Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
A lot of people do not like it - I think FP said he would leave his job if he had to carry on without colleague interaction - its causing a lot of issues at my old company in the staff areas and a lot of animosity with the hourly paid who have to work in the building - some staff are now demanding to not have meetings that effect their ability to take children to their schools. Others are saying they have to WFH or would have to re-instate child care and want compensating.
There's so many benefits to WFH (if possible) that it would be madness to go back. The people I know who have been fortunate enough to be able to do their job like that love it. More free time, not sitting in traffic while not being paid...
Of course, those that don't have that luxury should be compensated, for example being paid for travel time as well as work hours. Those that like daily interaction could always work in a job that required an office setting, or regular meet-ups.
Apart from the obvious benefits of work/life balance, there's the environmental and health impacts of congestion from traffic as well as a future opportunity to reallocate things like business parks as residential, allowing much needed housing to be built without paving over yet more green areas. Some of the offices *may* even be able to be converted into apartments.
As far as I can tell the main people who are against WFH are those who are, or have friends/donors, heavily invested in commercial property. It's got nothing to do with what people want, or what is best for them, it's to do with what they've got money in.