A month after the government said they were pivoting away from stay at home, towards head back to the office, last night, the heavies moved in.
Ok, maybe I’ve been watching too much The Sopranosin lockdown, but the Telegraph front page headline, ‘Go back to work or risk losing your job’ did seem a little ‘No more Mr Nice Guy’. ‘Sources’ preferred the phrase ‘carrot and stick’ (we’re the donkeys then, I guess) and warned they have ‘sent out’ the message that bosses at struggling firms will ‘find it easier to hand out P45s to people they never see than to those who have been at their desks’.
A lot of thoughts angrily pulsed through me – and others on social media - as the story emerged. I’ll try and order them.
Honestly, first there was, an emotive reaction - a kind of sickly fear. As much as we can be aware of our rights, many of us have been through scary redundancy moments in our lives and have been left feeling that, though companies should be bound by law to do the right and correct things at all times, that’s not always the case. This story seemed to say that ‘We all know how it really works’ attitude was now government sanctioned. That feeling is exacerbated if you’re in any of the groups that figures time and again show are first in line for the axe when the bad times hit – all women, mothers, non-white, non-straight, disabled, long-term ill, carers, people with mental health issues… the list goes on. Then there’s the fact that we’re in a recession – job cuts are inevitable at many workplaces. And there couldn’t be a worse time to lose your job. The awful thing is that this ‘briefing of fear’ worked – as much as that angered me. The fear came.
To those ‘rights’, isn’t that… illegal? To prejudicially judge someone on the flexibility they have either chosen in their role or need in their role? (see our advice from a lawyer below.) Aren’t those groups largely women and the disabled? Aren’t there discrimination laws against that? It seemed insane that suddenly we weren’t walking towards working practices that celebrated and encouraged flexibility, but going backwards, or at the very least the government (supposed to protect and make our lives better) were encouraging practices that went against what most of us thought had been put in place to protect us. The people who don't have as much to fear? The people whose reflections in the mirror were similar to that of the current cabinet.
The absolute cheek of it though! (sorry, next emotion) To have mismanaged this crisis amongst the worst in the world. To not have their own departments back in Whitehall (even senior civil servants it’s said are defying the government) but to get us lambs back to the desk regardless. To be in a job where you take whole summers off, where you go camping as ‘algorithms’ ruin students’ lives, to not attend COBRA meetings at the start of all of this, to have money and childcare and privilege and tell us to go back to work on the tube on the same day the same front page reports then highest daily rate of cases reported since June. Honestly!
Oh yes, safety! That came next. The government wants us to know it’s safe. After months of being conditioned to stay home, then stay alert, it’s bizarre to feel like you’re being mocked for being ‘soft’ and a ‘scaredy cat’. We're being gaslit. The fact is lots of business aren’t ready to provide workplaces that are safe for their employees. To make those workplaces safe takes money – the kind of money that could mean restructures need to be made. Also, making those workplaces safe could involve staggered returns and ‘week-in week-off’ working patterns - the flexible working that they say could put you ‘out of sight, out of mind and out of the door’.
Don't worry though, they're working on an app to help let you know when public transport is safest. Well first, forgive us for not having full faith in your latest foray into apps (cough test and trace cough). And secondly, if that app is workable, might it suggest, err, going in at different times? Flexibly?
Lots of people not only didn't stop working (remember our NHS heroes and delivery drivers beloved the government?) and are already back to work in shops and restaurants thanks to the government’s last two or three bids to ‘save the economy’. And while it might seem like moaning office workers not willing to do their bit to help out, the fact is our transport networks are already struggling to maintain social distances. Is WFH not helping retain that network for those who need it and need to stay healthy while using it?
Much has been said about the government’s perceived prioritisation of business over people in their back to office efforts. It’s common parlance to talk about the government caring ‘more about Pret than people’. But that’s an oversimplification, because Pret is people. Yesterday, they cut 3,000 jobs. I think what people find galling is the type of businesses that are getting panicked about. Who owns a lot of the high street chains? Could it be they’re the kind of people this government rely on? Yes some of us aren’t shopping as much – but saving when it comes to putting ourselves in the hands of this government seems wise. And not all business are dying – local business, small online stores, delivery companies, sustainable companies, these places have seem booms, not busts. Perhaps, along with lots of other shifts we’ve experienced in 2020, this would be a good time to explore our economic models and the ways in which consumers are changing. To invest in other institutions. To look at inventive ways of boosting our economy. I don’t know, I’m not an economist – but I hear there are a few of them in the civil service. There are experts in other areas too. Could it be time to engage some different brains, rather than panicking because we’re not all spending £12 on lunch? Anyway, the fact is lots of us are spending £12 on lunch – just somewhere new.
It may seem lame to say so, but many of us are simply enjoying our newfound flexibility. After years of feeling companies didn’t support flexible work, or that employers viewed us as slackers and a problem. That WFH just ‘wasn’t possible really’ in many workplaces. That parents just had to work it out because ‘it was your decision to have a kid’. Or that non-parents felt left out and not allowed flexibility their peers with children were allowed. The coronavirus lockdown was an opportunity to show that we could work this way. The government says they’re worried about the mental health issues around WFH. But there’s a spectrum of how people feel about this – and the majority would enjoy a mix of working in office and from home. And really, that’s not hard. Unless you’re the kind of ‘computer says no’ dinosaur that believes people working from home aren’t as productive. DON’T EVEN START US ON THAT ONE. Most of us have had to be more productive than ever while juggling a hell of a lot else. Most of us are now living in a world where actually our mental health is of importance and being able to combine work with exercise, putting a wash on, being home for kids’ bathtimes, working in patterns that suit us or just not wanting to murder someone twice a day on a bus, is helping. It’s a shame our government can’t keep up with that. I wonder how many of the cabinet have commuted 90 minutes to work and sat at a desk 9.30-6, five days a week, fitting in dashing either side to cover commitments, children, elderly parents or fitting in a life. Actually I don’t wonder. I know.
The ‘I know you’re all actually watching The Chase and not doing your work’ vibe is all a bit ‘plebs know your place’, isn’t it boomer? Aside from anything else, it just stinks of 'do as I say' elitism. ‘Companies will realise some people weren’t working as hard as they thought… There is going to be a review of how productive people are,’ said a senior source.
Well, it might be years away, but one day there’ll be an election. That’s another way to ‘review how productive people are’. I wonder, given all that 2020 has involved, how that PDR will go?
We asked Slater and Gordon employment lawyer Sarah Hexter about the idea that working from home could endanger your employment.
She said: 'It could be unlawful for immune compromised employees, those living with vulnerable people, or those with genuine concerns about the safety of their working environment, to be selected for dismissal if they need to work from home. And suggesting staff who don’t feel safe returning to work could be at risk of dismissal may clash with their rights under employment law.
'All employers need to carry out Covid-19 risk assessments and should seek staff input in order to implement a safe system at work. They should be clearly communicating these steps with employees.
'If an employer doesn’t do this then employees could have genuine concerns about how safe it is for them to return to work. If they feel their workplace is not safe and they refuse to return to work they have certain rights and protections under employment law.
'For example, the right not to be dismissed if they complain about, or refuse to work, in what they genuinely consider to be unsafe working conditions. They should discuss these concerns with their employer at the earliest opportunity.
'However, employees cannot unreasonable refuse to return to work and must comply with reasonable management requests. But if an employer is asking someone to work in an unsafe environment the request to return to work could be considered unreasonable.
'If someone is genuinely concerned about returning to work, and feeling their employer is trying to force them to return despite feeling unsafe or threatening them with dismissal if they don’t comply, they should seek legal advice urgently.'
READ MORE::a[It's Back To Work Day, But What Are My Rights If My Employer Is Making Me Go Back To Work And I Want To Work From Home?]{href='https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/coronavirus-rights-made-to-work/' target='_blank' rel='noopener noreferrer'}
READ MORE: When Did ‘Save The NHS’, Get Overtaken By ‘Save Pret’?