No 10 wants us all back in the office — but it's not up to them | thearticle

Work from home, or go back to the office? The discussion is taking place internationally as different countries contemplate how to defeat and recover from the pandemic, not just in medical

terms, but also socially and economically. As with so much else, we have discovered President Donald Trump’s view via his Twitter account. The President tweets: “Congratulations to JPMorgan

Chase for ordering everyone BACK TO OFFICE on September 21st. Will always be better than working from home!” Some will agree that working from the office is “always better”. Others will

strongly disagree. Some may feel a bit of both works rather well. JPMorgan Chase is a successful bank with well paid staff. If it feels that the optimum arrangement is for its traders to

have the buzz and vitality of being gathered in the same building then the firm is entitled to get them in — subject to the obvious exceptions of those with, or suspected of having, the

virus. Similarly, those firms that have allowed their staff some degree of flexibility should be allowed to exercise that choice. Why should Donald Trump (or Boris Johnson or Emmanuel

Macron) tell us what to do? Of course, it is legitimate for the state to order restrictions on grounds of public health even if this entails personal inconvenience and economic disruption.

The issue that will then be challenged is whether any such restrictions are proportionate — a debate that is currently familiar. What is curious is for the state to tell us to work from the

office rather than from home on _economic_ grounds. Ross Clark asks in the _Spectator_: “Why is Boris so determined to save Pret?” A fair question. Clark then adds: “As for the vacant

offices, the government has for years been encouraging the conversion of office space to residential space in order to relieve the housing shortage. It has changed planning laws to make it

easier to do this. And yet, suddenly, now that a significant tranche of office space looks like it will become surplus to requirements, the PM and Chancellor launch a ‘save the office’

campaign.” Then there was supposed to be this concern with “rebalancing” the economy to make it less focused on London. If home-working prompts that to happen, why object? Even Londoners

seeking to get on the property ladder, or who spend their days driving through congested roads, might be pleased if the capital were to become a little less popular. Where the public sector

is concerned, however, the Government’s view is relevant. As over five million of us in the UK work for the government, that is not a trivial matter. But the criteria should be to get the

best value for the taxpayer in providing public services as effectively as possible. It should not be a decision that is distorted to sustain sandwich bars in central London. For many, the

problem isn’t so much being in the office but the cost in time and money to get there and back. The average cost of commuting is over £800 a year. It takes about an hour out of each each

working day — for Londoners an hour and a half. For business, the amount of space an employee takes up is around 30-40 square feet at a typical cost of £8,000 a year in the West End of

London — elsewhere the costs are lower. But you can still see why management consultants, with their eager cost-cutting wheezes, have long been asking about “hot-desking”. We are social

animals and so these calculations are not just about time and money. Here there is a particular age divide. If people stay at home all the time, how are they supposed to get married and have

children? I suspect the human race will continue to reproduce but many have met their partners through work. Learning how to do well at a job is not just about qualifications. Just as

important can be the real life experience of seeing what others do and accumulating their advice each day. Only the office environment provides that degree of contact. For others, the office

can be a source of dread. Bullying and assorted “inappropriate” activity might be less of a problem than it was. Yet in seeking to avoid such complaints there has been a chilling effect —

with the Human Resources departments feared like the Stasi and a nervousness from managers about having candid discussions. My own suspicion is that the “new normal” will tend to mean going

back to the office but not the Monday to Friday, nine to five arrangement, which was outdated even before the virus struck. Each situation will vary and there will be lots of good arguments

to consider for how the working week should be arranged. But there are no arguments at all for politicians making these decisions for us.