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.
ETA getting downvoted! Hopefully not by kneejerk WFH advocates who have missed that I’ve spent more than a decade WFH, am supportive of it, have agreed it can boost productivity, and have also pointed out major savings for employers.
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.
If WFH was great for productivity then over time self serving companies would be bringing it in themselves without more interference from government. The problem being that for all the good workers this is a charter for the lazy to take advantage as well.
From my perspective I deal daily with the public sector in my work. Since WFH became the norm the response times and ability to get decisions made has become dramatically worse.
Separately, banning zero hours contracts is just stupid. For all those exploited by them there are a lot of people who choose to use them in the gig economy. There should have been more thought given to this and how to allow those who like them to carry on.
I’m only in the office maybe 4 or 5 days a month.
I’m way more productive at home. This is the way forward.
Right to ASK to work from home, let’s get it right. These “rights” are vapid and meaningless.
I’m not a Labour voter but I have to admit I’m thankful of the overwhelming sense of relief I feel having them back in power in Westminster.
Stuff like this where they support workers, compared to the Tories who attacked WFH because their rich mates office buildings aren’t being used as much, just makes the future seem more positive.
I hope that many of these unnecessary building get used for housing too. That’s what I hope they’ll slowly be converted into. Though I may be a bit too idealistic here.
In my department you can work in your nearest NHS office or WFH. Its one or the other though, they arent keen on hybrid working (although now and again is ok for valid reasons)
Its in the job description however that 1 or 2 face to face meeting days are mandatory
“Why boost productivity through investing in skills and infrastructure when we can AGAIN as a country make ‘fake accounting’ style productivity gains”
?
(I am in favour of hybrid for the record)
Don’t forget disabled/chronically ill people/workers have been fighting for this right for years. Accessibility benefits everyone. WFH is great
I couldn’t work from home nor work in the office every day. My current schedule is 3x office and 2x working from home. It’s perfect as I get an extra hour of sleep and an extra hour after work that I can spend with my family and don’t get crazy from being at home/in the office all the time.
Another deluded idea from Labour. Some businesses have been forcing workers back to the office because productivity has dropped while allowing them to work from home
To go against the grain, I’m more productive in the office but then again I’m more of a plant operations support worker so it makes sense to be closer to planr than a million miles away. Hybrid working has caused a fair bit of friction as there are a number of roles that can’t be made to WFH and individual teams have made decisions on what’s best for them.
It really suffers when we get work delivered that is off spec because design teams who are fully remote don’t come to plant to look at the thing they are designing for or the layout they need to be working to. There’s people working who’ve never been to the plant they are supposed to be supporting.
I know it’s a bit of a unique situation as opposed to a lot hybrid working but it’s just weird seeing people say wfh is a magic bullet which it isn’t. It works for some jobs really well, and less so for others. I suppose it’s disingenuous to say I’m an ‘office’ worker really when what I do is work on plant.
There are too many middle managers terrified that if workers continue to work without constant supervision, sooner or later someone will notice that their job isn’t needed. During the pandemic we all worked at home for at least three days a week. Productivity went up but there were so many managers sending out identical BS emails constantly trying to remind us they were still alive.
You know what else would boost productivity Kier?
Secure housing. Affordable childcare. Access to a doctor when needed.
Fiddling around the edges here…whilst catering to the lowest denominator.
Working from home is not good for the brain. A mix at best for sure
I have been working from home for 13 years now
4/5 of my team work from home, the one that doesnt lives by the office so HR force him to come in 3 days a week, and sit alone.
The company bought a massive new office and they forced everyone within a 15 mile radius to go in 3 days a week, I visit the office (150 miles away) once every 3 months
Our team is the most productive in the company, its not even close. With a team of 5 we are doing more work than teams 4 times our size and we are more successful in that work
We all start work around 7am, and do not finish in the evening until whatever we are working on is done
And my work life ballance is still so much better than the old days of commuting for an hour plus and then sitting in a too cold/too hot room with constant talking and interruption. The amount of time i would spend sat on the toilet just to get some peace and quiet!
I just wish with all these things I’ve seen mentioned around (right to work from home, right to four days working week if same many hours, harder to fire employees from day one…), there would be some exception that these rights don’t have to be applied if you earn over some threshold (say 150k). I understand the need to protect most employees. But the UK is currently a pretty good business environment for lots of international companies, because it doesn’t have that many of these rules unlike say France or Germany. Imposing lots of them may just push bunch of the companies out – when most of the high earning people are happy with the trade offs their work offers.
Agree with him but people need less hours for same pay and not compressed time
Especially if people aren’t going to be paid all that much wages wise in the future, may as well improve quality of life
Which again comes from less hours for same pay and not compressed
(Though there is an argument all this does is shift the stress from office to retail)
It’s a difficult one, I personally enjoy the benefits of choosing to work from home or in the office however I have noticed since the pandemic getting anything done by a number of different services relating to the public sector in anything approaching a timely manner has become impossible. Getting hold of certain people that should really be contactable within many organisations is also near impossible because for some reason they can only be spoken to when in the office which seems to be for about 3 hours a week- and then there is a hold queue to speak to them. Banking is often a pain the arse.
In addition to this there is alot of communication within a team of people that goes on, on the side that is whilst not directly productive- actually crucial for efficient productive teamwork and decision making.
Then on top of this you have all the businesses that don’t get business if people aren’t going into work and will simply shutdown and the jobs be lost. Realistically there aren’t necessarily other jobs available for them to transition to. It leaves a big gap for students and the young in particular where retail jobs and hospitality are the only realistic options given they are still learning and training for more specialised jobs and wont have the time to take on more demanding roles as well as get their studies done they lose our massively. Ontop of that, as you no longer have the cost of commuting, buying lunch etc then you don’t need quite such a high wage as all the costs it accounted for in addition to paying you a basic amount are gone and you can forget the London uplift that can be cut to match how many days you spend working in the office a week. It’s your choice if you choose to live there, nothing is forcing you now.
Then there is the ultimate unintended consequences when companies realise that there are loads of other countries on the planet with cheaper labour for a variety of reasons and people equally as productive from home with similar skills. The average person may in the medium to long term find they regret wanting to work from home when their job gets outsourced to someone who is willing Todo it for half the money in another country. I already know of this happening in some companies and more are going to follow. This is the single biggest argument against WFH I think and I actually think it’s one the previous government foresaw. It’s going to be a really big problem for future governments and one without an obvious answer. You should be fine if like myself you have quite a specialised skillset that is in demand and has shortages globally but everyone else….. May find this becomes an issue.
As a commercial landlord of offices I charge exorbitant rates for, I am gonna lobby to get this banned and push for more office only jobs
I’m my own manager, and so not many I need to answer for with my work load, however I make sure I’m alot more visible in the way I work when I’m wfh due to not wanting the impression of doing nothing while wfh
Yep. My company forces me into the office 3x per week. Little do they know I put in 50% of the effort on those days because I’m being forced in, all to do work that can be done at home. Also, I nod and agree with every decision because I don’t actually care given that I’ve been forced to be there. When I worked remotely, I cared about my job. Since being forced back in, all caring has gone out of the window.
Personally wfh has been life changing. Since COVID I hardly ever have to take time off sick due to chronic illness. Feel shit, work from home, feel food, head into the office and work but have longer time off walking to to the loo or making coffee.
Genuine question. Is working from home better for the environment?
No commuting so… yes? But then more people have their heating on in winter through day so not so sure?
Especially if it’s hybrid working, where some people are at home, some at work. Heatings always on
I don’t think it will. I think flexibility is key. Also, this is a right to ask the question isn’t it?
Disabled people like myself need WFH schemes as it actually allows us to worth effectively and to our highest standard.
I work so, so much better without someone breathing down my neck.
I assume they are going to do this in the civil service then and get rid of the in office arbitrary targets.
31 comments
[deleted]
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.
ETA getting downvoted! Hopefully not by kneejerk WFH advocates who have missed that I’ve spent more than a decade WFH, am supportive of it, have agreed it can boost productivity, and have also pointed out major savings for employers.
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.
If WFH was great for productivity then over time self serving companies would be bringing it in themselves without more interference from government. The problem being that for all the good workers this is a charter for the lazy to take advantage as well.
From my perspective I deal daily with the public sector in my work. Since WFH became the norm the response times and ability to get decisions made has become dramatically worse.
Separately, banning zero hours contracts is just stupid. For all those exploited by them there are a lot of people who choose to use them in the gig economy. There should have been more thought given to this and how to allow those who like them to carry on.
I’m only in the office maybe 4 or 5 days a month.
I’m way more productive at home. This is the way forward.
Right to ASK to work from home, let’s get it right. These “rights” are vapid and meaningless.
I’m not a Labour voter but I have to admit I’m thankful of the overwhelming sense of relief I feel having them back in power in Westminster.
Stuff like this where they support workers, compared to the Tories who attacked WFH because their rich mates office buildings aren’t being used as much, just makes the future seem more positive.
I hope that many of these unnecessary building get used for housing too. That’s what I hope they’ll slowly be converted into. Though I may be a bit too idealistic here.
In my department you can work in your nearest NHS office or WFH. Its one or the other though, they arent keen on hybrid working (although now and again is ok for valid reasons)
Its in the job description however that 1 or 2 face to face meeting days are mandatory
“Why boost productivity through investing in skills and infrastructure when we can AGAIN as a country make ‘fake accounting’ style productivity gains”
?
(I am in favour of hybrid for the record)
Don’t forget disabled/chronically ill people/workers have been fighting for this right for years. Accessibility benefits everyone. WFH is great
I couldn’t work from home nor work in the office every day. My current schedule is 3x office and 2x working from home. It’s perfect as I get an extra hour of sleep and an extra hour after work that I can spend with my family and don’t get crazy from being at home/in the office all the time.
Another deluded idea from Labour. Some businesses have been forcing workers back to the office because productivity has dropped while allowing them to work from home
To go against the grain, I’m more productive in the office but then again I’m more of a plant operations support worker so it makes sense to be closer to planr than a million miles away. Hybrid working has caused a fair bit of friction as there are a number of roles that can’t be made to WFH and individual teams have made decisions on what’s best for them.
It really suffers when we get work delivered that is off spec because design teams who are fully remote don’t come to plant to look at the thing they are designing for or the layout they need to be working to. There’s people working who’ve never been to the plant they are supposed to be supporting.
I know it’s a bit of a unique situation as opposed to a lot hybrid working but it’s just weird seeing people say wfh is a magic bullet which it isn’t. It works for some jobs really well, and less so for others. I suppose it’s disingenuous to say I’m an ‘office’ worker really when what I do is work on plant.
There are too many middle managers terrified that if workers continue to work without constant supervision, sooner or later someone will notice that their job isn’t needed. During the pandemic we all worked at home for at least three days a week. Productivity went up but there were so many managers sending out identical BS emails constantly trying to remind us they were still alive.
You know what else would boost productivity Kier?
Secure housing. Affordable childcare. Access to a doctor when needed.
Fiddling around the edges here…whilst catering to the lowest denominator.
Working from home is not good for the brain. A mix at best for sure
I have been working from home for 13 years now
4/5 of my team work from home, the one that doesnt lives by the office so HR force him to come in 3 days a week, and sit alone.
The company bought a massive new office and they forced everyone within a 15 mile radius to go in 3 days a week, I visit the office (150 miles away) once every 3 months
Our team is the most productive in the company, its not even close. With a team of 5 we are doing more work than teams 4 times our size and we are more successful in that work
We all start work around 7am, and do not finish in the evening until whatever we are working on is done
And my work life ballance is still so much better than the old days of commuting for an hour plus and then sitting in a too cold/too hot room with constant talking and interruption. The amount of time i would spend sat on the toilet just to get some peace and quiet!
I just wish with all these things I’ve seen mentioned around (right to work from home, right to four days working week if same many hours, harder to fire employees from day one…), there would be some exception that these rights don’t have to be applied if you earn over some threshold (say 150k). I understand the need to protect most employees. But the UK is currently a pretty good business environment for lots of international companies, because it doesn’t have that many of these rules unlike say France or Germany. Imposing lots of them may just push bunch of the companies out – when most of the high earning people are happy with the trade offs their work offers.
Agree with him but people need less hours for same pay and not compressed time
Especially if people aren’t going to be paid all that much wages wise in the future, may as well improve quality of life
Which again comes from less hours for same pay and not compressed
(Though there is an argument all this does is shift the stress from office to retail)
It’s a difficult one, I personally enjoy the benefits of choosing to work from home or in the office however I have noticed since the pandemic getting anything done by a number of different services relating to the public sector in anything approaching a timely manner has become impossible. Getting hold of certain people that should really be contactable within many organisations is also near impossible because for some reason they can only be spoken to when in the office which seems to be for about 3 hours a week- and then there is a hold queue to speak to them. Banking is often a pain the arse.
In addition to this there is alot of communication within a team of people that goes on, on the side that is whilst not directly productive- actually crucial for efficient productive teamwork and decision making.
Then on top of this you have all the businesses that don’t get business if people aren’t going into work and will simply shutdown and the jobs be lost. Realistically there aren’t necessarily other jobs available for them to transition to. It leaves a big gap for students and the young in particular where retail jobs and hospitality are the only realistic options given they are still learning and training for more specialised jobs and wont have the time to take on more demanding roles as well as get their studies done they lose our massively. Ontop of that, as you no longer have the cost of commuting, buying lunch etc then you don’t need quite such a high wage as all the costs it accounted for in addition to paying you a basic amount are gone and you can forget the London uplift that can be cut to match how many days you spend working in the office a week. It’s your choice if you choose to live there, nothing is forcing you now.
Then there is the ultimate unintended consequences when companies realise that there are loads of other countries on the planet with cheaper labour for a variety of reasons and people equally as productive from home with similar skills. The average person may in the medium to long term find they regret wanting to work from home when their job gets outsourced to someone who is willing Todo it for half the money in another country. I already know of this happening in some companies and more are going to follow. This is the single biggest argument against WFH I think and I actually think it’s one the previous government foresaw. It’s going to be a really big problem for future governments and one without an obvious answer. You should be fine if like myself you have quite a specialised skillset that is in demand and has shortages globally but everyone else….. May find this becomes an issue.
As a commercial landlord of offices I charge exorbitant rates for, I am gonna lobby to get this banned and push for more office only jobs
I’m my own manager, and so not many I need to answer for with my work load, however I make sure I’m alot more visible in the way I work when I’m wfh due to not wanting the impression of doing nothing while wfh
Yep. My company forces me into the office 3x per week. Little do they know I put in 50% of the effort on those days because I’m being forced in, all to do work that can be done at home. Also, I nod and agree with every decision because I don’t actually care given that I’ve been forced to be there. When I worked remotely, I cared about my job. Since being forced back in, all caring has gone out of the window.
Personally wfh has been life changing. Since COVID I hardly ever have to take time off sick due to chronic illness. Feel shit, work from home, feel food, head into the office and work but have longer time off walking to to the loo or making coffee.
Genuine question. Is working from home better for the environment?
No commuting so… yes? But then more people have their heating on in winter through day so not so sure?
Especially if it’s hybrid working, where some people are at home, some at work. Heatings always on
I don’t think it will. I think flexibility is key. Also, this is a right to ask the question isn’t it?
Disabled people like myself need WFH schemes as it actually allows us to worth effectively and to our highest standard.
I work so, so much better without someone breathing down my neck.
I assume they are going to do this in the civil service then and get rid of the in office arbitrary targets.