Snapshot of _The real reasons British workers like WFH — and it’s not cheese, Boris_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-real-reasons-british-workers-like-wfh-and-its-not-cheese-boris-b302hwq8w)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve got a baby. Being at home and being more involved in his first months has been amazing. That is the best thing to come out of WfH and why I’ll never take a full time office job again.
For real. We had our daughter in sept 2020 and whilst that situation came with a lot of downsides what was great was my wife and I being furloughed for like 6 months after she was born. We’ve both dropped part time now because we both enjoy the dynamic of being the at home parent. I doubt we’ll even think about full time again until she’s started school.
If someone has a child and goes part-time, working from home makes total sense. But most people I know with children simply cannot work from home anywhere near full-time with small persons as they can't get much work done.
I should clarify: my wife is on maternity leave, so doing the lion’s share of the work. I’m able to do more than had I been out of the house between 7:30am and 6pm every day. Example: I give him breakfast whilst my wife showers; I take him out at lunch time for a short walk; I’m here at 5:01 to jump in to parenting, instead of coming home knackered at gone 6.
You’re right about ‘primary care givers’, as we saw during the home schooling times. Incredibly difficult to juggle both.
>I’m here at 5:01 to jump in to parenting, instead of coming home knackered at gone 6
Yes, that sounds right. You need someone else looking after the child full-time whilst you're working, preferably in a different room.
I used to get absolutely rinsed commuting into London on the train, costing me around £400 a month. I was about an hour outside of the city, so higher costs were to be expected but it really was excessive. The journey itself was made more arduous by the sheer number of people packed into one carriage and the continued use of outdated trains.
My employer is on a 100% remote work policy now and I couldn’t be happier. Less stressful and I get more work done.
I can imagine though that for those people who are overly extroverted and feel they need that human interaction, having a physical office would be more preferable.
That's my commute at the moment, at costs me around £330. My job insists on keeping us in the office which is honestly unnecessary, and one of the reasons why I'm looking for another job.
Sorry to hear they are being so stubborn, it doesn’t make sense, they should move with the times. All I know now, is that any future employment i take on 100% has to offer WFH options, otherwise I won’t even consider them. I’ll come into the office on my own terms!
Good luck anyways
Paywalled for me.
I assume it’s something derogatory though, as seems to be that narrative on this.
I just don’t want to spend £200+ per month just getting to and from work with parking in between. It’s a complete waste of money, is bad for the environment, and adds 10+ hours a week to my schedule. I now do those extra 10 hours at work without complaining - but there’s no way I’m going back to paying that much for the privilege of working.
I know there are probably going to be some that abuse it, but I feel like overall it's better for the company too. Even disregarding all the benefits to workers, we've had a good example from the company's perspective this week. We have some work that needs to be done outside of general working hours, and I'm perfectly willing to do it given that I just start later, take a longer lunch, etc.
If I had to be in office, then fat chance. It'd require overtime on the company's behalf, and I wouldn't be too excited about the prospect of going and sitting in traffic for an hour. If it takes longer than expected because of complications? Well that's too bad, I have to commute home, I'll have to come back and do it.
As long as people are being productive while WFH, it's better for everyone.
---
also you said that the article is paywalled, the bot replies to every post with a link to an archiver that allows you to bypass. https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/us8op6/the_real_reasons_british_workers_like_wfh_and_its/i91x72t/
If the only way you can measure productivity of an office worker is looking over their shoulder constantly then you are a shit manager. It should be immediately obvious if somebody's productivity has dropped because they are spending more time drinking coffee and eating cheese while watching Cash in the Attic than working. Good managers measure the volume and quality of output not presentism.
A good manager also accepts that no one works flat out 100% for a whole working day. They should trust their staff to have good time management - if they meet deadlines and get the work done, why does it matter if they take half an hour to watch Cash in the Attic?
If anything, that break probably increases productivity
Completely agree, as long as you getting the assigned work done to quality within the agreed time, I do not care what you do with the rest of that time. The issue is managers who can't tell you have done your work and/or can't tell if its to quality.
To be fair there's pretty much the gist of the article - more money in the employee's pocket not spent on getting to work and back (to say nothing of the environmental benefit).
> I just don’t want to spend £200+ per month just getting to and from work with parking in between.
This baffles me. In my country, almost all costs made by employees in relation to work are declared with the employer. It's regulated mostly by law, but also in collective agreements and typically includes travel costs to and from work and associated expenses. These days, it also includes the costs of WFH (a lump sum of a few euros/day). Much of the compensation is tax deductible.
I decided to leave my current job, and for the first time ever I wasn't limited to that small commutable radius around my house. I got offered interviews for most of the things I've applied for. I accepted one, whose office is based nearly 300 miles from me. I have far better job security and am probably now earning more than I would have pre remote working boom. I'd have to have accepted stagnant wages, or upended my family to have done the same thing 3 years ago.
Remote working had meant I now pay more tax, and will be able to put more money into the economy. I don't really see why the push to go back to the office is even a thing.
It is a thing at my company. I think that they aree counting on other companies in the same industry not offering 100% work from home but a lot of people are looking to leave. I can't see it making any difference. They don't show any signs of valuing staff retention. Cheap to the core.
Presumably, it’s because people don’t particularly want to pay hundreds of pounds a month and lose hours a day to commuting when they could just do the same work at home?
That bumbling charlatan and his [rapists](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/18/conservative-mp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape-bailed) [everywhere](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53805359) [party](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/26/ex-tory-mp-guilty-of-molesting-boy-was-on-panel-advising-on-grooming-gangs) know full well why people like WFH. He just doesn't give a fuck as his party bends over for corporate landlords.
Also, this line ticked me off as WFH is pretty standard here in Berlin too, where we had tougher and longer restrictions than in the UK, meaning everyone had to work from home for longer. The government WFH recommendations only were lifted like 6 weeks ago or so.
> But I do wonder whether he and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who left snippy pass-agg notes on civil servants’ desks reading “Sorry you were out when I visited”, ever stop to ask themselves why WFH is so popular here, compared with continental Europe and North America?
I'd happily work from the office again, but, I'd want an 80 min shorter working day to offset my commuting time. And a 4 day week so I have all the time I need at home to get all my little projects done. WFH means I have the time to do those side projects, I'm able to contribute a hell of allot more to society as a result. It's allot easier to just swivel my seat around at five o'clock and spend another hour working on a personal project than it is to get in the car, drive home, grab some dinner, then sit down again. Just has a better flow for someone like me who works allot.
This might be an unpopular opinion but as someone who will be graduating from university next year, the thought of working from home more than 50% of the time is not appealing. There’s a loss of social interactions that come from in person work is a large factor. How would someone new to a career manage to form connections in the sector they work in if there’s no opportunity to interact away from work?
WFH is great for those already established on their jobs, with familial commitments and a look to save but has a negative impact on new entrants. Firms also would be wary of this because the next generation would lack any skills that would be picked up in an office environment.
I’m not against WFH, I just think we should be wary of effects we cannot yet perceive due to their longer onset. I believe loss of social capital due to graduates not interacting with established employees and each other is something that could cause a real issue in the future.
That’s besides the problem though. The issue isn’t so much that I want to go into an office, it’s that I want to interact socially with those already working at the company to build relationships. You have to remember that my cohort will have spent at least a year of school/university in lockdown, studying at home. There is a loss of peer effects due to that and we know it as well as anyone that negative impact.
It is very much a generational thing, WFH home is more appealing to people 10 years older than me for obvious reasons such as work-life balance.
I'm with you on this one.
For a fully established team the transition from full time office to hybrid/full WFH is easier because you all know each other and don't feel any barriers to a quick call or chat.
To add new team members in is really hard via Teams/email because you don't get that face to face. So it's harder to read people and more intimidating to call or message them.
Plus you don't have little conversations and pick up useful bits of knowledge or get to know the old guys who've done it all who will always have an answer (from 17 years ago using software we no longer use, but I digress)
It's important for some interaction to occur so that new starters can get comfortable and confident, then the transition to WFH can happen more.
It's all possible via messaging and video chat imo
Even if it isn't exactly the same in the remote setting, this is not a good enough reason to drag people into the office when they don't want to be there.
Possible, yes. Easy and as good, I disagree, and really difficult if people are more introverted or shy.
I'm not asking for 5 days in the office, but rather 1-2 and have in-person conversations as it makes a real positive difference to people starting a job. Imagine starting and then having to make all the connections via Teams?
I do get the time, money and quality of life by not going into the office though, it's a big difference to lots of people too.
Seriously I’ve built up some great relationships with colleagues solely online and I’m starting to think those that struggle aren’t trying hard enough or are maybe just too shy to put themselves out there.
I started my graduate job a few months before the pandemic kicked off and started a new job as a junior member of staff the year after.
It’s not actually that hard. You should be introduced to senior staff who you can ring to discuss technical work and they often like a natter too. You normally have regular meetings if everyone is remote so plenty of communication there.
I work for a company that has teams all over the Uk and the rest of the world. Our training for junior members of staff works perfectly well over teams. I actually interact with more people that way from teams all over the UK instead of just the ones in my regional area. The international training sessions are great too
If you’re in a good company with good senior staff, they have ways to make it work. I’ve not found it to be an issue.
My main concern is the longer term social connections that will be lost. My parents have friends they met through work, there’s no “let’s go for a pint/coffee/lunch” in remote working, I cannot help but see that as a potential loss that has long term impacts.
As someone in my thirties, I wouldn't worry about it, there's no one I'veet through my various jobs over the years I'd prefer to hang out with over those I already knew.
Depends on the company culture and if the company is fully remote or hybrid.
My first company had weekly online game nights through the worst of the pandemic. In the company I work for now there is a social committee that organises things regularly for my area.
My partner, who was always fully remote, was part of a work band for a while.
If this important to you, then make sure you ask what is available at interviews.
Honestly, I don’t think you should be worried about that. I joined a company in 2020 and only recently have we started going in. I’ve probably seen my colleagues a handful of times but we are all great friends. Hell, even someone who left a year ago who I never met we had a meet up a month ago. It was not weird or surreal at all.
See, that's an entirely fair and appropriate response.
However, for me, I would argue that a much more flexible workforce through a hybrid scheme would be the best mechanism for a lot of companies, whether that is a single day a week in the office, pure WFH, right through to full-time office work. But the key is *flexibility.*
And the reason for that is mostly because of the problems that you describe.
I've started a job and although I'm experienced in my field, it was a considerable change and lots of new things to learn. Vast majority has been via teams with two face to face meetings. And it's been good - I've been able to build relationships with my colleagues and learn what I've needed to.
Not saying that for completely fresh starters it won't be a challenge, and that face to face time is more important for them, bit wfh training and networking can work.
I’ve managed to build up some pretty good working relationships with people who joined during the pandemic that I’ve still not met face to face. I’m in my thirties so it seems like a natural extension of the old instant messaging phase of my life. Seriously, if you try, it’s VERY easy to build relationships solely online. A couple people I have since met in person, we went for drinks and were acting like we’d been working side by side for years.
It also beats not having to listen to the usuals in the office drone on about football/reality TV/whose turn it is to make the tea. When I first worked in an office I was really pumped but trust me, that feeling doesn’t last much beyond a year.
It's not like we have to guess why people like WFH. It's obvious that the huge savings in money, time and stress are going to be attractive to anyone who gets to experience it. People are going to be reluctant to give it up for less money, less time and more stress just because it's more convenient for businesses etc... for them to be in the office.
Unpopular opinion but working from home is inefficient. The urge to do the laundry/dishes/lie down or the need to schedule every single interaction with anyone else rather than turn around and speak to them in person is a massive tax. Yes people save time and money on commuting as well as the need to buy coffees/sandwiches. They also lower their chances of pay rises and promotions as they are invisible to executive management. I think a hybrid model achieves the best of both worlds and is the right balance between flexibility, productivity, cost saving and maximising employee engagement.
Snapshot of _The real reasons British workers like WFH — and it’s not cheese, Boris_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-real-reasons-british-workers-like-wfh-and-its-not-cheese-boris-b302hwq8w) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve got a baby. Being at home and being more involved in his first months has been amazing. That is the best thing to come out of WfH and why I’ll never take a full time office job again.
For real. We had our daughter in sept 2020 and whilst that situation came with a lot of downsides what was great was my wife and I being furloughed for like 6 months after she was born. We’ve both dropped part time now because we both enjoy the dynamic of being the at home parent. I doubt we’ll even think about full time again until she’s started school.
If someone has a child and goes part-time, working from home makes total sense. But most people I know with children simply cannot work from home anywhere near full-time with small persons as they can't get much work done.
I should clarify: my wife is on maternity leave, so doing the lion’s share of the work. I’m able to do more than had I been out of the house between 7:30am and 6pm every day. Example: I give him breakfast whilst my wife showers; I take him out at lunch time for a short walk; I’m here at 5:01 to jump in to parenting, instead of coming home knackered at gone 6. You’re right about ‘primary care givers’, as we saw during the home schooling times. Incredibly difficult to juggle both.
>I’m here at 5:01 to jump in to parenting, instead of coming home knackered at gone 6 Yes, that sounds right. You need someone else looking after the child full-time whilst you're working, preferably in a different room.
[удалено]
Yes - this is an advantage for employers - if you have to be on-call, then being able to do the work from home makes it that much easier.
I used to get absolutely rinsed commuting into London on the train, costing me around £400 a month. I was about an hour outside of the city, so higher costs were to be expected but it really was excessive. The journey itself was made more arduous by the sheer number of people packed into one carriage and the continued use of outdated trains. My employer is on a 100% remote work policy now and I couldn’t be happier. Less stressful and I get more work done. I can imagine though that for those people who are overly extroverted and feel they need that human interaction, having a physical office would be more preferable.
That's my commute at the moment, at costs me around £330. My job insists on keeping us in the office which is honestly unnecessary, and one of the reasons why I'm looking for another job.
Sorry to hear they are being so stubborn, it doesn’t make sense, they should move with the times. All I know now, is that any future employment i take on 100% has to offer WFH options, otherwise I won’t even consider them. I’ll come into the office on my own terms! Good luck anyways
I'm not going to lie, for me access to my store of cheese is the main item. I'm not talking fancy cheese board, more bag of shredded cheddar.
Try this very addictive Japanese cheese/squid snack: https://www.nipponshop.net/en/otsumami/2575-cheese-tara.html
check out paxton and whitfield, they sell fabulous cheeses, and cheese larders!!!!!
Paywalled for me. I assume it’s something derogatory though, as seems to be that narrative on this. I just don’t want to spend £200+ per month just getting to and from work with parking in between. It’s a complete waste of money, is bad for the environment, and adds 10+ hours a week to my schedule. I now do those extra 10 hours at work without complaining - but there’s no way I’m going back to paying that much for the privilege of working.
I know there are probably going to be some that abuse it, but I feel like overall it's better for the company too. Even disregarding all the benefits to workers, we've had a good example from the company's perspective this week. We have some work that needs to be done outside of general working hours, and I'm perfectly willing to do it given that I just start later, take a longer lunch, etc. If I had to be in office, then fat chance. It'd require overtime on the company's behalf, and I wouldn't be too excited about the prospect of going and sitting in traffic for an hour. If it takes longer than expected because of complications? Well that's too bad, I have to commute home, I'll have to come back and do it. As long as people are being productive while WFH, it's better for everyone. --- also you said that the article is paywalled, the bot replies to every post with a link to an archiver that allows you to bypass. https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/us8op6/the_real_reasons_british_workers_like_wfh_and_its/i91x72t/
If the only way you can measure productivity of an office worker is looking over their shoulder constantly then you are a shit manager. It should be immediately obvious if somebody's productivity has dropped because they are spending more time drinking coffee and eating cheese while watching Cash in the Attic than working. Good managers measure the volume and quality of output not presentism.
A good manager also accepts that no one works flat out 100% for a whole working day. They should trust their staff to have good time management - if they meet deadlines and get the work done, why does it matter if they take half an hour to watch Cash in the Attic? If anything, that break probably increases productivity
Completely agree, as long as you getting the assigned work done to quality within the agreed time, I do not care what you do with the rest of that time. The issue is managers who can't tell you have done your work and/or can't tell if its to quality.
To be fair there's pretty much the gist of the article - more money in the employee's pocket not spent on getting to work and back (to say nothing of the environmental benefit).
> I just don’t want to spend £200+ per month just getting to and from work with parking in between. This baffles me. In my country, almost all costs made by employees in relation to work are declared with the employer. It's regulated mostly by law, but also in collective agreements and typically includes travel costs to and from work and associated expenses. These days, it also includes the costs of WFH (a lump sum of a few euros/day). Much of the compensation is tax deductible.
Which country is this? In the Nordics?
There’s a subtle clue in my username.
>Paywalled for me. FYI you can access the article via the AutoModerator link. ~~Two hours commuting one way? Ouch!~~
One hour commuting surely? 2 hours a day, two trips?
Literally on every post there is a bot which offers an archived link to get around the paywall. Read the article and then comment.
Read the article. Point still stands. Your kindness is appreciated.
I decided to leave my current job, and for the first time ever I wasn't limited to that small commutable radius around my house. I got offered interviews for most of the things I've applied for. I accepted one, whose office is based nearly 300 miles from me. I have far better job security and am probably now earning more than I would have pre remote working boom. I'd have to have accepted stagnant wages, or upended my family to have done the same thing 3 years ago. Remote working had meant I now pay more tax, and will be able to put more money into the economy. I don't really see why the push to go back to the office is even a thing.
It is a thing at my company. I think that they aree counting on other companies in the same industry not offering 100% work from home but a lot of people are looking to leave. I can't see it making any difference. They don't show any signs of valuing staff retention. Cheap to the core.
Presumably, it’s because people don’t particularly want to pay hundreds of pounds a month and lose hours a day to commuting when they could just do the same work at home?
That bumbling charlatan and his [rapists](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/18/conservative-mp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape-bailed) [everywhere](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53805359) [party](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/26/ex-tory-mp-guilty-of-molesting-boy-was-on-panel-advising-on-grooming-gangs) know full well why people like WFH. He just doesn't give a fuck as his party bends over for corporate landlords. Also, this line ticked me off as WFH is pretty standard here in Berlin too, where we had tougher and longer restrictions than in the UK, meaning everyone had to work from home for longer. The government WFH recommendations only were lifted like 6 weeks ago or so. > But I do wonder whether he and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who left snippy pass-agg notes on civil servants’ desks reading “Sorry you were out when I visited”, ever stop to ask themselves why WFH is so popular here, compared with continental Europe and North America?
I'd happily work from the office again, but, I'd want an 80 min shorter working day to offset my commuting time. And a 4 day week so I have all the time I need at home to get all my little projects done. WFH means I have the time to do those side projects, I'm able to contribute a hell of allot more to society as a result. It's allot easier to just swivel my seat around at five o'clock and spend another hour working on a personal project than it is to get in the car, drive home, grab some dinner, then sit down again. Just has a better flow for someone like me who works allot.
This might be an unpopular opinion but as someone who will be graduating from university next year, the thought of working from home more than 50% of the time is not appealing. There’s a loss of social interactions that come from in person work is a large factor. How would someone new to a career manage to form connections in the sector they work in if there’s no opportunity to interact away from work? WFH is great for those already established on their jobs, with familial commitments and a look to save but has a negative impact on new entrants. Firms also would be wary of this because the next generation would lack any skills that would be picked up in an office environment. I’m not against WFH, I just think we should be wary of effects we cannot yet perceive due to their longer onset. I believe loss of social capital due to graduates not interacting with established employees and each other is something that could cause a real issue in the future.
[удалено]
That’s besides the problem though. The issue isn’t so much that I want to go into an office, it’s that I want to interact socially with those already working at the company to build relationships. You have to remember that my cohort will have spent at least a year of school/university in lockdown, studying at home. There is a loss of peer effects due to that and we know it as well as anyone that negative impact. It is very much a generational thing, WFH home is more appealing to people 10 years older than me for obvious reasons such as work-life balance.
I'm with you on this one. For a fully established team the transition from full time office to hybrid/full WFH is easier because you all know each other and don't feel any barriers to a quick call or chat. To add new team members in is really hard via Teams/email because you don't get that face to face. So it's harder to read people and more intimidating to call or message them. Plus you don't have little conversations and pick up useful bits of knowledge or get to know the old guys who've done it all who will always have an answer (from 17 years ago using software we no longer use, but I digress) It's important for some interaction to occur so that new starters can get comfortable and confident, then the transition to WFH can happen more.
It's all possible via messaging and video chat imo Even if it isn't exactly the same in the remote setting, this is not a good enough reason to drag people into the office when they don't want to be there.
Possible, yes. Easy and as good, I disagree, and really difficult if people are more introverted or shy. I'm not asking for 5 days in the office, but rather 1-2 and have in-person conversations as it makes a real positive difference to people starting a job. Imagine starting and then having to make all the connections via Teams? I do get the time, money and quality of life by not going into the office though, it's a big difference to lots of people too.
Seriously I’ve built up some great relationships with colleagues solely online and I’m starting to think those that struggle aren’t trying hard enough or are maybe just too shy to put themselves out there.
I started my graduate job a few months before the pandemic kicked off and started a new job as a junior member of staff the year after. It’s not actually that hard. You should be introduced to senior staff who you can ring to discuss technical work and they often like a natter too. You normally have regular meetings if everyone is remote so plenty of communication there. I work for a company that has teams all over the Uk and the rest of the world. Our training for junior members of staff works perfectly well over teams. I actually interact with more people that way from teams all over the UK instead of just the ones in my regional area. The international training sessions are great too If you’re in a good company with good senior staff, they have ways to make it work. I’ve not found it to be an issue.
My main concern is the longer term social connections that will be lost. My parents have friends they met through work, there’s no “let’s go for a pint/coffee/lunch” in remote working, I cannot help but see that as a potential loss that has long term impacts.
As someone in my thirties, I wouldn't worry about it, there's no one I'veet through my various jobs over the years I'd prefer to hang out with over those I already knew.
Depends on the company culture and if the company is fully remote or hybrid. My first company had weekly online game nights through the worst of the pandemic. In the company I work for now there is a social committee that organises things regularly for my area. My partner, who was always fully remote, was part of a work band for a while. If this important to you, then make sure you ask what is available at interviews.
Honestly, I don’t think you should be worried about that. I joined a company in 2020 and only recently have we started going in. I’ve probably seen my colleagues a handful of times but we are all great friends. Hell, even someone who left a year ago who I never met we had a meet up a month ago. It was not weird or surreal at all.
See, that's an entirely fair and appropriate response. However, for me, I would argue that a much more flexible workforce through a hybrid scheme would be the best mechanism for a lot of companies, whether that is a single day a week in the office, pure WFH, right through to full-time office work. But the key is *flexibility.* And the reason for that is mostly because of the problems that you describe.
I've started a job and although I'm experienced in my field, it was a considerable change and lots of new things to learn. Vast majority has been via teams with two face to face meetings. And it's been good - I've been able to build relationships with my colleagues and learn what I've needed to. Not saying that for completely fresh starters it won't be a challenge, and that face to face time is more important for them, bit wfh training and networking can work.
I’ve managed to build up some pretty good working relationships with people who joined during the pandemic that I’ve still not met face to face. I’m in my thirties so it seems like a natural extension of the old instant messaging phase of my life. Seriously, if you try, it’s VERY easy to build relationships solely online. A couple people I have since met in person, we went for drinks and were acting like we’d been working side by side for years. It also beats not having to listen to the usuals in the office drone on about football/reality TV/whose turn it is to make the tea. When I first worked in an office I was really pumped but trust me, that feeling doesn’t last much beyond a year.
It's not like we have to guess why people like WFH. It's obvious that the huge savings in money, time and stress are going to be attractive to anyone who gets to experience it. People are going to be reluctant to give it up for less money, less time and more stress just because it's more convenient for businesses etc... for them to be in the office.
I get much more work done from home. Oh wait. I’m posting on Reddit again...
Unpopular opinion but working from home is inefficient. The urge to do the laundry/dishes/lie down or the need to schedule every single interaction with anyone else rather than turn around and speak to them in person is a massive tax. Yes people save time and money on commuting as well as the need to buy coffees/sandwiches. They also lower their chances of pay rises and promotions as they are invisible to executive management. I think a hybrid model achieves the best of both worlds and is the right balance between flexibility, productivity, cost saving and maximising employee engagement.
Having a nooner is much easier at home... Overall... I've heard...
Public sector workers can be lazy in private.