Covid-19 to have a permanent downward effect on commuting patterns with more partial working from home?

[telstarbox]

But as the economy picks up they may have a choice of employers, and the inflexible ones will be left behind. You can already see job adverts where flexible/remote working is listed as a benefit alongside pensions etc.

 

[nlogax]

One positive, I suppose. This could be what tips us from 'full and standing' to 'able to get a seat every rush hour'

We all have to come to terms with the home working genie having left the bottle. I feel it will lead to more inequality and a huge rethink on the permanent rail timetable but there's no going back to pre-Covid times. I'm certain the desire from companies like Goldman Sachs will be the exception rather than the rule. GS can afford the corporate real estate in any climate. Most others can't or don't want to keep forking out for space they no longer need.

 

[DB]

But as the economy picks up they may have a choice of employers, and the inflexible ones will be left behind. You can already see job adverts where flexible/remote working is listed as a benefit alongside pensions etc.

Depends on the industry - in many it's simply not going to be very workable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2021 ==

I'm certain the desire from companies like Goldman Sachs will be the exception rather than the rule. GS can afford the corporate real estate in any climate. Most others can't or don't want to keep forking out for space they no longer need.

Until they find that they simply aren't getting as much done with people working at home (as many are already finding) - losing the offices may then seem a false economy.

 

[Ianno87]

Until they find that they simply aren't getting as much done with people working at home (as many are already finding) - losing the offices may then seem a false economy.

Although, I've said before, some loss of productivity could be "worth it" to employers if there is a substantial saving to be had in office costs.

 

[Mikey C]

One positive, I suppose. This could be what tips us from 'full and standing' to 'able to get a seat every rush hour'

We all have to come to terms with the home working genie having left the bottle. I feel it will lead to more inequality and a huge rethink on the permanent rail timetable but there's no going back to pre-Covid times. I'm certain the desire from companies like Goldman Sachs will be the exception rather than the rule. GS can afford the corporate real estate in any climate. Most others can't or don't want to keep forking out for space they no longer need.

And commuter trains designed with more comfortable seating, rather than being crammed against the wall like the Desiro Cities to enable vast numbers of standees...

 

[PTR 444]

I think future working patterns will vary considerably depending on the employer. Some may wish to have their staff in 5 days a week, some 3 days a week with 2 remote working, and maybe even some allowing for only one day in the office with 4 days remote working.

Some people are really content with not having to travel to work, whereas others are desperate to get back to the office so they can network with colleagues again. I expect in the future, people will wish to pursue roles with working patterns that suit them, but I could see there being far more competition nationally for part-WFH jobs due to increased catchment areas from not needing to travel to work.

It would be good if working patterns are coordinated to spread commuter flows out over the week, rather than having midweek peaks because everybody allocates their “travel to work” day for a Wednesday etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

Although, I've said before, some loss of productivity could be "worth it" to employers if there is a substantial saving to be had in office costs.

That only works if productivity isn't a key driver in the success of a business. A company showing a loss of productivity might well lose business as a result, especially if the competition is more productive.

 

[37424]

Depends on the industry - in many it's simply not going to be very workable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2021 ==



Until they find that they simply aren't getting as much done with people working at home (as many are already finding) - losing the offices may then seem a false economy.

The feedback I'm getting from a some of the people I know who work for large companies is that they would rather base their future infrastructure on a remote working basis even if in some cases they would prefer people to come into the office, because they don't want disruption from any future lockdown that might happen say next winter of because of different strains of the virus that the vaccine may not be effective against.

As for the idea of people getting less work done at home, I found when I worked from home I could get more done, with far less distractions from people interupting or getting involved in office politics etc, in fact when I originally persuaded my boss to allow me to work from home 1 day a week it was sold to him on that basis in that I could concentrate on my project work with far less disruption from day to day issues.

 

[kristiang85]

they don't want disruption from any future lockdown that might happen say next winter of because of different strains of the virus that the vaccine may not be effective against.

This is going to be an ongoing problem for many businesses; on top of businesses' working practices, a lot of customers will not have confidence in spending lots of money on travel/events too long in the future that they see as a risk of being cancelled.

This is why I fervently believe the government need to put in lockdown legislation that states such measures will only be sought within very strict criteria, e.g.
- Pandemic declared by WHO
- Fatality rate above XX%
- No vaccine available
- Full risk/benefit analysis published and debated in Parliament

Otherwise this will become a precedent that governments can use when they like.

 

[Ianno87]

That only works if productivity isn't a key driver in the success of a business. A company showing a loss of productivity might well lose business as a result, especially if the competition is more productive.

Depends whether the lost revenue is greater or less than the savings in overheads.

A bit like a bus route reducing from half hourly to hourly, you'll obviously lose revenue, but losing less revenue than the cost saving made is key.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is why I fervently believe the government need to put in lockdown legislation that states such measures will only be sought within very strict criteria, e.g.
- Pandemic declared by WHO
- Fatality rate above XX%
- No vaccine available
- Full risk/benefit analysis published and debated in Parliament

Otherwise this will become a precedent that governments can use when they like.

Pretty pointless. Legislation can always be repealed or amended. Under the British unwritten constitution a government with a majority in the House of Commons can always do what it likes.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I’m not sure how home working can be ‘more popular’ than it has been the last 12 months, when most people who have been doing it have been required to!

I meant in terms of how people view it.
The last 12 months have had it mandated for most and yet there has still been an increase in how remote working is seen by a lot of people.
Many people who were against it before the pandemic have changed their minds. And that is when we are in a situation where it has been mostly mandated and you have had all of the issues from the last 12 months (kids at home, no social life etc). If the concept of remote working can get a boost in the minds of people whilst we have the current downsides, I think its obvious that when some of those downsides go away, even more people are going to have a positive idea of it.

The real test will be once that is dropped and we see how many employers and employees want to return to full time office working.
For some jobs, the employee won't have a choice. But for some others (like mine) - the power really is with the employee and if the employer is going to be difficult people will just up and leave to go to a company who will allow a degree of remote working.

I've seen the impact it has though - it leads to less cohesion and considerable difficulties in inducting new staff. These things were not apparent initially but are now beginning to make themselves felt. I think it likely that more than two days a week at home is not going to be something which many employers want long term.

As regards employees, many are now finding that it's not as great as they first thought - especially those who are single and/or who don't have great working conditions at home and not enough space to improve them.

But again, that has been because:
1 - People have had to work from home 100% of the time without the ability to go into the office at all. Outside of pandemic times, that is pretty much unheard of. Even 100% remote companies usually have get together or regional offices for purpose of getting to know your team and for new staff to be included etc. Not having those thing's isn't normal for remote workers.
2 - People haven't had the ability to do the usual social activities that they do outside of work (which is why the work from home situation has been tough on those who live alone atm). If you still had your usual social activities and your usual friends that you could still meet with etc, then for a lot of people not being social with people at work is fine.

Basically - because of the unique situation we are in, you cannot compare forced WFH as we have it now to remote working as a general concept.

 

[edwin_m]

This is going to be an ongoing problem for many businesses; on top of businesses' working practices, a lot of customers will not have confidence in spending lots of money on travel/events too long in the future that they see as a risk of being cancelled.

This is why I fervently believe the government need to put in lockdown legislation that states such measures will only be sought within very strict criteria, e.g.
- Pandemic declared by WHO
- Fatality rate above XX%
- No vaccine available
- Full risk/benefit analysis published and debated in Parliament

Otherwise this will become a precedent that governments can use when they like.

I don't get why some people think the government actually likes imposing these restrictions.

If that had been in place a year ago then all the decision making would have been based on treating it like a flu epidemic, even more than it actually was, because that's what had been planned for and the above numbers would have been set on that basis. A proper analysis would have to take account of R number, infectious but asymptomatic rates, and probably other things, and the limits on one of those would depend on others so essentially you're back to modelling spread anyway.

Businesses that embrace WFH gain financially not only because of reduced office costs, but also because some staff will be willing to work for lower wages if they don't have to pay commuting costs and they get more free time due to not having to travel to the office so often. How the benefits of WFH play against the downsides is going to be a different balance for each company, job type and personality type, so I suspect that those businesses willing to be flexible will come out much better than those who try to impose the same solution on everybody.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't get why some people think the government actually likes imposing these restrictions.

If that had been in place a year ago then all the decision making would have been based on treating it like a flu epidemic, even more than it actually was, because that's what had been planned for and the above numbers would have been set on that basis. A proper analysis would have to take account of R number, infectious but asymptomatic rates, and probably other things, and the limits on one of those would depend on others so essentially you're back to modelling spread anyway.

Businesses that embrace WFH gain financially not only because of reduced office costs, but also because some staff will be willing to work for lower wages if they don't have to pay commuting costs and they get more free time due to not having to travel to the office so often. How the benefits of WFH play against the downsides is going to be a different balance for each company, job type and personality type, so I suspect that those businesses willing to be flexible will come out much better than those who try to impose the same solution on everybody.

I don't get why you think that people would be willing to take pay cuts to work from home?

 

[Ianno87]

I don't get why you think that people would be willing to take pay cuts to work from home?

That's not what they said.

What is pertinent is that, when considering whether to accept a new job, the cost of getting to the office/workplace every day doesn't need to be factored into the 'is it worth it?' thought process. Ergo, peoples' "price" will be naturally slightly lower as a result.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't get why you think that people would be willing to take pay cuts to work from home?

Perhaps not pay cuts, but apply for jobs that are work from home with lower salaries than a similar job that are work in office. If you are saving £5k a year on travel, and other £2k a year on suits / shirts / dry cleaning / Starbucks / Pret Etc Etc, then some people will make that logical leap.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps not pay cuts, but apply for jobs that are work from home with lower salaries than a similar job that are work in office. If you are saving £5k a year on travel, and other £2k a year on suits / shirts / dry cleaning / Starbucks / Pret Etc Etc, then some people will make that logical leap.

Not everyone pays £5K in travel, I know I certainly don't. Having just had my energy readings done & bill amended I'm now looking at a loss thanks to working from home, so a pay cut in whatever manner isn't going to be a good idea for a lot of us.

 

[Mag_seven]

I don't get why some people think the government actually likes imposing these restrictions.

To be fair I don't think its difficult to come to that conclusion sometimes (yes I'm looking at you Sturgeon and Drakeford in particular)

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not everyone pays £5K in travel, I know I certainly don't. Having just had my energy readings done & bill amended I'm now looking at a loss thanks to working from home, so a pay cut in whatever manner isn't going to be a good idea for a lot of us.

It really is going to differ on a case by case basis.
For me, my partner doesn't work the same hours as me so even before covid there is usually one of us in the flat at any one time anyway, so heating / energy bills haven't really been affected by all of this for us.

To be fair I don't think its difficult to come to that conclusion sometimes (yes I'm looking at you Sturgeon and Drakeford in particular)

I am sure all of the current politicians would much prefer people are able to be distracted by pubs / concerts / insert hobby that isn't currently possible here, rather than have pretty much everyone's attention focused on the decisions they are making.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not everyone pays £5K in travel, I know I certainly don't. Having just had my energy readings done & bill amended I'm now looking at a loss thanks to working from home, so a pay cut in whatever manner isn't going to be a good idea for a lot of us.

Of course not everyone pays that much. But some will. Some pay more. I would suggest that most people who have worked from home have saved money. Not everyone, but most. And the savings will vary. Personally I reckon I’ve saved about £300 a month, and I don’t pay for travel.

My energy bills have gone down in the last year - spending more time at home enables me to keep an eye on the thermostat, and Mrs BRs hands off it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course not everyone pays that much. But some will. Some pay more. I would suggest that most people who have worked from home have saved money. Not everyone, but most. And the savings will vary. Personally I reckon I’ve saved about £300 a month, and I don’t pay for travel.

My energy bills have gone down in the last year - spending more time at home enables me to keep an eye on the thermostat, and Mrs BRs hands off it.

Maybe some, I'm really not sure about most. My team which has been working from home since the start & who are spread around the country all saw savings during the summer, but with everyone working from home (some with families) are now all seeing any savings being eaten away. This will be true for a lot, especially those outside of the capital.

 

[edwin_m]

Not everyone pays £5K in travel, I know I certainly don't. Having just had my energy readings done & bill amended I'm now looking at a loss thanks to working from home, so a pay cut in whatever manner isn't going to be a good idea for a lot of us.

Look at it this way.

You get two job offers, one that pays £30k but from company A that expects you to be in the office five full working days a week. You have an hour's commute costing £3k per annum.

Company B other pays £25k but you can officially be based at home. You're expected to turn up in the office as required for meetings but these are usually arranged for the middle of the day. As your official workplace is your home then the "commute" is in company time and you can claim the ticket back. If you're lucky you can get some work done on an off-peak train.

I think a lot of people would give up the £5k for the £3k saving and ten more hours free time per week. And if it was me I'd suspect Company A of not being a very nice place to work.

 

[route101]

Working at Home is not ideal for new starts or people seeking work experience. Even if the job has an element of site visits.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe some, I'm really not sure about most. My team which has been working from home since the start & who are spread around the country all saw savings during the summer, but with everyone working from home (some with families) are now all seeing any savings being eaten away. This will be true for a lot, especially those outside of the capital.

Depends what you take into account. Travel is a big chunk, obviously, but all those breakfasts, lunches, coffees, beers after work, dry cleaning, suits, work shirts, work shoes, etc soon add up. And I don’t understand how anyone should heating bills have gone up if the house is normally occupied!

 

[DB]

Depends what you take into account. Travel is a big chunk, obviously, but all those breakfasts, lunches, coffees, beers after work, dry cleaning, suits, work shirts, work shoes, etc soon add up. And I don’t understand how anyone should heating bills have gone up if the house is normally occupied!

In many cases houses normally aren't occupied during the day so the heating wil be off / on low then.

 

[Bald Rick]

In many cases houses normally aren't occupied during the day so the heating wil be off / on low then.

Hence why I said ‘if the house is normally occupied’ !

 

[philosopher]

Look at it this way.

You get two job offers, one that pays £30k but from company A that expects you to be in the office five full working days a week. You have an hour's commute costing £3k per annum.

Company B other pays £25k but you can officially be based at home. You're expected to turn up in the office as required for meetings but these are usually arranged for the middle of the day. As your official workplace is your home then the "commute" is in company time and you can claim the ticket back. If you're lucky you can get some work done on an off-peak train.

I think a lot of people would give up the £5k for the £3k saving and ten more hours free time per week. And if it was me I'd suspect Company A of not being a very nice place to work.

In practice for many employees it is going to fall in between these two scenarios where they commute to the office two or three days a week. So they would still have fairly high travel costs, though less than if they commuted five days a week.

I guess this leads onto whether current season ticketing arrangements need reform.

 

[Bald Rick]

In practice for many employees it is going to fall in between these two scenarios where they commute to the office two or three days a week. So they would still have fairly high travel costs, though less than if they commuted five days a week.

I guess this leads onto whether current season ticketing arrangements need reform.

Indeed. I read somewhere a while ago that something like half of season tickets are for journeys where it is the cheapest option if you make more than two journeys a week.

 

[telstarbox]

You might also see organisations moving from expensive city centres to well-connected locations a bit further out like Croydon or Coventry.

 

[Bishopstone]

Heard today that my office is closing - we’re going in next week to pick-up personal effects and deal with confidential papers - with the alternatives being a permanent WFH contract, or a rather nebulous arrangement to use desks at a Regus set-up with no parking and some way from the nearest station. I suspect all 40-ish of us will opt to WFH, which is clearly what the business wants.

I’m quite conflicted. Rationally, I struggle to make a case for returning to the office, as I’m saving maybe £4k pa on the season ticket plus incidentals like coffees, and formal wear. I’m also saving 2.5 hours a day, in theory, though I mostly didn’t mind the commute; usually got a seat, and enjoyed reading the newspaper with a coffee, to get the day going.

At home, I feel fatigued though I get up later and don’t need to venture further than the bedroom-kitchen-study circuit. Work tends to expand into the evenings, as there’s no ’shutters down’ moment as there would have been when I had to dash to the station for the 18.27. It’s the lack of variety and stimulation that comes from being around other human beings, even if they’re just acquaintances rather than friends, that I find gruelling.

I’m in a customer-facing role, so should be back ‘on the road’ (or rail) by June, and 1-2 days out per week may be transformational. As it stands, though, I can’t see myself atrophying at home for the next decade: I’d look for a new job that got me out of the house and mingling with folk.

That said: I guess there are others who’ve commuted to key roles throughout the pandemic, to whom working from home must sound quite appealing. Maybe 2022 will be the year of the job swap!