Terina Hine looks at the changing work patterns, the employers’ offensive and what it means for women in particular 

The dramatic shift in working patterns post-Covid saw millions of people ditch the daily commute and tedious office politics to work from home (WFH). The benefit has been significant, especially for women, but WFH is now under attack. 

For most, WFH took a hybrid form, with some doing two to three days a week in the office, others going in a couple of times a month and some almost never. It allows those traditionally unable to go into work full-time, mainly women with caring responsibilities, to participate fully in the labour force. Thus it is a boost not only to women’s income and independence, but also to the economy as a whole. 

And contrary to what many politicians and employers claim, WFH generally improves worker productivity. According to the Economic Policy Institute, when working from home, people are at least as productive, if not more productive, than when working in the office. It’s a win-win for workers, employers and society. 

So why are more and more employers, with the support of the political elite, demanding staff go back to the five-day-week grind? After the initial ‘back-to-office’ propaganda at the end of the pandemic, most employers and politicians recognised they were fighting a losing cause. But recently, the battle cry has risen again with large corporations attempting to get staff back to the office. 

Some employers are adopting a carrot approach, introducing plants and café-style work spaces, hoping to entice employees back, others prefer the stick, with threats of the non-renewal of contracts, redundancy and lack of promotion. But why this clamour at all? 

It appears for some, it’s an issue of control and trust (CEOs simply don’t believe the evidence on productivity), some just hate the waste involved in holding expensive leases on near-empty office buildings, while others, such as Pret, have a vested interest, either in the commercial property market itself or in commuter-based services. 

According to Savills (the estate agent), investment in London offices in 2024 was down by 58% on the long-term average. There are some signs that this is beginning to move, for example, Deloitte took on an additional 70,000 square feet of space last year and HSBC is talking of expanding its space in St Pauls. However, in both those cases, their office space had dramatically reduced since the pandemic. 

HSBC is giving up its tower in Canary Wharf for the much smaller base at St Pauls, Deloitte closed two buildings in response to the pandemic, and PwC is ‘considering options’ for when its lease expires on Embankment Place, even though it has recently mandated a three-day office week.  

For the likes of Elon Musk, WFH is a political issue. Musk sees a return to work mandate as a means to reduce employee numbers, a key political goal for his newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He stated that a return-to-office, five-day-week mandate would ‘result in a wave of voluntary terminations’. Unfortunately for US public services, it will be the best staff with alternative options who leave. And women. 

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, joined in the clamour a few weeks ago, saying London ‘cannot afford’ to be ‘hollowed out’ by remote working. In Khan’s case it’s a convenient excuse; it is not WFH that is the problem in London, rather unaffordable housing and transport. 

The young cannot afford to work in London, housing is too expensive for all but the very rich, social housing barely exists and neither Khan nor the Labour government is doing anything to help. With rail travel exorbitant and the service unreliable, commuting is hardly an attractive option. 

London is the most expensive UK city in which to commute, followed by Birmingham and Manchester. Commuting five days a week costs the average UK commuter £2,685.60 per year in 2024, and it’s a cost that is rising faster than inflation. 

However, it’s not just housing and commuting. WFH enables flexibility around childcare and other caring responsibilities.  

Nursery costs are such that women are finding they have to quit work as salaries simply do not cover the fees (inflated again following the increase in employer NI contributions). After-school care is similarly expensive. The ability to share caring commitments with partners and work flexible hours, enabled by WFH, is a lifeline. 

And women often find that childcare is swiftly followed by caring for parents and other elderly relations; an impossible task if tied to an in-office job. WFH flexibility has enabled women to stay in paid employment. 

It is no surprise that study after study has found that companies with a return-to-office mandate saw ‘abnormally high’ staff turnover, and that ‘high-performers, women and millennials are the biggest flight risks’. 

For women and all those who value the redress of the work-life balance this revolution in working practice has enabled, WFH is worth fighting for.