Nearly two-thirds of bosses believe that workers will return to the office five days a week within the next three years, while a majority of company leaders think pay and promotions could become linked to workplace attendance, according to a survey.
Oh, OK, well. they are entitled to believe that. What do the actual workers believe, though?
Multiple employee surveys in recent years have shown that most workers have no desire to return to their desks full-time, with some saying they would quit their jobs if current workplace flexibility was taken away.
Well, we're going to live in interesting times then, aren't we?
5 comments:
The question is , what is the productivity of working from home compared with working in the office. If it is the same then no problems, if it is less then big problem and the workers need to get back to the office.
I suspect it is less because there is no direct connection with the other workers.
I suspect the real problem will occur when all those companies realise how many of their employees aren't ... really needed (it's not just "administrative bloat" but ... the usual 'one guy doing all the work in a department' too. And don't get me started on the whole "reduction of the actual workers at the coal-face, whilst employing reams of additional special-interest 'consultants' and 'managers'" thing).
We've all seen the 'comfort and convenience' for the workforce arguments, but when the 'we don't need a huge office, and certainly not a department stuffed to the gills with unnecessary admin types' arguments hit the corporate world it will be ... interesting (and yes, it 'will' be women hardest hit - for whatever reasons, the vast majority of these made-up jobs are filled by women).
I'm (as retired) laying in an extra supply of popcorn in advance.
There 'is' a re-evaluation of the whole (unnecessary 'fripperies' and parasites in the) workplace under way but ... it isn't going to be all one-way, or to the employees exclusive benefit.
If it's less they don't necessarily need to go back to the office - accepting lower up front pay is a solution.
Many people will take lower paying jobs for specific quality-of-life desires and as far as the company is concerned, it's not important *how many* people are on the payroll, but on the size of the payroll. If that stays the same and you're getting the same total work done, it's a wash.
I've seen this in action. Firms have decided what roles could be worked from home and are now looking at two days in the office with three at home as a compromise. With other roles up to 5 days in the office. With the legal situation in the UK they will simply make it awkward for those who don't do that by withdrawing pay rises and making sure they get no promotion. New hires will have no options but 5 days in the office if that is what the management want,
In the end it will settle down to what the companies want and any employee that holds out will eventually be replaced. Employees may have the power atm but that will reduce as time goes on and more people become available to replace them.
Personally I have been working from home for 7 years. My team is based all around the world so even if I was forced into an office, they won't as I have a home based contract, they would simply pay for my travel and get reduced output from me.
"The question is , what is the productivity of working from home compared with working in the office. "
With me, usually greater. No distractions, no colleagues stopping by 'for a chat'...sometimes that direct connection isn't a good thing!
"I suspect the real problem will occur when all those companies realise how many of their employees aren't ... really needed..."
Good point!
"...as far as the company is concerned, it's not important *how many* people are on the payroll, but on the size of the payroll."
And the size of the rent bill on the building you occupy too...
"In the end it will settle down to what the companies want..."
I'd be happy with that, but there seems to be ideology driving this, and that's never good...
Post a Comment