Ministers have argued that productivity will rise, or youngers workers will be disadvantaged without a physical return to work – and even claimed that workers should go back if they want to be promoted!
The pandemic is changing the way we live, work and travel. Though we can’t be fully sure of its long-term effects yet, when it comes to remote working there is a major disconnect between employers and employees, but that is not the full story on the future of work.
Where governments stand on remote working
Kwasi Kwarteng MP, the BEIS Secretary, has said that the promised Employment Bill will be brought forward when the “time is right” and “not while the pandemic is ongoing and continuing to affect the economy and the labour market in some unpredictable ways”. However, the Government has issued a consultation on flexible working regulation. The Welsh Government would like to see a workplace model where staff can choose to work in the office, at home or in a hub location. The Scottish Government feels that any return to work needs to be driven by both business needs and staff wellbeing, but that organisations should consider enabling their workforce to work remotely beyond coronavirus.
Our evidence
In April 2020, Understanding Society launched a Covid-19 survey in response to the pandemic, funded by the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council and The Health Foundation. Adult panel members were asked about:
- working at home
- their personal productivity and reasons for any change
- their working preference for the future when Covid restrictions have been relaxed
- the kinds of flexible working practices offered by their employer and whether they use them.
One major benefit of longitudinal data is that we can compare people’s answers from before the pandemic and during to identify changes, monitor trends, and see what might be driving them. Our demographic data also allows researchers to examine how factors such as industry and occupation, distance travelled to work, housing, and having children influence the probability of working at home.
What’s driving our behaviours and preferences?
Analysis by Understanding Society (PDF) shows that 47.7% of workers were working at home during the third lockdown (6 January 2021). As expected, there are huge differences by industry and occupation. We would expect a substantial increase in employees working at home in industries that already had policies in place, but the pandemic has seen significant increases in working from home in industries where this was rare before Covid – such as construction; education; arts, entertainment and recreation; and public administration and defence. This is particularly true in London, even when other factors are controlled for.
Increase in working at home (partially or fully) by industry and occupation:
People with children, those with higher incomes, people living in larger accommodation and those having to commute for longer were all likely to work at home – but beyond a minimum threshold, an increase in rooms per person did not increase the likelihood of home working.
Preferences for working at home by household characteristics and commuting time:
How is all this shaping worker preferences? The overwhelming majority of employees (87%) who worked at home in January 2021 said they would like to continue this at least sometimes once social distancing measures are relaxed and workplaces go back to normal. Interestingly, some of the factors examined – such as having children, higher incomes or living in larger accommodation – don’t seem to play much of a role in people’s preferences. The factor that really stands out is commuting time!
Commuting and wellbeing
By and large, commuting is rarely pleasurable, and public transport is expensive in the UK compared to many of its European counterparts. Previous research using our data has found that longer commute times are associated with lower job and leisure time satisfaction, increased strain and poorer mental health.
However, workers in England appear to be good at balancing the negative aspects of commuting against benefits such as access to employment, earnings and housing, so longer commute times are not associated with lower overall life satisfaction. Any move to cut wages based on remote working, then, would be a retrograde step.
Personal productivity
For employers the pandemic has shown that more flexible arrangements can be good for them and their employees, although the advantageous or detrimental effects could be highly varied between organisations. Many factors affect organisational productivity, from leadership and management to skills and investment, but on the whole employees don’t appear to have been ‘skiving’ according to our data. For most employers, hybrid working is still very new to draw out deep conclusions, particularly its impact on creativity and innovation.
A two-tier workforce?
Even during the pandemic, the majority of employees were not working from home, usually because the nature of their work (construction, manufacturing, hospitality and medicine, for example).
People in industries such as financial services, information and communications, and administrative and business support services were far more likely to work at home – and this was also true of managers, but flexible working was unequal even before the pandemic. According to research by the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development, 46% of UK employees do not have access to any form of flexible working in their current role.
From quantity of work to quality and security?
Work autonomy, terms of employment, pay and benefits, work-life balance, mental health, opportunities for progression, representation, social support and cohesion, and health and safety are all important aspects of work, according to Dr Mark Williams, Professor of Human Resource Management at Queen Mary, University of London. But more intrinsic aspects of jobs are more strongly predictive of wellbeing than extrinsic aspects.
There is a perception that quality of work in the UK has been deteriorating for some time, partly due the rise in low-paid and insecure work since the financial crisis. But analysis by the Resolution Foundation of BHPS/Understanding Society data reveals that employee job satisfaction levels have only declined slightly over the past 30 years. What is striking is the rise in reported work intensity and stress levels, and the dramatic fall in job satisfaction among the lowest earners – which was much higher than other earners and has now caught-up with the rest. Effectively, a levelling-down!
If the battle over the future of work is not about work-life balance but the nature of work itself – workers wanting greater control over how much, where and when they work – as argued by Emma Jacobs at the Financial Times (reprinted in the Irish Times), progress on improving the core aspects of work such as conditions, autonomy and progression could help improve wellbeing.
However, governments tend to prioritise job creation and access to work, and focus less on job quality. One reason is that there is link between unemployment rates and getting elected. With furlough at an end, and major labour shortages in key sectors, this focus is unlikely to shift in the short term. But good work is crucial to economic performance and wellbeing, and the promised Employment Bill will be negligent if it ignores this most fundamental aspect of people’s working life.
If you are responding to the government consultation on flexible working (deadline 1 December 2021), do have a look at our briefing and Dr Mark Williams’ recent talk on improving working lives
Authors
Raj Patel
Raj Patel is Associate Director, Policy and Partnerships, at Understanding Society
