Topic: Remote Working and Inequality - page 2. (Read 956 times)

The situation is worsening due to the pandemic in many countries, including Ukraine. It is very difficult for me and my family, because there is no permanent job due to quarantine and I have to look for a distant job, although trading in the market still does not bring me a good income today, although I have a certain capital for long-term prospects. I hope for good performance of the cryptocurrency market at the end of this year or next year to get out of this situation.

Obviously, covid-19 cases in some countries in the world,still increasing and is reducing the economy gradually to zero level.
Many organization put some technology on ground during this pandemic to control their workers to enable them to gain more profit from the customers.

This is of course true, but let me outline the position of the company where I work, as I believe it is representative of a general trend:
- Covid has cost the business a lot of money; the business is therefore more focused than ever on cutting costs.
- Many employees have been working remotely since lockdown, and productivity has remained consistent.
- Expensive offices have been sitting empty.
- In the short-term, offices have been set up to run at limited capacity if required, complying with social distancing rules. In practice most people continue to WFH, and if they all wanted to return then the offices could only accommodate a small proportion of them. So a degree of WFH has to continue until the pandemic is over.
- Longer-term, leases can be allowed to expire, and owned buildings can be sold, resulting in much reduced costs and, in the case of owned buildings, selling or renting them out (if anyone wants them) can generate significant revenue.

Companies can improve their position by either generating new revenue, or by cutting costs. The pandemic is ongoing, and for most companies (Amazon and co excepted) there is little chance of increasing revenue. The most viable option is to cut costs. You can do that either by reducing workers (which reduces the amount of work you can do, and so the amount of revenue you can generate), or you can do it by reducing outgoings such as maintaining expensive offices.

Cost-cutting with that building or physical office matters? It is really subjective or depend on the situation and as you mentioned you wouldnt know if they do actually own the building or just renting
but we cant really exclude when it comes to lessening the expense and when it comes to productivity then i can say that it would really have some differences yet people do work
on a physical place compared to those who work from home will not really be that efficient but somehow this do vary on what kind of company or industry your company
is focusing on.

Well, if they own their places they could get to a smaller office building, even one of those collective rented places whatever they are called, get an office in there and it would be quite cheap and you wouldn't worry about anything (like wifi or coffee or whatever, everything is ready there) and you can rent your own place instead, that way you would be profiting plus everyone would be working at home and if there is office needed you still have a smaller version as well.

There is really nothing wrong with working at home, I can clearly tell you that productivity may sound like it is lesser but in all honesty I can say that it is higher because at work for 8 hours you are not constantly working without break, you do have plenty of free time, compared to remote where you could do whatever but the work will always be done to keep the remote work going.

The pandemic has thrown many companies into unprecedented financial difficulties, and there is now a huge incentive to cut costs wherever possible. Couple this with the fact that it's impossible to maintain social distancing in what was previously a full office, and suddenly remote working seems a more viable option than expensive city-centre offices. Companies have also seen during lockdown that remote-working productivity (from those workers who haven't been furloughed) has remained consistent with the pre-pandemic level.

I think that in many countries and many industries, a mental shift has occurred and remote-working will expand hugely.
But I agree with your point that it won't happen everywhere. There are minimum requirements, such as a fast and stable internet connection, that aren't available in certain parts of the world.

If you can to think more positive even the recent covid-19 crisis told us many things about the remote working and staying home. Now people are forced to learn to work like this. Unfortunately, in many countries, the companies won't allow the employees to do remote work even if the don't need to be physically stay at work, even is some cases staying home and doing remote work will give better returns. In this case and doing the remote working at home, bitcoin will be useful as a payment method for the workers who work from home. However, all the employees will need to get some education before they can use this method for their works.

Without a doubt remote work will solve many issues for people like you and offer them new opportunities, however as I have thought more about this issue I think that over the long term this will bring a reduction in the living standards of those living in countries with high costs of living, think about it can you compete against a trained professional that is willing to do the job for 10% of what you need? You could drop your price but not to that extent and as such many will have to either accept a lesser pay or remain unemployed.

I don't know which countries you're in, but here in the UK the government is desperately trying to get WFH people to return to their offices, in order to increase the number of people in city centres so that they can help the businesses there that rely on foot traffic. The government is interested only in the economy, they have zero interest in the health and wellbeing of the population.

I feel what you feel right now because my co-workmate had been into positive contact which him as direct contact needed to get a swab test. All of  us were being lockdown in our offices for few days while waiting for the result of swab test and we were then became PUM(Person Under Monitoring). It is so hard getting lock up and nowhere to go. It was so boring actually even if it was just about 10 days of quarantine/waiting for swab test result.

Now, we are very careful not to get PUM anymore because our job will get stack and more over time do instead of having some break and short time for relaxing.

me too..if i will be given a chance to choose..I would rather stay at home and work at home..why?because even though you have around 2 to 3  days of skeletal duty in the office..it will not guarantee you that you might be safe..in fact thats the horrible thing happening in our office  now..from time to time staff were diagnosed as positive and all of the closed contact needs to do the 14 days home quarantine..after 14 days and you got cleared..you have to go back to skeletal duty again ..and when someone got positive result again then you will be required to do home quarantine again..this is insane! especially that tjere were no Final medication for this pnandemic.

I can relate to this point. Before Covid, I used to WFH occasionally. But now I have been WFH since March, and there is certainly the temptation to log-on in the evening and at weekends, 'just for a few minutes'. As for whether the expectation from bosses is an 'always available' mentality, that's not the case where I am, but I appreciate it can be different elsewhere.

But I do prefer WFH and hope it will continue in the longer term.

We seem to keep agreeing with each other, but with qualifications.
I do sort of agree with your statements above... except that these are special circumstances. Covid 19 has placed immense financial pressure on a lot of companies. They are looking to save costs wherever they can. Whilst I would agree that they are not going to rush into this, and a lot will indeed be tied to long-term rental contracts... I suspect this is something they will look at sooner rather than later.

I guess if we could somehow manage to keep the remote working as an option, there would be a lot of people who will pick that, you can talk about all the distractions and everything all you want but as long as it is an option most people will pick that. Obviously there will be times when you have to go to the office, there will be meetings and all that, everyone will work time to time there but generally if people can work from home they will. Plenty of business' are doing that already, so I doubt it is a big problem. I doubt that working at home makes things too much different, I mean what is it at home that would distract you, kids? Go to office if you do not want to be around your kids, that is very simple, nobody forces you to continue remote after pandemic is over.

Possibly. Still, keep in mind that such companies may have their own (owned) buildings for office spaces or they are rented based on very long time based contracts. Also those office spaces may be customized.
All in all I expect that quite a lot of them didn't give up on those contracts yet and may not do that too soon either.
So your logic, while not incorrect, is applicable only after some more years like this.

Coding world has changed to remote work a lot, it is in fact the highest rated freelance job in the world, if you know how to code well and if you could market yourself very well, not only you can find jobs but people forget that there are jobs that require you to be constantly working, they basically hire you but just as a freelancer instead of full time, so you can work anywhere in the world as long as you do your job, it was a thing way before the pandemic.

Now people realize there are tons of jobs that could be done at home, technology improved the world a lot and since we have enough tech to work at home, we could literally do whatever we want from home. Few jobs are still require to go outside, that will never end but I do not think that anything should be changing just because some people can work from home, if they are still doing the work, they should still be paid same.

All true. And yet, even if (hypothetically) productivity were somewhat lower due to remote-working, it would still be financially beneficial to the company to persist with it, because there would be a huge reduction in overheads due to no longer having to maintain an expensive physical office - or from closing the big office and opening a cheaper smaller one if running a hybrid office/WFH model. This is why I think WFH will continue in certain industries, even if only partially. The cost-saving from not running the office is the biggest benefit. If there is no noticeable productivity drop (or even a small drop) due to WFH, the it's still the preferred option.

The bigger the company is, the more complicate the flow is.
Imho, the big companies will be able to fully assess only in 1-2 years if working remotely brings or not a productivity drop (and if it does, in what areas/projects it happens).
It all depends very much on the people working there - there are everywhere efficient workers, diligent workers and lazy workers - and it also depends on the type of work/project.

Also while planning or writing code can be easily done even on the beach, having meeting or doing support is sub-optimal if it's not in a "contained" (office) space, else the others will hear seagulls or kids (yours or neighbors') during the calls (and it also affects productivity).

Then keep in mind that not all employees have access to fast internet at home, for various reasons. And slower internet may also affect the productivity.


And I will also add that especially in the big companies there are always people on managing positions which will never admit that their projects' productivity dropped because they don't want to risk losing their position.

So..yeah.. it's complicated.

There have been a few studies:


https://www.thehrdirector.com/business-news/covid19/what-100-days-of-lockdown-has-treated-us-about-productivity-and-mental-health/

Also see:
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/increase-in-productivity-and-risk-since-the-covid-19-lockdown/
https://www.microbizmag.co.uk/productivity-statistics-coronavirus-lockdown/

I appreciate that this is from the employee point of view, and results may be offset by people answering that they have been more productive because they want to be able to continue to work from home in future... but a lot of big companies - particularly tech companies - have said that remote working can continue in the long term. They are not going to say this if they've seen a productivity drop.

The point about companies going bankrupt - this isn't because their employees are working at home, it is from a loss of business during lockdown due to closure of physical stores (and reduced footfall since re-opening), and from supply chain issues with closure of businesses further upstream.

I appreciate a lot of it depends on the industry. Much IT work is certainly well-placed to be done remotely.

A world where brick and mortar doesn’t exist is not the standard you should be measuring against. I agree we’re not going to zero, but we are going to see massive vacancies of commercial real estate. Compared to Europe, the United States has far more retail sq foot per capita and this was the thesis for a decline in commercial tenant activity in the longbow term. Covid has only accelerated that. You’ll see it in the coming quarters in large commercial REITs. They’re losing tenants and it’s not likely to recover anywhere near pre-Covid levels. Doesn’t mean it’s going to zero, but it’s going to be hurting, especially those that are highly leveraged, as real estate companies tend to be. Keep an eye out for the publicly traded ones in the coming quarters. It’s the canary in the coal mine.