UKH

Back in the day, the story went that high paid people in senior roles deserved their extra pay as their roles were very stressful and damaging to health. Then the Whitehall study happened and It turned out that mortality and stress related illness in high grades was lower than that of lower grades. Looking deeper it seemed that lack of autonomy, associated with lower grade jobs was really bad for you health.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study

Now a new analysis looking at the full returns to the choice of occupation and education has shown up another myth: that extra pay compensated for unpleasant work. It turn out the opposite is true: the quality attached to roles correlates with pay, and worse still that the inequalities known in wage levels, relating to gender and ethnicity look, even worse when qualitative evidence on such factors are taken into account:

 https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15279/the-full-returns-to-the-choice-of...

This to me links to the recent working from home thread. I was going to point out (before the thread got so large it locked) that improved autonomy makes a big difference to health and if working from home helps some individuals with that it should also be encouraged for public health reasons.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/working_from_home_-_keep_it_goi...

n reply to Offwidth:

Danny Dorling writes very well about this in some of his books. I think particularly in Injustice but I could well be wrong:

http://www.dannydorling.org/books/injustice/

I've only read the 2010 edition but sure the 2015 is all the more relevant.

If you haven't read his books I'd strongly recommend them. Fiercely written and heftily referenced.

Have we ever placed the correct value on the people that do the really important jobs?

When it comes to working from home most of these jobs quite simply cannot be done from home.

This video is great and correlates well with your comments on both pay and autonomy

youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&

For those without time to watch, in brief, once people are paid enough to cover their basic needs extra money doesn't improve their work.   The key factors to quality of output (and presumably happiness) are autonomy, mastery and purpose

There has long been a very convincing case for improving many aspects of working conditions in order to benefit health and well-being.  So, yes, clearly a public health issue, and a major one. But in the current political climate the chances of this public health issue being taken seriously as a social policy issue, or being the subject of any form of regulation, seem lower than they have been in my lifetime.

The relationship between autonomy specifically and occupational well-being is complex though. Similarly, the relationship between working location (even if we just focus on 'working at home') and autonomy is very complicated.  So, it seems unlikely that allowing/encouraging more homeworking would simplistically improve work-related well-being indirectly by increasing autonomy.  There are just so many other factors to take into account.

Was this every claimed?  The claims generally seem to be that "talent" is in demand and therefore high pay is needed to avoid people leaving (e.g. Bankers around 2008, VCs in Universities etc.).

I think this is exactly it. Why would you pay anyone more than you need to. If you over pay someone, it soon becomes cheaper to let that person go, and re-hire at a cheaper rate. Not a great situation.

If you don't pay them enough, and treat people well enough, you loose them, and pay the  agency fees to re-hire. 

So there's a delicate balance to get right. A balance which favours some people's attributes (e.g people that aren't agreeable) more than others unfortunately.

Sure, but having the choice to work from home (where it is practical), if it clearly benefits the employee, is an example of autonomy. Working from home in itself isn't (just the opposite if it's forced).

We had similar arguments on the other working from home thread:  some posters were being idiotic: putting up the strawman argument that we were pushing for everyone to work from home (clearly impossible); others were in denial of those who expressed very clear benefits for them (with no performance concerns being raised). When working from home is possible and practical  the argument being made was to support those who want it ( and with the proviso there is no detriment to performance) mainly to cut travel (wasted time, congestion and emissions)  and the need for so much office space (there was no mention of any potential health benefits from improved work autonomy).

Whitehall studies didn't ignore the complexity around roles and autonomy but the differing results were significant.

If what you are saying is that working at home should be allowed where we can be confident that its effects on workers will be positive on balance, then you'll get no argument from me on that front. But it still sounds a bit like you're implying a simplistic relationship between work at home, autonomy and well-being. And I don't believe the available evidence would support that becaue there are so many other variables. I'm not saying those things are likely to be unrelated, but that the relationships are likely to be very complex.

I'm not really following that.  What does 'the differing results were significant' mean?

One issue that doesn't seem to get addressed re working from home and inequality is the moral of those who can't.

I work out in the field most days in all weather's and conditions with guys whose managers, supervisors and schedulers have spent the last 2 years WFH but the guys and girls that actually do the tasks that these people aledgerdly organise (I say aledgerdly because more is arranged on the fly by a  guy on site on his phone that the admin team manage) don't have the option.

They have to set off to site at 0730 and they finish at 1715. There is no starting late and working through lunch to drop Jonny at child care or as seems to be the case from the times I phone the admin team because mum or dad is WFH they don't need to spend 1/4 of their wage on child care anymore but the people who do all the critical things that keeps the water, gas, electricity and other infrastructure working just crack on as normal and get disgruntled about it. 

Fair points.  On the other hand, with more people working at home, those who don't, have an easier time travelling, parking etc. so it is sort of in their interest to have people out of the way. But, yes, on balance, it is a major plus to have the option of WFM, and it would seem reasonable for wages to reflect that.

I know what you mean about the disgruntlement. I've worked at home some of the time for 20 years and, until covid, I worked with a lot of people who were never allowed to work at home and who now only have quite limited scope for working at home. There has been understandable resentment about this difference, because there's no proper, logical reason for it. The agreement that those of us doing my job have is that our work locations are determined by the nature of the tasks we're doing. If my colleagues who don't have this agreement were to fight to get it then I would be right behind them. But I strongly resent the idea that the solution to them not having such an agreement is to take it away from me. We also have the 'support staff' vs 'those who do the real stuff' distinctions going on and I think this is a really harmful way to think of things.

Also worth bearing in mind that there is often disgruntlement between different groups of workers over all kinds of other things too.  I guess the key is that any differences between workers should be fair and based on clear work-related factors. But as referenced in the the comments about pay, it's not the way things are unfortunately.

Pre-Covid, & pre-retirement, I was based in a French museum with extensive grounds. Large parts of my job could have been done from home and I did when there were rail/métro strikes - good for writing without interuptions. But requests from myself & many others to work from home routinely (maybe 1 or 2 days a week) were always refused on the basis that it wouldn't be fair on the staff who couldn't work from home (eg gardening staff). This was supported by at least one of the unions.

Of course when Covid arrived, ways were quickly found for all office based staff, plus a lot of lab based staff to work from home and now many staff work from home 1 or 2 days a week as long as they don't have meetings to attend in person.

This whole "some people can't" argument is such rubbish. Some people can't do their jobs without a hard hat or rope-access harness -- that does not mean that dentists need hard hats, too, or that those with desk jobs should always be attached with two redundant points of safety lest they fall.

And wouldn't less people taking up on-site space and clogging up the commute just free up limited space and capacity for those who do need to be on-site and commute to get there?

It's just an argument in defense of the old ways because a lot of people are scared and defensive about what might happen if the working world takes a step away from valuing presence and noise. Those people fear, in my opinion, that the working world might then turn towards valuing effort and contribution or, perhaps, skill and ability and then were'd they be at when their brash, outgoing personalities, fancy trousers, wrist watches and shiny shoes no longer mean anything and they can't get extra credit for the fact that they answer emails while on their interminable train-journeys hone, too?

Of course, nobody ever comments on whether those email replies were helpful contributions to any conversation or not, just that they were a symbol of dedication and "work ethic" -- give the bloke a raise! Bravo!

That's not to say that all who need to be on-site in person are chancers. But I do feel that those who are kicking up such a resistance against work-from-home are *not*, in fact, the hard-working types who just happen to have jobs that preclude them from it. The vehemence against work-from-home is coming from those who'll lose their control and those who fear change in the work-place, from those who know how the old game was played and played it successfully. It's the suits who are against it, not the workers.

You don't. 

Exactly. As long as the decisions about it are fair and genuinely job related.

It's reduced traveling time = more time working. At the start of the pandemic I was averaging 4 extra services a day because the roads were so quiet. Now I average 2 more than pre codid levels. Great for me as a contractor but not so great for their guys who get the same regardless of if they have a spanner in their hand or are traveling between sites. 

It would and I'm sure moving forward rates will reflect that on new jobs but not for the hundreds of thousands out there now. Business are struggling and can't just increase the wage of site workers but neither can they decrease the wage of WFH. 

I agree with everything you said but to be more charitable, I'd say there are also people who prefer human contact (as an introvert I find this odd) and who thrive on the buzz of the office (again, weird). I know one or two who struggled a lot in lockdown because of this. I sympathize with them a little bit.

The worst are the extroverts who think everyone else should be the same, that everyone should be around them. That excessive human contact is good for everyone; meetings, whiteboard sessions and team building days. Often, they end up as managers so end up inflicting this on their team. Many extroverts do not understand introverts. You might say it's the same the other way around, but I think less so, as introverts are often left in no doubt about what an extrovert thinks!

I'm saying the former: to me it's about choice where its possible and where benefits are clear. I don't see the relationship as simplistic at all but the 'social class' results were very clear, as the authors said:

 "a steep inverse association between social class, as assessed by grade of employment, and mortality from a wide range of diseases" has been demonstrated. Summing up the moral of the Whitehall studies, the researchers concluded that "more attention should be paid to the social environments, job design, and the consequences of income inequality."

I've been incredibly frustrated over my career seeing so many illogical decisions on who gets more flexibility at work, with often those who would benefit most and be least likely to skive being the ones most often refused (and more often would be from already disadvantaged groups). I've also seen departments where significant flexibility was suddenly removed with no negotiation, leading to lots of additional stress and disruption and too many good people leaving.

Also, conversations about the forms of flexibility that can benefit organisational functioning and employee well-being have been hindered by the popularisation of the idea of 'the flexible workforce' ... which basically means things like zero hours contracts where the flexibility doesn't serve the employees' interests.  And the fact that, in many organisations, policies exist to offer flexible working, but evidence shows that those who actually use them are punished and have their careers damaged.

The only employee who likes team building days are those who don't like doing their job.

People should pick the job, career or employer that suits them. Plenty office workers at the office or wfh would love to be outdoors working in sunny May, less so during a typical november day! The same for those that can't work alone, need company or supervision etc.. the key is at least trying to give employees some choice where practical. Basing company policy to avoid jealousy between vastly different roles is ridiculous, those unhappy should change career if not being able to wfh bothers them that much, it's needless pandering. 

 As an employee and as an individual you can ultimately decide whether you want to work in that environment or not.

We have a flexible labour and jobs market, use it to get what you want.

Many do move. When good organisations are damaged by dumb ideas this creates inefficiency (pointless work pressures) and is stressful. Yet a lot of people are just not very mobile, so most grumble and get on with their job for some time. Those who put up a fight are usually cornered.

Especially when you consider the fact that without the people that get out and physically do stuff or make stuff many of the desk jobs that can be done from home would cease to exist.

I think you work from home.

I find the opposite, most are mobile in terms of their jobs and just do not want to move. As an individual it really is your choice to stay or to move.Use the labour market to your advantage, it is what it is there for.

And lots do every year.

"because mum or dad is WFH they don't need to spend 1/4 of their wage on child care anymore"

Interesting you raise this, we have been surprised how many people we know have not gone back to wrap around care (i.e. before/after school club) post the end of lockdown; they just have their kids at home whilst they work. I think this risks a negative reaction from organizations (i.e. stopping WFH etc.) and it doesn't feel equitable to me.

For us its a 'red face' test, we couldn't truthfully say to our bosses we are fully focused on work if we were also responsible for the kids (7 & 9) at the same time - hence we have gone back to wrap around care. 

However as others point out its about autonomy/flexibility, we have people where I work who's activity is not time critical during the day who have said I want to pick my kids up then work in the evening - sensible conversation, everyone clear on approach.

Sometimes I wonder where you gain your certainty..... have you considered the organisations you know well are maybe better than average, and that's the reason people don't want to move because of work problems?

I dealt with disputes alongside many others who dealt with disputes, and coordinated common themes, alongside HR that in the main I trusted. Having expertise, friends and family often asked me for advice. I also visited well over a hundred companies over the years dealing with engineering and science placement students and was part of coordination of common themes from that, and worked on employment support for graduates and common themes.

Yes many people move, but as an example let's say an employee has a house near work with a new mortgage and kids in a nearby good school and no similar organisations nearby: in my experience such an employee will tolerate a serious amount of crap before they move. Someone with no ties will often just start looking immediately if facing crap.  There will be many in-between and of course much better organisations.

There are enough organisational issues as it is without re-starting old ones post covid. If someone has shown they can do significant amounts of work from home effectively and they want to, why on earth would anyone sensible prevent that?

Someone above mentioned home childminding. I know some like this and they often do work later in the day, when the kids are asleep, to catch up. The key in doing their job is getting the work done well,  not in doing it undisturbed between 9 and 5. Some give up work and others prefer to pay for childcare to gain more leisure time (but that's not always affordable for everyone and sometimes, especially as many providers are really struggling, it can be impractical). 

I am certain that there is a jobs market and that people can move jobs in the broadest sense..that is all I am putting across.

Neglecting the fact that for many people, changing jobs is not a viable option, for a very wide range of personal and professional reasons. 

Exactly and working from home for the sake of it is vastly overated

It's what you do that matters rather than where you do it, life would almost certainly be improved if I didn't live on the job.

Well it allowed me to live in the Alps but keep my London career path so I would disagree. 

Actually you sort of make a good point. As someone who has WFH primarily for the last 10 years I've made sure that I have a dedicated office setup that is far better than any environment in a company provided office.

Since I don't have to live in central London anymore I can afford a house with the extra space, but the main thing is I close the door on that room and I've pretty much left work. I'm not hunched over a laptop at the breakfast table or working surrounded by folded laundry, I'm also not seeing reminders of work when I'm meant to be off, which I think is a key issue that many are struggling with who were thrust into WFH without first having the proper setup. 

The nature of the work makes a huge difference.

Whilst Nick is sort of correct that I work from home, it might be closer the the truth to say that I "live at work".

I'm  a livestock farmer and we are a family farm with no full time staff so the responsibility is pretty much 24/7.  It would be very different if I had a job that could be done anywhere  or that I could just close the door on.

I'm sure that someone will be along in a while to accuse me of sour grapes or a "race to the bottom" but I have no regrets and it is interesting to muse on the different circumstances in which we all find ourselves.

I'm still inclined to wonder if those jobs that cannot be done in a WFH style are likely to be less disposable or more secure than those that can.

I dispute that. I don't like my job, but team building days are even worse.

You are the exception to rule, why don't you find a stone whose shape matches your thoughts and feelings about work or team building, tell me about it...  

No he's not the exception

Likes team building days  - - > not like job

This isn't two way 

So it's not true that 

Not liking job - - > likes team building