As someone who works in the homes of work from homers daily I can promise you this isn’t true for a lot of them 😂
StanleyChuckles on
I work a lot harder at home than I ever did in the office.
And it saves me literally thousands of pounds a year in travel costs.
Lammtarra95 on
They are probably right, at least insofar as open-plan offices and hot-desking are almost guaranteed productivity killers. Nonetheless, there are downsides, such as it being harder to bring new people into the team culture.
Not to mention that this obsession with WFH is fine for middle class office workers and journalists, politicians and their advisers and civil servants, but excludes shop or factory workers, bus drivers, and (or at least I hope) health workers.
My last two employers were both keen on WFH for more than a decade, not just since Covid, not least because they realised they can save six or seven figures a year on office costs, and get a measure of unpaid overtime into the bargain.
So while I’m broadly supportive, I can’t really see the value of the government involving itself. If it does, it should concentrate on protecting workers by having the employer provide necessary equipment and make payment for electricity and internet costs and limiting snooping.
More subtly, government should also address data protection issues. I don’t want my daughter having to face her schoolfriend’s taunts about my impotence and low salary because my GP and payroll work from home and do not hide their screens from their children.
LETS_SEE_UR_TURTLES on
Labour has pledged to end the “culture of presenteeism” in Britain’s workplaces, saying that a default right of flexible working will make staff more productive and loyal.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, said that giving employees the right to work from home or ignore work emails and calls in the evening will make them more “motivated and resilient”.
In an interview with The Times, he said it was “bizarre” that one of his Conservative predecessors, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, had been “declaring war on people working from home”. He stressed there were “real economic benefits” to more flexible working.
Reynolds denied claims of tensions over workers’ rights with Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, who is said to be pushing for even tougher changes such as shorter probation periods. He said they were “working very closely together” on the package of reforms.
However, he emphasised that the principle of probation periods was important to ensure that employees “lived up to the promise they had in the interview”.
Despite a promise to introduce legislation on workers’ rights within 100 days, Reynolds insisted this did not mean immediate changes to the law and that taking time to negotiate the details with employers was “more important” than rushing through reforms.
Business groups have raised concerns about the proposals, warning they could have unintended consequences such as the end of overtime, as well as pushing up the cost of hiring staff.
Reynolds defended plans for flexible working and a right to switch off. “It does contribute to productivity, it does contribute to [staff] resilience, their ability to stay working for an employer,” he said.
“Good employers understand that their workforce, to keep them motivated and resilient, they do need to judge people on outcomes and not a culture of presenteeism.”
Next month Reynolds will publish an employment rights bill which will give staff more protections from day one, ban “exploitative” zero-hours contracts and make flexible working a default right, in a package billed by Sir Keir Starmer as the biggest overhaul of workers’ rights in a generation.
Reynolds rejected Tory accusations that Labour was in hock to the unions as “cliched Seventies lines”. He boasted of the party’s success in raising money from business donors and insisted employers had nothing to fear from the reforms.
These are popular changes, both with the public and actually with businesses themselves,” he said.
“Every time we have a session with business where we are able to talk candidly, they are reassured by what we are saying and actually they support it”.
Intensive negotiations are under way on key elements such as the length of probation periods. Reynolds said it was “not right” that some staff had to wait two years for full rights but stressed: “Of course we do want to get the detail right.”
The bill will not include Labour’s plan for a single status of workers, designed to crack down on bosses who, for example, evade their obligations to staff by classing them as temporary workers. Reynolds said this was “particularly complicated” and needed further time, while other elements would be subject to further consultations.
“The Employment Rights Bill isn’t the package entirely,” he said. “We will be hitting the [100-day] deadline that has been put forward. But in terms of implementation, obviously, that’s not the end of the process. I wouldn’t like people to think the employment law framework will change overnight when we present that bill.”
He said that while the government wanted to move quickly, “fundamentally this is about getting it right” and that “the quality of legislation … that’s more important than the pace at which you introduce it”.
Among the most controversial elements of the package are a “right to switch off” and a default right to flexible working. Under the former, companies will be told to develop codes of conduct banning them from contacting staff out of hours except in agreed circumstances. Under the latter, employers will be required to accommodate requests for flexible working, such as compressed hours, school-term only shifts or working from home, as far as is reasonably practicable.
The UK has very significant regional inequality,” Reynolds said. “It can play a significant contribution to tackling that. A lot of businesses will say their motivation for being a workplace that offers this is because it opens up a much wider group of talent.”
He accepted there were times when bosses would need to contact staff out of hours, saying there was “a balance” to be struck, as there was on rights to work flexibly.
“There are times when it is absolutely necessary, it’s legitimate to need the workforce in the office,” he said. “We want the default to be that people have access to flexible working, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will just work from home.”
Reynolds likewise insisted he would not “compel every workforce” to allow working from home or insist on a compressed four-day working week. “There is genuinely nothing to worry about for any business in this area,” he said.
hobbityone on
As someone who is a hybrid worker, working from home makes me far more productive. I am able to start fresher and without the usual distractions.
I can focus on my work more effectively and am guaranteed privacy when having confidential meetings.
SultryPulse0 on
Flexible working is overdue, but the success of these reforms will depend on the implementation details.
6 Comments
As someone who works in the homes of work from homers daily I can promise you this isn’t true for a lot of them 😂
I work a lot harder at home than I ever did in the office.
And it saves me literally thousands of pounds a year in travel costs.
They are probably right, at least insofar as open-plan offices and hot-desking are almost guaranteed productivity killers. Nonetheless, there are downsides, such as it being harder to bring new people into the team culture.
Not to mention that this obsession with WFH is fine for middle class office workers and journalists, politicians and their advisers and civil servants, but excludes shop or factory workers, bus drivers, and (or at least I hope) health workers.
My last two employers were both keen on WFH for more than a decade, not just since Covid, not least because they realised they can save six or seven figures a year on office costs, and get a measure of unpaid overtime into the bargain.
So while I’m broadly supportive, I can’t really see the value of the government involving itself. If it does, it should concentrate on protecting workers by having the employer provide necessary equipment and make payment for electricity and internet costs and limiting snooping.
More subtly, government should also address data protection issues. I don’t want my daughter having to face her schoolfriend’s taunts about my impotence and low salary because my GP and payroll work from home and do not hide their screens from their children.
Labour has pledged to end the “culture of presenteeism” in Britain’s workplaces, saying that a default right of flexible working will make staff more productive and loyal.
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, said that giving employees the right to work from home or ignore work emails and calls in the evening will make them more “motivated and resilient”.
In an interview with The Times, he said it was “bizarre” that one of his Conservative predecessors, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, had been “declaring war on people working from home”. He stressed there were “real economic benefits” to more flexible working.
Reynolds denied claims of tensions over workers’ rights with Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, who is said to be pushing for even tougher changes such as shorter probation periods. He said they were “working very closely together” on the package of reforms.
However, he emphasised that the principle of probation periods was important to ensure that employees “lived up to the promise they had in the interview”.
Despite a promise to introduce legislation on workers’ rights within 100 days, Reynolds insisted this did not mean immediate changes to the law and that taking time to negotiate the details with employers was “more important” than rushing through reforms.
Business groups have raised concerns about the proposals, warning they could have unintended consequences such as the end of overtime, as well as pushing up the cost of hiring staff.
Reynolds defended plans for flexible working and a right to switch off. “It does contribute to productivity, it does contribute to [staff] resilience, their ability to stay working for an employer,” he said.
“Good employers understand that their workforce, to keep them motivated and resilient, they do need to judge people on outcomes and not a culture of presenteeism.”
Next month Reynolds will publish an employment rights bill which will give staff more protections from day one, ban “exploitative” zero-hours contracts and make flexible working a default right, in a package billed by Sir Keir Starmer as the biggest overhaul of workers’ rights in a generation.
Reynolds rejected Tory accusations that Labour was in hock to the unions as “cliched Seventies lines”. He boasted of the party’s success in raising money from business donors and insisted employers had nothing to fear from the reforms.
These are popular changes, both with the public and actually with businesses themselves,” he said.
“Every time we have a session with business where we are able to talk candidly, they are reassured by what we are saying and actually they support it”.
Intensive negotiations are under way on key elements such as the length of probation periods. Reynolds said it was “not right” that some staff had to wait two years for full rights but stressed: “Of course we do want to get the detail right.”
The bill will not include Labour’s plan for a single status of workers, designed to crack down on bosses who, for example, evade their obligations to staff by classing them as temporary workers. Reynolds said this was “particularly complicated” and needed further time, while other elements would be subject to further consultations.
“The Employment Rights Bill isn’t the package entirely,” he said. “We will be hitting the [100-day] deadline that has been put forward. But in terms of implementation, obviously, that’s not the end of the process. I wouldn’t like people to think the employment law framework will change overnight when we present that bill.”
He said that while the government wanted to move quickly, “fundamentally this is about getting it right” and that “the quality of legislation … that’s more important than the pace at which you introduce it”.
Among the most controversial elements of the package are a “right to switch off” and a default right to flexible working. Under the former, companies will be told to develop codes of conduct banning them from contacting staff out of hours except in agreed circumstances. Under the latter, employers will be required to accommodate requests for flexible working, such as compressed hours, school-term only shifts or working from home, as far as is reasonably practicable.
The UK has very significant regional inequality,” Reynolds said. “It can play a significant contribution to tackling that. A lot of businesses will say their motivation for being a workplace that offers this is because it opens up a much wider group of talent.”
He accepted there were times when bosses would need to contact staff out of hours, saying there was “a balance” to be struck, as there was on rights to work flexibly.
“There are times when it is absolutely necessary, it’s legitimate to need the workforce in the office,” he said. “We want the default to be that people have access to flexible working, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will just work from home.”
Reynolds likewise insisted he would not “compel every workforce” to allow working from home or insist on a compressed four-day working week. “There is genuinely nothing to worry about for any business in this area,” he said.
As someone who is a hybrid worker, working from home makes me far more productive. I am able to start fresher and without the usual distractions.
I can focus on my work more effectively and am guaranteed privacy when having confidential meetings.
Flexible working is overdue, but the success of these reforms will depend on the implementation details.