
Marion van Dijk/Stuff
Janine Starks: “The pandemic appears to have caused one of the fastest and deep-rooted cultural changes the employment market has seen in decades.”
Return to office supporters
The WFH brigade has annoyed some high-profile people recently.
Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, was known to quip: “My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop.”
He rumbled me on that one. In New Zealand it would be a tight break-even point between the cost of cheese and savings on public transport.
Lord Sugar (of Amstrad and UK Apprentice fame) said: “This is a bloody joke. The lazy gits make me sick,” in reference to both work from home and summer hours, where staff at accountancy firm PWC get Friday afternoons off. There’s some irony in a man who made his money from technology taking quite such a strong stance.
Henry Nicholls/AP
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly not a fan of WFH (file photo).
Government departments in the UK have ground to a snail’s pace under WFH arrangements.
Sir Ian Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservatives, said: “The civil service is in a mess because first they had ‘flexitime’, then they had lockdown, and now they all think they can work from home and ride their Peloton bikes.”
We also had the MP who found his entire department empty so penned a passive aggressive letter on each desk reading: “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 Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency.”
With Wellington so quiet right now, we could have the same issue brewing.
Should we get back to the office?
There has been a strong pushback against WFH in the UK from the general public who are trying to access services, and that’s led to outbursts politically and among business leaders.
But it appears almost impossible to stop a true employee-led revolution in a tight labour market with a shortage of skills. The balance of power has tipped.
Ross Giblin/Stuff
A quiet Lambton Quay in Wellington.
It’s now becoming imperative to offer WFH or hybrid opportunities to attract the best candidates. One survey highlighted that these roles attract seven times more applicants.
Does WFH have a long-term future?
As someone who has been a WFHer since 2002 and run a company with all employees home-based, it might surprise you that I’m not perched on the curtain rail with Dave.
A non-office model works for some companies, especially startups and small businesses where costs override the debate. It also works well when employees are a fairly high level and experienced.
It’s no surprise middle-aged workers are defending their cedar-slatted garden offices. But it’s another thing altogether if government departments, Spark or the ANZ call centre think they’re going to stay in bedrooms in Petone or Hornby for the next 20 years.
Recruitment consultants are pushing the idea that presenteeism is dead and productivity should be the focus. But if every middle-aged Dave stays in his shed, what will happen to the longer-term productivity and experience of his younger colleagues? The maths might not hold in every company.
While the needs of WFHers hold the attention of recruitment consultants right now, they probably need to watch their backs.
Employee satisfaction in the younger age groups will drive the long term. The creativity and ideas that develop face-to-face are hard to replicate in scheduled screen meetings. Junior staff want training, access to ear-wagging, and older colleagues to take to the pub or play sport with.
What does appear to have legs in the wider employment market is the hybrid model. It’s an extension of flexitime and the most likely candidate for an increase in productivity, while balancing the other needs of training, career progression and employees maintaining their social mojo.
Janine Starks is the author of www.moneytips.nz and can be contacted at [email protected]. Opinions are a personal view and general in nature. They are not a recommendation for any individual to buy or sell a financial product. Readers should always seek specific independent financial advice appropriate to their own circumstances.
