Yesterday, in my periodic meeting with my manager, I asked him about a series of departures that our company had been experiencing - was there anything to it? Some kind of concern about us?
No, he replied, it was a combination of opportunity and, thanks to the "New Normal", more opportunity for individuals work from home and in some cases a state different from where the company was being located. It was a recognized problem internally, apparently, to the point where it has become one of the top five questions that candidates ask when they are considering offers behind salary, title, benefits, and work environment.
For companies, of course, the fix in: over the last 15 months (and counting), employees have demonstrated that they can be effective, efficient, and business can continue to get done. They have admitted it. They have succeeded by it. And suddenly, they find themselves hoist on their own petard by it.
To the question "Do we need to be back in the office" a segment of the population - and growing, if what I read online is true - is saying "No, not really. Prove that you need us there."
It breaks a great many paradigms, of course. It breaks the paradigm that the company manages best that has every employee at a desk. It breaks the paradigm that work cannot be efficiently performed outside of an office. And it emphasizes a trend that was starting twenty years ago: employees can now be hired nationally or internationally while remaining in their home country or state. Companies, more than ever, are now competing globally for workers.
It is bad news for some states in Baja Canada as well: suddenly, a worker can support a company in a high tax state while not paying that state's taxes. States like California and New York are going to continue to bleed revenue (and, of course, fail to realize the reason why).
Yes, I know. It does not impact everyone, and there is a certain segment of the working population that will always need to be "in the office". But even then, it has an impact: employees will want to be paid more to compensate for the fact that they are having to "come in". (Or, eventually of course, it drives the move to even more automation as employees become harder to find).
As full disclosure (and as most of you know), I have benefitted from this. I was released from on-site office duty on or about 23 March 2020 and have worked remotely since then. I can count the amount of times I have been into the office since then on the fingers of one hand, and I have not been in at all since last November. Given a choice, I would not go back in until I turn my computer in to leave (Not that this will happen, of course; there is some amount of limited return being discussed).
The genie is out of the bottle, at least in The West. People have tasted the freedom of doing work and not being trapped in a controlled environment to do it. For many who have done so, I doubt they will ever go back.
Overhead is reduced, which leads some building owners wondering how low they have to go to find a tenant. This may be a solution to the abnormal costs for renters. Turn offices into rental property, and let the market decide how this will be accomplished. Of course, some cities will refuse to re-zone, and the bleeding of tax revenue will continue.
ReplyDeleteThe tentacles will thrash about wildly as they attempt to capture lost revenue. The oddity of cities and states implementing universal basic income and reparations at the same time they are bleeding revenue is based on their belief that the federals will either rescue them or punish you for your escape. The old saying "the beatings will continue until moral improves" isn't irony to them.
DeleteJess - Overhead is greatly reduced. I now cover the heating, cooling, electricity, and coffee (yes, I know it it not a utility, but it should be) of my employer. Companies can put off renting new space by moving employees back to their homes.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see how cities adapt. Some will have to rezone; others will refuse. But I suspect the trend is not going away.
Thanks for stopping by!
Just So - You are not wrong. The cities, counties, and states got a reprieve (maybe) with the current administration, but I suspect it is a one time deal. Fiscally responsive cities, counties, and states will start pushing back. As they should.
DeleteInteresting that the paradigms being challenged are all ones that seemingly benefit management.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there would be several incentives to working from home rather than in an office. One is travel time and expense, the other is the ability to distance oneself from office politics.
Sadly, office politics still thrives in this environment, based on some of the silliness my daughter reported over the last year and some.
DeleteIt is interesting Leigh, and unintentional -it (literally) took a Plague (or a perceived one) to make this all happened.
DeleteI can only speak definitively for myself, but I am saving at least $100 a month in fuel costs as well as an hour a day in commuting. Plus I can do all my work and some home related chores as well. And, the rabbits benefit from more play time out of their cages.
Office politics - For better or worse, I have not played them in years. I can at least say that all of my interactions are truly based on business, not anything else.
Judy - I am sure there are, especially between those on site and those off site. Thankfully, I am of an age and temperament that I am beyond all of that now. Just the work, thanks.
DeleteThank you for stopping by!
Back when I was a working office stiff, I know how inefficient my job was with people always stopping by to chat, walking to and from meetings, all the time I spent walking from my desk to the cafeteria, break rooms, bathrooms, etc. Had I worked at home, I know I would have been more efficient.
ReplyDeleteBut...
My concern is about the mental wellness of this new trend of working from home. I suspect many people are like me in that most of my "friends" are my co-workers and I essentially lived for those interactions, no matter the inefficiency they caused. When I left work for a home life, I became secluded from the world and it took a long while to readjust. Even now nine years later, my interactions are measured around a handful of month instead of a handful a day when working. I was always a bit of a loner who preferred solitude so I can't imagine what this might or is doing to a social butterfly now working from home.
Ed, agree with the overall inefficiencies of on-the-job work. Good heavens, I probably did more than my share.
DeleteThat said, many of my coworkers were my friends - not surprising, when you spend 40-50 hours a week together. But what I have found is that those "friendships" seldom last beyond the job. I have experienced it countless times: Someone leaves. You stay in close contact for a short time, but then they find a new job and get involved, and suddenly you are not talking very frequently, and then not at all. If there is a conversation, you are the one to initiate.
To be fair, I am an outlier (like you): I have always been an introvert, and my best friends remain my friends from high school. That said, I think - especially with social media - people have gotten used to "friends" that are far away or they never see entirely. In today's modern technological world, being at home does not mean being alone, unless one chooses to be so.
I believe in Four truisms,
ReplyDelete1. Politicians are addicted to spending other people's money worse than the lowest crack addict.
2. Politician's NEVER have enough of other people's money to spend.
3. Any suggestion that a politician may have to "tighten their belts" and actually make do with ANY decrease in the amount of "other people's money" they get to spend will elicit screams of terror and predictions of the end of the world.
4. ALL politicians spend a majority of their time and efforts on procuring and increasing their take of "other people's money". (Much like the Crack Addict spends ALL of his resources and time getting his "fix").
Since government is the only entity that can legally take money away from law abiding citizens, and our Abusive Public Servants control our government...
Then rest assured that our fine politicians are currently developing ways in which to insure those people who work from other locations will be forced to PAY.
Expect to see the more obscene governments such as California and NYFC to act on this first.
If you will remember, several years ago California attempted to tax the retirements of US Military service members who dared retire from active duty while in that state and subsequently moved back to their Home of Record.
The Fed Courts stopped this and slapped their hands...
DO Not expect that for the new tax laws.
MSG Grumpy
MSG Grumpy - Governments - at least modern governments - are purely in business for themselves. Citizens are merely the tax mules that make this possible. There has not been, in the last 60 years, a government program or department that was completely ended due to it being "Successful" - they are always transitioned to another department or "cause".
DeleteThat said, the Federal courts have been acting a bit responsibly lately, if for no other reason than than they do not like the competition from the state and local governments for tax revenue. That said, the states will definitely try.
Thanks for stopping by!
My company is bringing folks back onsite in September. There is a segment of workers who are posturing in such a way so that they’re drawing a line in the sand as if to say, let me work remotely or I’ll go elsewhere. The big question: will management accommodate them or call their bluff? Because I work in a city away from the home office, right now it looks like I’ll continue to work remotely, which I was already doing a couple days a week. I have three direct reports who could cry “unfair” because I’ll work remotely but they won’t. It’s tricky. And, of course, life’s not fair.
ReplyDeleteBob, I will be interested to see how this will all work out. There are a couple of items that seem different this time. One is that (as even the reports yesterday note), we have both an unemployment issue and an open jobs issues, partially because the government has chosen to extend different forms of Plague related benefits. In some cases, people perhaps feel that the can afford to be a bit choosy or look for other positions that will accommodate working remotely.
DeleteThe other thing to consider is that, from the employee's point of view, the precedent has been established. If you are company that went remote in March 2020 and are still in business and have done well, then the remote paradigm works. There seems to be a case to push back and ask "Why precisely do you want us back? It is not as if we have not been doing our job." We may end up having a very meaningful discussion about what companies are and the reasons they feel they need to have people corralled in a single location.
Exactly. My company’s management is holding fast to “you’re coming back in September so live with it.” I said in my comment management might call employees’ bluff, but it might well be the other way around. And as I said, I’m walking a fine line as a manager who will probably continue to work remotely, but with direct reports who will not. I always get high marks as a manager, so they might be willing to tolerate it rather than go work for someone else.
DeleteBob, it will be interesting to see how things break. I suspect it may be by industries to some extent - those that have leverage to push the remote will do so (in my industry, for example, remote positions are now much more readily offered), those that do not will "conform".
DeleteBut for those that "conform", I think the company will find that they have created a morale and loyalty issue they will have problems overcoming. Employees will now be incentivized to find other positions that accommodate that, even if it not right when they have to return.
It is a pickle for sure. Good luck.