What’s interesting is that 10% of all workers have an option to work remotely, but actually go to the office. I have colleagues like that and they all have their reasons. Some want to get away from kids for a few hours, some need human interaction to avoid falling into depression, etc.
But in general, WFH is normalised these days for many jobs. There are obviously dickhead managers here and there, but they are what you call outliers. And, obviously, there are jobs you can’t do WFH. For example, my partner is a librarian. You can’t do anything job related sitting at home - all the stuff you have to do is in the library.
Interesting. I was talking about the industry (as confirmed in the article), but you made me interested in what his commute time might be. If the sites I checked are right, it’s a 4-hour non-stop drive or 2h45m by train from Harrogate to London. Obviously there are going to be factors other than commute convenience, but that’s pretty high on most people’s priority list, along with cost for people who aren’t paid >$3m/yr. (I wish I could say emissions were an important factor for most people but even among wealthy people who have the most freedom of choice, it’s clearly not.)
The 10% statistic is also interesting but not surprising. Hypothetically if all workers in fields where physically being there isn’t essential had the WFH option, there would have to be at least a few who would prefer to be there in person. Even in North America where commutes are among the worst, there are still those who prefer on-premises work.
People who have to commute for such distances usually rent a small flat in London. They stay in a rented place throughout the working week and then go home for the weekend. I had a colleague like that pre-Covid, he lives on an island and he used to rent a small room in London.
I don’t think that he’s an outlier in the UK, WFH is pretty normal here and there are stats to back it up - https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
What’s interesting is that 10% of all workers have an option to work remotely, but actually go to the office. I have colleagues like that and they all have their reasons. Some want to get away from kids for a few hours, some need human interaction to avoid falling into depression, etc.
But in general, WFH is normalised these days for many jobs. There are obviously dickhead managers here and there, but they are what you call outliers. And, obviously, there are jobs you can’t do WFH. For example, my partner is a librarian. You can’t do anything job related sitting at home - all the stuff you have to do is in the library.
Interesting. I was talking about the industry (as confirmed in the article), but you made me interested in what his commute time might be. If the sites I checked are right, it’s a 4-hour non-stop drive or 2h45m by train from Harrogate to London. Obviously there are going to be factors other than commute convenience, but that’s pretty high on most people’s priority list, along with cost for people who aren’t paid >$3m/yr. (I wish I could say emissions were an important factor for most people but even among wealthy people who have the most freedom of choice, it’s clearly not.)
The 10% statistic is also interesting but not surprising. Hypothetically if all workers in fields where physically being there isn’t essential had the WFH option, there would have to be at least a few who would prefer to be there in person. Even in North America where commutes are among the worst, there are still those who prefer on-premises work.
People who have to commute for such distances usually rent a small flat in London. They stay in a rented place throughout the working week and then go home for the weekend. I had a colleague like that pre-Covid, he lives on an island and he used to rent a small room in London.