Bad journalism is bad, period. Bad journalism is even worse when it tries to impact working culture that benefits employees in general

The recent article by Jane Thier in Fortune falls short of responsible journalism when discussing remote work culture. It leans heavily on references that are loosely connected and fail to offer compelling arguments against remote work. The article is the definition of bad journalism, and it would have been laughable if it wasn’t tragic. It starts by the image they use to showcase the remote worker.

https://fortune.com/2023/06/14/is-remote-work-era-ending-doomed-4-reasons-why-productivity/

Starting with a reference to an economic blogger, the piece laces in vague arguments that offer little concrete evidence, such as a subjective assertion about companies growing tired of remote work and a predictably 'slight' increase in remote work post-pandemic. It's embarrassing to see such vagueness passed as solid reasoning.

The inclusion of statistics from Paychex, a Fortune-owned company, raises basic questions about potential biases. She mentions “Nearly one-third of employees told Paychex they found their onboarding experience confusing. That figure jumped to 36% for remote workers”. This is even more concerning when you realize the percentage difference between general onboarding confusion and remote worker confusion is merely 3 percentage points. To use this as a battering ram against remote work isn't just shaky—it's plain wrong.

As for the McKinsey report, Thier points to remote workers being more likely to report mental health issues as a negative. Really? If anything, it's a sign of the honesty and transparency remote work seems to foster, bringing to light the issues that traditional workspaces often sweep under the rug.

Thier's dismissal of a study highlighting that remote workers actually work more hours is alarming. She disregards this substantial piece of evidence, favouring a quote from an individual who remains "unconvinced". In the modern age, productivity isn't measured by hours clocked in. It's about the quality, the creativity, and the impact of the work that's produced.

In conclusion, although I personally work from the office 4 to 5 times a week, I am a firm believer in the benefits of remote work. It fosters a culture of trust and empowerment, reduces commute times, and promotes work-life balance, particularly for caregivers who bear a disproportionate burden in our society (please read "mothers" - remember we live in an extremely sexist society).

Even in the end of the article, she acknowledged that “Workers themselves certainly beg to differ on this point. According to a recent?Pew Research survey, pro-remote workers (especially parents and caregivers) have a better work-life balance and are more productive and focused. According to an?October 2022 survey?of white-collar workers from Slack’s think tank, Future Forum, those with full schedule flexibility showed 29% higher productivity scores than employees with no flexibility at all, and remote and hybrid workers reported 4% higher productivity than their fully in-office counterparts.”

Remote work isn't a temporary solution to a global crisis; it's a new way of work we need to embrace and refine. Rather than resist it, we should strive to enhance remote work policies, structures, and systems to suit the evolving nature of the modern workspace, even for those of us who prefer being in the office. Let's focus on maintaining the pressure on organisations to continually improve and adapt their remote work strategies for the benefit of all employees. The relationship between companies and employees should be an adult-type relationship where people are trusted with their good senses.