Traditional working patterns may be breaking down, including where people actually work, as Nicholas Bloom describes (Our research shows working from home works, in moderation, 12 March). In the short term, working at home has penalised women, pushing more of them into double-shifting, or out of work. But there may be reasons for optimism in the longer term if conventional career paths break down alongside daily work patterns. The further we get from the assumption that good careers mean full-time and continuous employment, the better for gender equality.
Women are still penalised for going part-time or taking time out. They are better qualified than men, and this gap is increasing, but their competences are still under-recognised and undervalued, to everyone’s detriment. This highlights what I’ve called the Paula Principle: that most women work below their level of competence. Because they involve men as well as women, the current upheavals in work patterns could well undermine this principle.
Tom Schuller
London
Every time I read a piece on how people are happier working at home, I despair. Rarely is the plight of people trying to work in homes without adequate space considered. Or the pressure they are likely to be under to accept these working conditions as the new normal when this is all over and businesses decide that the economics of a largely “work from home” workforce suit them better than a return to office life.
Given that many people in Britain live without adequate space to work permanently from home, this is a serious omission. I think of friends whose kitchen/dining table is now their computer station. It’s not feasible to pack everything up at the end of the day. The kitchen/living room is now their office into which they have to squeeze their need to cook. They have eaten on their laps for the past year. No space now to enjoy the pleasures of cooking and sitting round the table with friends. No money to move to a bigger property. Ask them what benefits working from home brings. Answer: pretty much none.
For people in this predicament, even working partly from home will have a detrimental effect on their lives. Will the impact on their private lives be taken into account when their employers decide whether their workforce will return to the office? I doubt it.
Ruth Windle
Frome, Somerset
Your article (Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim ‘inhumane’ work conditions, 18 March) reports on high work demands, sleep deprivation and poor mental health among 13 junior bankers at Goldman Sachs. While these concerns are serious, to focus on a small group of “the brightest recruits” overlooks that such problems have long existed across the entire economy, and among the less privileged.
For research published in Cornell University’s ILR Review, we analysed 52,000 employees representing the working populations of 36 European countries. Yes, white-collar workers average high levels of overtime. But they are not alone in working overtime, and many other workers also report that they must often work under tremendous pressure and uncertainty. Not only are high work demands widespread, our analyses also reveal that the negative implications of work demands for stress and fatigue are similar across industries and occupations.
Progress is needed in banking, but our data reveals that poor working conditions exist everywhere. Also, junior bankers arguably have the option to access alternatives in the labour market. For others, unemployment may be the only alternative. So we should avoid focusing narrowly on excesses at the top of the labour market. Instead, employers and policymakers must address the challenges that work demands present across the economy.
Dr Argyro Avgoustaki Associate professor of management, ESCP Business School, Dr Hans TW Frankort Reader in strategy, The Business School (formerly Cass)
