Working from home: the good, the bad and the ugly | Letters
It is reductive and simply incorrect to call working from home “a failed experiment”, as Gene Marks does (The evidence is in: working from home is a failed experiment, 8 April). Marks refers to a recent study from Microsoft to support his point that we have, in fact, not enjoyed the freedom and flexibility of remote work. However, the very data that he refers to paints a different picture.
Marks makes his main point by referring to the fact that almost two-thirds of workers would like more in-person time with their teams. This, however, does not prove that they want to go back to the office full-time. On the contrary, the study shows that 70% of the workforce prefers a more flexible way of working in the future. Yet Marks dismisses this part of the study, arguing that workers are buying into an “illusion of more independence, flexibility and control over one’s life”.
This is no illusion. We can no longer afford to listen to old-school business owners twisting our words. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to fight for our right to work remotely. If done correctly, it could mean an exodus from expensive cities, helping to solve the housing crisis facing millennials; a better work-life balance as a result of decreased commuting time; and, most importantly of all, a step towards a greener future.Susanne ChristensenTechnical translator (working from home), Cork, Ireland
I agree with your article that working from home comes with significant downsides. But there are also wider societal reasons for working predominantly in an office rather than at home. Apart from prison or a long spell in hospital, the workplace is the one place in adult life where we have no choice but to mix daily with people whom we would otherwise not necessarily choose to, or have the chance to. That is why the workplace has been the front line for successive UK and other governments trying to shift societal attitudes through anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are not perfect and implementation is patchy between different workplaces. But in an increasingly polarised world, we need more opportunities for people of different backgrounds and perspectives to mix regularly, not fewer.
Tempting though it may be to reduce overheads by giving up expensive premises and moving to a virtual working world, we do so at our peril. Workplaces can also be a great equaliser in terms of access to resources and opportunities, mitigating the disadvantages faced by those who have no suitable space to work at home or who have no role model at home to teach them the softer skills of working life. While it is reassuring that we now know millions can work completely from home when we need to, when we are free to choose, we ought to choose not to.Jane FieldingPartner and UK head of employment, labour and equalities, Gowling WLG
