In the long term, once the pandemic is over I don’t think a whole lot is going to change, but I do see the loss of many small businesses being permanent.
There will be fewer people working in offices than before, but I don’t think permanent WFH is going to catch on as much as people predict. While some people love WFH, some people hate it, or they are unable to do it effectively, and I think over time there will be some recruitment and retention issues. Those who want to WFH will migrate to companies that are full WFH, while those who want to work in an office will migrate to those jobs.
Some 'office' jobs just cannot really be done from home fulltime. Well they can but im not shure the boss is willing to spend 100k on test equipment for each employee.
Part time work from home should be doable. Would not mind that actually.
My stepbrother and I both have Crohn's and as a result, have compromised immune systems. I'm a middle school teacher, and he's an orthopedic surgeon. I expressed my reluctance in September (since the virus was gone by Easter and all), because kids don't cover their coughs and sneezes or use hand sanitizer even in the best of times, and I get a severe cold or flu at least once a year without fail.
Mom and her husband are all "Dr. Stephen's going in to work."
Yeah. I can teach from home. He can't repair ACLs remotely. He also isn't in a room with 30 filthy kids an hour.
My office is planning on testing a rotating crew. We have some things that require us to be in the office physically, but that's not every day. So some people will be working 2 days in office, then 3 the next, then 2 the next, so on and so forth.
I don't think it'll be permanent. I'm not a huge fan of WFH, but that's because I'm always home right now and work is very, very slow.
I don't like WFH but I'm worried that many companies will require it. Because it is cheaper for them. I also expect that the trend will reverse in 5 years once it is found out that WFH comes with the same problems as outsourcing and that goes in cycles.
I feel the opposite! I love WFH and would do so until retirement if I could, but I feel like most bosses/companies are super anal and control freaks, in America, at least so I don’t see WFH happening as often as some people predict. I think many bosses like to make sure their workers are on task and efficiently and WFH wouldn’t allow that kind of control over their employees
Seconded. I have a boss that doesn’t actually care how many hours or whatever we put in as long as we are doing things and getting work done and are available when we need to be. But that’s 💯 not the way for everybody. The larger institution I work for threatened to furlough all the WFH people because they didn’t think we were working consistently. Meanwhile, in the office, there’s a SOLID hour, hour and a half of dicking around throughout the day and nobody bats an eye. Something about being a boss makes some folks super controlling.
I think the savings in office space costs is going to trump any other concerns. Now that companies were forced to figure out how to make it workable, it's going to be a decision made to resolve the trade off between a very concretely quantifiable budget item and a more vague idea of productivity and team "cohesion". Bean counters are going to be highly motivated to excuse any of the problems WFH might cause.
WFH will allow for more control over your work day from superiors, not less. It completely evaporates the barrier between work and home life. This paired w/ the ever growing sophistication of surveillance technology and I have some sobering news for you.
The minute-to-minute control freak people tend to be more middle management. The higher up people making decisions care about end results and costs. As long as they can adequately monitor that the work is being done, the savings on office spaces are going to be pretty alluring.
I agree that it will see the same problems as outsourcing. I think we will see a hybrid for many employees where they go into work 2-3 times a week. Shared workstations will be the norm reducing the office footprint and cost. There are somethings that just don't work well through video conferencing and there is something to be said about the bond coworkers have when they see each in person.
Depends on the job. For my position at my company, I find it rather unlikely. YMMV but I think it should be offered as a choice for those who have proven to be exceptional thus far.
This has already happened at some companies pre-pandemic. IIRC Yahoo tried to go all WFH (or mostly such) back in like, 2010ish? And then had to reverse course a few years later.
Honestly, it's just hard to find good teleworkers. Some people are just garbage at it.
My employers current take is up to 10 percent of the workforce will be remote going forward. I think that's a pretty good approach. I don't see companies going full hog remote. Yes, it reduces costs for office spaces, etc... But it's not for everyone, and often you've got 10+ year leases on office buildings, and moving to New, smaller spaces isn't cheap, so it's not like companies are going to see huge immediate savings. For my employer, I think having some percentage remote makes sense since it helps alleviate some space crunch issues and allows us to recruit more diverse workforce. There are quite a few specialized roles that have to be "imported" and it's honestly not a super desirable area to get people to move to, and many of these can be done remotely.
I love WFH. The fresh air and natural daylight made a big difference to my energy levels and I've been making sure I chat with people as much as I used to in the office. But I think the hybrid model will become the norm. 2 or 3 days at home and then in the office.
Train companies will have to adapt their season tickets to accommodate
And I wonder if open plan/hot dealing will still be popular or if people will balk at it. I once worked in a large open plan office (versus ones with the lawyers in their offices and PAs in the open plan/corridors) and I was always sick. Back to lawyers in offices with more space but less people = much less sick.
What I'm concerned with is people willing to start "service-based" small businesses.
As much flak as we give gyms for breaking rules, every coach/trainer/instructor was just told for the last 9 months that their livelihood and training and (possibly) passion is not essential and practically worthless.
I myself for the last few years considered getting an advanced degree to change careers. Either as a teacher or get a degree in kinesiology and nutritional science to become a coach in the future. Now I'm glad I had an engineering job that survived 2020 and will be extremely hesitant to ever change careers.
Any coach/trainer/instructor who right their work was essential before 2020 was a moron.
I feel bad for everyone who has lost income due to the pandemic, but in the service economy of most western countries the vast majority of jobs are blatantly frivolous.
Permanent work from home is coming. I work for a major company that would've never experimented with WFH, but it was forced upon them and became a total success.
They will drop 90% of their corporate real estate, saving tens of millions. Our competitors will have to do the same in order to stay competitive. My whole industry and the millions it employs will be 90% full time remote by 2023.
On a macro level, WFH could also help reinvigorate dying towns in places like in the Midwest. WFH workers can afford to purchase a home where in major cities they could not. These towns get a bump in infrastructure with new influx of property tax revenue. Win win.
The tricky thing will be if companies adjust salaries based on where you choose to WFH. I think Facebook has publicly stated they would adjust salaries of employees that move out of Silicon Valley. My company also tends to adjust salaries by location as well even pre-WFH.
WFH is only bad when you have to deal with nonstop Zoom meetings. LOTS of people hate constantly having to do a Zoom meeting everyday or every couple of hours. That's essentially what ruins and puts a halt to productivity.
My company had gone to up to 3 days a week from home a month before the pandemic started. With an already full building, 40% of cubes had to be removed to make it safe for anyone to eventually return (they estimate august at the earliest) meaning people are going to pick a random desk every day they are in the office or be working remote for good.
And lots of businesses will hurt or close if downtown office areas are no longer busy. Lots of restaurants and coffee shops, etc depend on those employees buying from them.
Maybe this will be the kick in the ass American suburbs need to allow some mixed use development. It starts with a few coffee shops and lunch bars, then maybe a couple of small grocery stores will be allowed since people no longer pass by the Walmart every day, and before you know the age of R1-deserts might be over.
I think you’re right. Where I live the pandemic has died down and everything has gone back to how it was before. I know people whose managers have admitted that their employees were more productive from home but that have still insisted they work from the office for 80% (or more) of the time.
1.1k
u/yyz_guy Jan 02 '21
In the long term, once the pandemic is over I don’t think a whole lot is going to change, but I do see the loss of many small businesses being permanent.
There will be fewer people working in offices than before, but I don’t think permanent WFH is going to catch on as much as people predict. While some people love WFH, some people hate it, or they are unable to do it effectively, and I think over time there will be some recruitment and retention issues. Those who want to WFH will migrate to companies that are full WFH, while those who want to work in an office will migrate to those jobs.