Well, here we go again. It had been a whole week or two since we’d last had the "WFH = Lazy" brigade out frothing about “productivity” and “bums on seats”, squaring up to common sense like a yappy little terrier you could effortless boot into a quarry. Why do these same faces, these same journalists (who are supposed to sift through opposing views to get to the truth) and politicians (who are supposed to negotiate sides) have such trouble entertaining or accepting reality with this one? I mean, look, I don't want to get into "Aid Thompsin DESTROYS..." territory here; partly because I simply can't compete with their Oxford Union debating training, right? But perhaps I have other skills they lack. *uncrosses, crosses legs provocatively* Alright, alright.. let's try to keep this clean (and brief). A World Economic Forum survey found two thirds of people want to be able to work flexibly post-Pandemic with thirty percent saying they would start looking for another job if pushed to return to the office full-time. So, people want to work remotely. That is the first thing. Second, a Stanford study found working from home (or more accurately not wasting time stuck in traffic/catching trains) increased performance (increase in no. of calls, decrease in sick days) by around thirteen percent. But a ConnectSolutionssurvey (of teleworkers) had a productivity increase pegged at 77%. Attrition rates (staff leaving) were down by half. Thirty percent did more work in less time. A quarter of staff did more work in the same period. So the second take-away is that it is good for business. Maybe not a train business. But still, in an employee vs productivity paradigm, the stats speak for themselves. None of this is new. Some of the studies date back to 2015. But since March 2020, we've all come to know (and love) the benefits of more flexible working, haven't we? You’ve been able to do the school run. You’ve saved some money. You've structured your day around your own, actual life. You’ve made optimal use of your time when you do go into the office. You’ve managed to persuade your wife you need a man cave “for work”. You're better off financially, you're less tired in the evenings. You're significantly less likely to cheat on your husband now that Phil from Sales isn't constantly swanning by your desk with his stupid fucking compliments. Now, throw in the Cost of Living. Things are getting pricier. We're in an age where people are worrying how they're going to cook a fucking meal. They'd already adjusted their spending habits and budgeting to reflect having an extra £100-£400-a-month. Maybe they leased a car or upped their mortgage repayments. So the idea they'll ostensibly take a pay-cut and go back to £300/month train-fares, for no logical reason, to the detriment of their own performance and department's success seems, err... ambitious for the party of Fiscal Responsibility. Perhaps it's the party of "Fuck Business" after all. So it makes no sense whatsoever. The question is - why are people like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rachel Johnson so incapable of understanding that working from home should stay? “You’re not spending your money on your lunch-break in cafes and Tesco - it’s bad for the economy!” It’s bad for that economy, sure. In that area. But here’s the thing: I’m still spending the money, I’m just spending it in my local Costa or Co-op instead. And more broadly, more damning: this is supposed to be a conservative govt. And it’s my money. I should be able to spend it where I like, without being coerced, nay forced to purchase a state-approved coffee in Big-Govt’s favoured city outlets. Frankly, it’s not the Govt’s business where I buy my fucking latte. "The train companies will go bust!" Ok. Two things with that. One - they may lose money. They may even go dangerously into the red. But somebody will buy them, invest in them and find a way to make that rail line profitable again. Whatever happened to 'the free market'? And if all else fails, they'll fall into public ownership. The rail line, the company, the staff will persevere in one way or another. But two - yes, the shareholders may feel it. But come on, you've had thirty years of privatised rail. Of a cash-rich, captive market, privatised money fountain. We have the most expensive fares in Europe. A quarter of your life has been you getting moneyshotted by a roomful of dividend sex beasts. And now *I'm* supposed to feel bad that I don't have to pay thousands of pounds on shit services and I might actually have enough at the end of the month for a fucking take-away? Fuck outta here. “I just think it says something about a person when they don’t want to be immersed in the company..” Yes, it does. It does say something about a person. It says “this person does not need to be chained to a desk in EC2 to perform in their role”. Quick aside: I always find it so "live in a bubble" hilarious when Managers and Directors adopt this expectation of their employees, where they should be excited about the company’s success and future, when their two situations are so intergalactically different. If you’re a Director, you have shares/equity in the company. You have a bonus. A strong quarter or Year-End for you could be a house deposit for your daughter or a fucking loft conversion. These are things to be excited about. But a Customer Service Exec spending 8 hours-a-day on a phone, listening to complaints about cheese, with no bonus or equity? And no discernible driver for said excitement? And you’re there, like: “What’s wrong with her? She just doesn’t seem to want to be immersed in the company? We want her to be excitedgetting amongst it, about increasing her calls-per-day from eighty to one hundred and twenty". And then you remove the most obvious instrument for increasing their productivity (WFH) to boot. Thank God they don't have Angela Rayner at their breakfast bar or they'd never get anything done. So Why *ARE* They So Obsessed With Getting Bums On Seats? Much like other political pinch-points of the last few years, this one seems stuck in a proverbial revolving door. They present a problem, then a load of superficial nonversation to back up the initial hysteria and then, when the adults enter the room and neutralise the nonsense, they go away for a week or two, come back and try again. "The thing is, my Right Hon Friend, at the end of the day, we still don't know the harm these jabs might do to us..." "Err, yes we do, there's been clinical trials and peer reviews and 400 million of them administered across the world" "Oh. Okay, see you in two weeks." "Yep, standard, look forward to it" [ 2 weeks later ] "...because at the end of the day we still don't know the harmful effects these jabs might visit upon us!" OMG WE LOVE IT WHEN YOU DO YOUR GREATEST HITS. Is it because they think it's a vote winner? Is that what it is? Like it'll get them a soundbyte on the six o'clock news? Maybe they'll get clip-shared as a free-speech hero on the Culture War Patriots Against 5G Forum on Facebook? For me, personally, I wonder to what extent this is actually about hyper-privilege and ego. I think what this is, is Jacob Rees-Mogg quite enjoys his position as a Member of Parliament and as major shareholder of Somerset Capital Management. I suspect he enjoys the variety of his role(s); of appearing in a Sky News studio in Westminster, then the House of Commons then nipping to Question Time or back to Somerset to meet clients before sending his emails from the back of a Bentley. Who wouldn't? There's lots of variety and freedom to all that. Just as I expect Rachael Johnson enjoys emailing her articles to The Times from her bathtub. Just as I hear Richard Littlejohn enjoys sending his ridiculous Sorry snowflakes but WFH isn't working pieces from the comfort of his gated mansion in Florida. So what this actually translates to is a perceived threat to their privilege. To their status. They like the fact they have the freedom to work wherever, whenever. They enjoy that freedom as much as they enjoy that the little people don't have it. It makes them feel special. Superior. It is Plebism portraying pragmatism. Of course *I* get to travel around and email my work in, but no I don't think it's necessary to travel into the Daily Mail offices. Why should I? I can write my blog from here. No I don't have one singular office that I work from, I fritter between three. Sometimes I work from Devon. Other times I spend the week in my Grace & Favour. But you? Oh you should absolutely travel into The Ministry Of Sunlit Britishness five days a week. IT'S FOR THE ECONOMY. Psychologically, the idea you might be able to do your job perfectly well from your garden or your Mum's place in France for a week leaves them feeling like their job must be somehow less 'special'. Like they've lost something. Of course, faced with a couple of options open to address that feeling, they've chosen precisely as you might expect. They could either examine their own elitist mentality OR they could double-down and unscientifically label people as lazy and rehash debunked suggestions that WFH is evil. Which do you think they've chosen? The hard, difficult one? The "asking yourself a series of uncomfortable questions" option?. The "Why do I feel like this?". The "Why is it important to me, to feel more fortunate than others? Why must I seek validation from making other peoples' lives harder?". Or do you think they've gone for the easy, first-gear default of "fuck business, fuck the science, if they're not physically at a desk, it must mean they're not working". So, who's really lazy?
