Why ‘return to the office’ mandates from UK Government agencies ignore the wellbeing, environmental and financial benefits of flexible working

People are struggling to make ends meet as housing, travel costs and utility bills rise at a higher rate than incomes. NHS waiting lists, and the shortages and high costs of social care and childcare mean the working age population increasingly has to juggle caring responsibilities too.

Photograph: iStock/Prathan Chorruangsak

More people than ever are using food banks, including many people in full-time work whose wages struggle to last until the end of the month. In 2023 and 2024, workers across the economy voted in unprecedented numbers for strike action to boost wages after years of pay restraint – real terms cuts in pay for many.

Faced with all of that it is not surprising that workers are looking for other ways to save money and to get a better work-life balance.

The pandemic proved that many people – especially those doing office-based jobs – can work remotely just as effectively as they can in an office, sometimes more efficiently and often more flexibly too.

Whether it’s Microsoft Teams, Skype or Zoom, or just good old phone and email, workers and managers have adapted to staff working from home in many areas of the public and private sectors.

Significant savings

Working from home saves money for hard-pressed workers on the daily commute, as well as those takeaway coffees, snacks and after-work drinks. When people are struggling to make ends meet these net savings can be significant.

Spending more of your time with your family and loved ones is also a benefit. Those hours not spent on the commute are precious additional minutes with children and partners.

There are potential savings for employers too. If only 50 per cent of your workforce is in the office at any one time then that reduces the need for office space and organisations’ energy costs too. These are genuine efficiency savings for government and taxpayers too – that could in turn be used to fund better public services or (dare I say it?) boost pay!

The new minister for employment rights, Justin Madders, recently told the BBC’s Panorama that there was a growing body of evidence that working from home was more productive – and pointed to improved recruitment and retention of staff as a benefit of flexible working more generally.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said employers “need to judge people on outcomes and not a culture of presenteeism”, and highlighted the benefits for businesses of flexible working which “opens up a much wider group of talent that they can recruit.”

Unfortunately, this sentiment does not seem to have been relayed to all of their ministerial colleagues and senior civil servants. Our members working for the Land Registry, for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and those working in civilian roles at the Metropolitan Police are currently in dispute and taking industrial action over mandatory office attendance. In none of those cases has the employer highlighted any detrimental impact from staff working from home. They seem to be arbitrarily enforcing what the Business Secretary described as “a culture of presenteeism”.

As Ed, a PCS rep working for the ONS said: “We’ve never been told that there is a problem with productivity, there’s a problem with quality, there’s a problem with meeting deadlines.” Too often it seems politicians are afraid to take on the editorial brickbats of the press – even though many of their staff work from home.

Working from home can also open up work to those who would struggle with full-time office-based work. One of our reps at the Met Police told us that it benefits neurodiverse staff as “they can work in a quieter environment, and have a reduction in social anxiety”.

Four-day week ‘could bring financial savings for the Government’

Similar considerations also apply to the case for a four-day week – which is growing in the public and private sectors. Our reps working in the government environment department DEFRA have put together a detailed case for switching to a four-day week with no loss of pay. They involved workers from across the organisation, who range from desk-based office workers to those literally out in the field working for the Forestry Commission.

They estimate that moving to a four-day week could save DEFRA £21.4 million a year by reducing staff turnover and sickness absence – based on the experience of transitioning to a four-day week elsewhere. The projected saving is roughly equivalent to the department’s flood defence budget for Northumbria.

In Scotland the SNP-led Government agreed to calls for a four-day week trial for staff at the South of Scotland Enterprise agency. The year-long trial has proved successful for workers and managers, and was recently extended for another six months.

Across the UK, the 4 Day Week Foundation says that around 200 British businesses have permanently switched to a four-day week – and several more are currently trialling it.

But despite all the warm words about flexibility, the UK Government continues the inflexible policy of its predecessor – refusing to even consider the sort of small-scale trial that is proving successful in Scotland.

Employers cannot duck these issues. Workers’ living standards have been driven down and people are organising for better pay, more flexibility and a better work-life balance as a result.

As a trade union representing nearly 200,000 workers in government and the commercial sector, we’ll continue to fight for their interests – whether that’s for better pay, fewer hours or more flexibility.

Fran Heathcote is general secretary of the PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union).

For more information see:

pcs.org.uk

pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/mythbuster-four-day-week

action.pcs.org.uk/page/149531/action/1

linkedin.com/company/public-and-commercial-services-union/

facebook.com/PcsUnion

pcs_union