Labour could not be more wrong about working from home
Keir Starmer’s plan for a ‘right to work from home’ will let work take over our lives
According to an 86-page draft policy manifesto, leaked earlier this month, a Labour government would ‘make flexible working the default from day one for all workers, except where it is not reasonably feasible’. A week later, Sir Keir Starmer confirmed in an interview with The Times that a legal right to work from home is ‘very important to us’.
Labour’s advocacy of working from home (WFH), ‘except where it is not reasonably feasible’, tells us a lot about its estrangement from vast swathes of the British populace. This is a policy aimed almost entirely at the laptop classes. It effectively ignores all those who work in manufacturing, shops, agriculture, healthcare, transport… the list is endless. Many people in Britain still work with their hands and cannot do their jobs working from home. Yet Labour has almost nothing to say to them.
Arguably, an even bigger problem with Labour’s policy is that working from home is not actually in the interests of those who can work virtually. The people who really benefit most are employers.
Starmer seems to think that WFH will boost the economy. He claims that allowing employees to work from home will raise UK productivity levels. We’ve heard similar arguments before. In the 2000s, virtually every management consultant urged employers to allow ‘play’ at work. They claimed that this would ‘unleash’ and ‘unlock’ creativity. Now policymakers claim that working from home can perform a similar function, raising productivity by removing the stresses of the office.
Neither contention is true. Table footie, air-hockey tables and funky canteens in the workplace have arguably done more to deepen Britain’s productivity crisis than resolve it. And when WFH advocates point to the hours people save in terms of not having to commute, this says more about Britain’s shocking transport network than about increased productivity in the home.
The truth is, in many instances, working from home simply allows employers to extract more hours from their staff. After all, even the most liberal employer may be willing to ask employees to work in the time they might usually be commuting. Either by working later into the evening, or perhaps by working at the weekend.
Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those working from home work for longer hours than they did in the office. They do indeed ‘get more done’, but only by working for longer. That doesn’t amount to higher productivity – just more work. Working from home really is not as progressive and liberating as Starmer claims it is.
Commuting can certainly be unpleasant. But it can also allow psychological preparation before and decompression after work. Above all, this can provide a clear boundary between work and home. Working from home makes the distinction between work and leisure far more porous.
Of course, concentrating one’s thoughts in an open-plan office can be hard. Yet the home has its own distractions and difficulties. Domestic broadband can often be unreliable. And being unable to talk to colleagues face-to-face can impede progress on collective and individual projects.
Work-from-home arrangements also allow employers to monitor and surveil staff in new, more intrusive forms. Applications, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, mean that human-resources departments can see more of our home arrangements. Technologies that allow IT surveillance – ‘bossware’, or what IT provider RemoteDesk calls ‘work-from-home obedience’ – will expand in use.
Above all, WFH will further atomise Britain’s workforce. This will especially affect younger workers, who have historically benefited from formal and informal mentoring from their older, more experienced colleagues. It will also undermine workplace solidarity, make strike action harder and comradeship more difficult. And it will exacerbate Britain’s loneliness problem.
Working from home deprives workers of the benefits of working with others. And it undermines workers’ privacy at home. Starmer may present a right to work from home as a victory for office workers and a boon for the economy. But it will be nothing of the sort.
Good luck to the #farmers on their march today!
I probably don't need to tell you to wrap up warm. But please remember that no part of the UK's green agenda is your friend. All of it is intended to deprive you of your livelihood, one way or another. That is its design.
Brilliant piece by @danielbenami. RECOMMENDED
Articles grouped by Tag
Bookmarks
Innovators I like
Robert Furchgott – discovered that nitric oxide transmits signals within the human body
Barry Marshall – showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the cause of most peptic ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid
N Joseph Woodland – co-inventor of the barcode
Jocelyn Bell Burnell – she discovered the first radio pulsars
John Tyndall – the man who worked out why the sky was blue
Rosalind Franklin co-discovered the structure of DNA, with Crick and Watson
Rosalyn Sussman Yallow – development of radioimmunoassay (RIA), a method of quantifying minute amounts of biological substances in the body
Jonas Salk – discovery and development of the first successful polio vaccine
John Waterlow – discovered that lack of body potassium causes altitude sickness. First experiment: on himself
Werner Forssmann – the first man to insert a catheter into a human heart: his own
Bruce Bayer – scientist with Kodak whose invention of a colour filter array enabled digital imaging sensors to capture colour
Yuri Gagarin – first man in space. My piece of fandom: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/10421
Sir Godfrey Hounsfield – inventor, with Robert Ledley, of the CAT scanner
Martin Cooper – inventor of the mobile phone
George Devol – 'father of robotics’ who helped to revolutionise carmaking
Thomas Tuohy – Windscale manager who doused the flames of the 1957 fire
Eugene Polley – TV remote controls
0 comments