Last week both Twitter and Facebook announced that they plan to let their employees work from home on a permanent basic once the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions end, leading to the suggestion that other companies might follow suit and result in a significant change to the way people work. However, while advocates might push for such a change as a way to give employees more flexibility and freedom, it could have its downsides too.
As the virus spread across the world, employers were forced to ask most of their staff to work from home in a bid to adhere to the strict lockdown guidelines that were being put in place by local and national governments. Even gaming companies, usually a stickler for studio-based work, have been letting employees work remotely. Although there has been some struggle in adjusting to this new reality quickly, some companies have been managing without a properly functioning office for more than two months now. This is largely thanks to the existing remote work apps that up until now were a much smaller part of a company's organizational tool belt. More recently, the pandemic has highlighted just how crucial video-calling platforms, like Skype, Slack and Zoom are to the survival of businesses. Furthermore, this way of working is expected to continue with studies, such as this one by Microsoft, suggesting remote working could become far more common in the future.
The major decision by Twitter and Facebook to let a large portion of their employees work from home on a permanent basis indicates Microsoft's prediction is starting to become a reality. However, there is the question of how good this is for the employees themselves? While both Dorsey and Zuckerberg are selling their decisions by highlighting how it will keep employees safe and give them flexibility, while also acting as a social good to reduce a carbon footprint, there are negatives associated with this type of life and work-style..
Although working from home gives employees flexibility when it comes to issues like childcare and commuting, there are disadvantages as well. As this 2019 Buffer remote work survey report shows, one main issue is that most companies don't pay the expenses related to remote work, such as internet charges, co-working space rents, and funds for refreshments. All of these are often provided in an office setting but without a physical office, that's money saved for the companies and costs incurred by the workers. Another possibility is that there could also be a cut in pay for employees, and this could be aided by the fact that American companies could be motivated to hire more international workers, leaving fewer domestic jobs available. Considering a move to remote working means working from anywhere, suddenly the difference between being US-based or not is less important. If this was to happen then it could also add to the pressure on existing employees, with the survey pointing to communicating over different time-zones as posing its own issues.
Then there's the more personal effects a change like this might bring, such as the inability to relax when home is also the office. When work and home intersect in this way, many might feel less able to unplug from work. In addition, loneliness can also play a role as well, since remote work prevents the typical level of socialization that most office workers will already be used to. Being disconnected from co-workers could also mean not being able to collaborate effectively or could hamper unionization, even though some big tech companies might see the latter as a positive.
The reality is that major remote working announcements are not just reactions to the pandemic or solely designed to make life more comfortable for their workers. Instead, companies including Facebook and Twitter also stand to gain from the change, and while it will solve some problems for workers, it is also likely to introduce new ones to the working landscape.
Source: Buffer
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/2B5UxnB
0 Comments