Covid-19 is receding into memory but the damage it has done to the nation’s work ethic continues to blight the economy.
Working from home (WFH), intended as a protective pandemic measure, has morphed into a human right and is being weaponised against employers.
Delusional demands for executives to run their companies for the convenience of staff are portrayed as reasonable requests.
The staff revolt at Barclays, triggered by the bank’s entirely sensible desire for employees to come into the office for at least three days a week instead of the current two, is the latest manifestation.
Egged on by their trade union, workers with longer commutes want to be let off the requirement. Rebel staff want compensation for everyone for ‘extra costs’.
Any concept of fairness towards those who decided to live a reasonable travelling distance from the office seems to have gone by the board.
The latest work from home row involves Barclays, which only wants staff to come into the office at least three days a week - hardly an onerous request
As for ‘extra costs’, another way of looking at it is that staff have in fact been saving on fares for years. Full marks for chutzpah, though.
The call from the union Unite for the bank to provide an ‘evidence-based rationale’ for wanting workers to be at work sounds anodyne, but is inflammatory.
It undermines an employer’s right to operate their business as they see fit, within the law.
In a similar vein was First Secretary of State Louise Haigh’s boast that Labour will force employers to sit down with staff and justify any decisions to deny flexible working. That sounds like a lead-swingers’ charter.
The strident WFH lobby and the Labour politicians pandering to it are living in a parallel universe.
In their world there appears to exist no harsh realities, such as rising unemployment, falling vacancies and nearly a million youngsters not in work or education.
The UK’s dire productivity performance apparently does not graze their consciousness.
They seem oblivious to the threat posed to jobs by AI, which does not demand to WFH or to have flexible hours.
Not all work is fulfilling or pleasant. There are bad employers and awful bosses out there.
We have, thankfully, moved beyond the old puritanical idea that work is a virtue in itself and we no longer equate unemployment with moral failure.
But the public conversation has become distorted in the other direction.
The subtext of the militant WFH brigade is that work is an oppressive imposition that damages mental health and family life and therefore should be avoided or minimised.
Work needs a rebrand to highlight its positive aspects: an income, self-respect, camaraderie and a stake in society.
Good work provides structure in life which can be very supportive of mental health.
This is most important for Neets, the one million young people not in education, employment or training who are locked out of the labour market. One in five of them report a mental health condition.
There is no single silver bullet to solve the Neets crisis.
Traditional jobs are not the only answer. A proposal from HSBC and the Future Governance Forum for a ‘youth enterprise scheme’ to help Neets start their own businesses is an excellent idea for the forthcoming Budget.
Alan Milburn, the Labour elder statesman who is producing a report on Neets, says ‘tough love’ is needed and that welfare should be cut for young people who decline to engage with work. He is right.
But we can hardly be surprised if many young people are wary of work when it is given such a bad rap.