Would you pay to work from home?

According to the Guardian, London Law Firm Stephenson Harwood are asking employees to do just that by offering a 20% pay cut in exchange for the right to permanently work from home (WFH). Will this mark the start of a trend, or kick of a war of attrition?

When it comes to home working the challenges are many and varied, so we’ve decided to explore this issue in a series of articles over the next few days.

Follow us to make sure you see the whole piece and click our poll to have your say!?

Part One - Fairness

Is it fair to levy a 20% wage cut on those that choose to work from home??

We have questions!

First off, how did Stephenson Harwood arrive at this figure?

• Has there been a 20% drop in productivity, growth or the bottom line following the move to home working?
• Is this figure an average??If so, are some WFH employees actually over performing, while others are slacking off?
• Why have WFH workers (except Partners!) suddenly lost 20% of their ‘net worth’?
• What else have they tried??This one is critical.?If there has been a drop in performance how sure are the company that home working was the sole cause??

If a company has explored all the options and concluded that this is the right move, who are we to argue.?If, on the other hand, they are looking backwards instead of forwards, this could spell trouble.?The world of work is changing, are they keeping pace?

One of the arguments we’ve heard is that WFH employees don’t have to travel and so don’t have the costs and hassle of transport.?

Again, we would have to question the flat 20% rate.?Is it really fair for all WFH employees to be faced with a 20% reduction … when for some (most?) the cost of the commute wouldn’t even come close!

And then there is the potential loss of ‘perks’ to consider.?If you’re in the office, you are likely to be on the receiving end of certain ‘perks’.?

From free fruit and expensed business lunches through to the career enhancement that often comes from being ‘in the right place at the right time’ (check our previous article on this), there’s also the cost of the physical infrastructure to factor in.?If WFH allows companies to downsize or reduce office spend, why are WFH employees picking up the tab?

Then finally, there’s the issue of equality.?

According to this article in the Guardian, women are more likely to WFH than men.?This could lead WFH women to be triply disadvantaged by lower pay, the 20% reduction and being ‘out of sight, out of mind’ when it comes to promotions and other opportunities for career development.?Neurodivergent and disabled employees may also be disadvantaged by this policy, or anyone else who feels they are more focused and productive at home.

However, there is another way to look at this.?WFH options might allow more people to continue their career in a way that suits them, for example the ability to escape the city and take advantage of lower property prices elsewhere in the country, design their environment around their needs, or enjoy the advantages of working for a prestigious London firm minus the pricey postcode.

Our take?

Analyse the data.?Companies may think productivity is down because of homeworking but it’s important to test this assumption.?The true cause might be less obvious.?

Be wary of averages, some employees may perform considerably better when working from home. Flexibility is key.?

Stephen Harwood may have got that right.?

They still offer the flexibility and option for people to work remotely twice a week.?However, whether they have been flexible enough remains to be seen.?Will penalising WFH staff to the tune of 20% have an impact on recruitment, retention, and culture??Follow us to check out our analysis of this tomorrow!