.png)
3 hours ago
1
I was surprised to read such a partisan argument on working from home by Polly Toynbee, whose articles I often appreciate (Labour has been sucked into the WFH culture war. It should know better, 14 January). Yes, there are certainly advantages – mitigating the environmental effects of commuter travel, flexibility of hours particularly for working parents, and so on.
But it is a far more complex picture. For many people – particularly for young or single people – the workplace is an important place of social connection. It also makes possible informal connections that can enhance creativity, mitigate tensions that can arise through email communication, make possible the creation of new networks, and countless other benefits.
Many people also do not have adequate space at home where they can work and have to share kitchen tables with partners or friends. Rather than shared heating costs covered by employers, these are now individualised to the employee and increased overall as each dwelling is heated.
This is a complicated picture that should be recognised as such.
Prof Sophie Watson
Sociology department, Open University
Polly Toynbee rightly laments that Labour is allowing itself to become embroiled in the latest Tory salvo in their divisive culture wars, this time over working from home.
Labour should respond by confidently pointing out the hypocrisy of Tory critics of WFH. For the past three decades, Conservatives have repeatedly extolled “labour market flexibility” and lectured workers that the days of office-based, Monday to Friday nine-to-five are over, such that new ways of working must be embraced.
However, as always with the Conservatives, it is all about what employers want, not their workers. Yet on this issue, like many others, Labour is far too timid in attacking the Tories and turning their spurious arguments against them.
Pete Dorey
Bath
Years before the debate about not attending the office daily arose, I spent 80% of my time as a customs and excise officer away from my office visiting businesses. To such an extent that managers deemed that to save on costs we no longer needed individual desks in the office and reduced the available space. We stored our papers in mobile units that we called wheelie bins – though when we all happened to be in on the same day we would spend an inordinate amount of time perambulating round the office looking for a free desk. So quite why, when the government is looking for cost savings, they insist on civil servants attending the office daily is a mystery.
Ian Arnott
Werrington, Peterborough
The puzzling thing about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s hostility towards WFH is that it is the traditional way of doing things. Senior government servants used to work from home; their juniors lodged with them. The idea of the big commute only really developed with the coming of the railways. Shouldn’t Rees-Mogg be encouraging us to get back to the old ways?
Maddy Gray
Tongwynlais, Cardiff
The north of Scotland was cropped out of the picture in the map-based illustration published with Polly Toynbee’s piece. It’s ironic, as people living in remoter places benefit more from being able to work from home.
Dr Kirstine Oswald
Bonnyrigg, Midlothian
Polly Toynbee’s otherwise excellent article omits one crucial factor. Let’s get this straight: antipathy to WFH is indicative of a failure of management. If the best performance indicator you can think of is whether an employee is at their desk, it’s no wonder your business isn’t doing as well as it should.
David Mayle
Saffron Walden, Essex
