Read on Twitter
THREAD: attempt at a balanced view on working from home.
The Telegraph/the government is *not* providing a balanced view.
WFH is benefiting employers who could see their businesses devastated if there is a serious outbreak of Covid in their offices. 1/9 https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1299088832344850432
The Telegraph/the government is *not* providing a balanced view.
WFH is benefiting employers who could see their businesses devastated if there is a serious outbreak of Covid in their offices. 1/9 https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1299088832344850432
They understandably don't want to take the risk, given the second waves we are seeing in other countries.
It also benefits most employees who get a better work/life balance, works better with childcare, avoids long commute etc etc It's therefore a highly rational decision.. 2/9
It also benefits most employees who get a better work/life balance, works better with childcare, avoids long commute etc etc It's therefore a highly rational decision.. 2/9
for many firms to continue WFH. Government and media exhortations won't change that.
Furthermore, I've argued that it's likely that Brits propensity to WFH has contributed to our relatively low case numbers vs other countries (tho 1,500 cases yesterday) https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1296488679146389504?s=20
Furthermore, I've argued that it's likely that Brits propensity to WFH has contributed to our relatively low case numbers vs other countries (tho 1,500 cases yesterday) https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1296488679146389504?s=20
However the people on here deriding the concerns of "Big Sandwich" are ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of jobs depend on the presence of office workers in town centres.
These are ordinary people, facing losing their jobs within the next few months.
4/9
These are ordinary people, facing losing their jobs within the next few months.
4/9
WFH *does* have an economic cost.
But mitigating these costs is exactly what government is there to do. Many office workers *will* return once the threat from Covid has diminished, so it would be sensible to extend the furlough scheme for hospitality workers. 5/9
But mitigating these costs is exactly what government is there to do. Many office workers *will* return once the threat from Covid has diminished, so it would be sensible to extend the furlough scheme for hospitality workers. 5/9
But it's likely that we'll still see increased WFH post-Covid; some city-centre jobs are probably gone for gone.
Which means the government needs to be acting *now* to re-train and redeploy the workers who lose out. But instead, they are going round blaming other people... 6/9
Which means the government needs to be acting *now* to re-train and redeploy the workers who lose out. But instead, they are going round blaming other people... 6/9
... so they don't have to take the fall for the looming economic downturn.
@YouGov polling shows that whilst people of working age are fine with WFH, over 65s disapprove. Probably no coincidence that over 65s disproportionately vote Conservative.
7/9 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1299022406896492545?s=20
@YouGov polling shows that whilst people of working age are fine with WFH, over 65s disapprove. Probably no coincidence that over 65s disproportionately vote Conservative.
7/9 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1299022406896492545?s=20
WFH is helping to keep Covid numbers down. If everyone went back to the office causing a big rise in cases, the government will have to reimpose restrictions which will have a severe economic impact anyway. As well as putting lives (predominantly of over 65s) at risk. 8/9
All in all, the government needs to act to save jobs and businesses, rather than simply trying to evade responsibility as it has done so frequently in this crisis. ENDS
