Your report that HSBC is planning to cut its global office footprint by 40% as a result of requiring its staff to work from home is somewhat misleading (Morgan Stanley boss tells US staff to be back in office in September, 15 June). In reality, what HSBC and a host of other companies are planning to do is cut the cost of their office footprint by transferring the square footage they pay for in town and city centres to the homes of their staff. So the total office space such companies use is not reduced, it is simply transferred, along with the cost, to the staff who are required to work from home.
The implication, of course, is that HSBC et al will enjoy enormous cost savings in terms of rents, building maintenance and, not least of all, business rates, by moving commercial premises to residential settings. Quite apart from issues of planning (ie, residential premises being used for commercial purposes), there is the question of whether someone who uses their home officially for business purposes should be paying towards the shortfall in business rates that local authorities will lose out on as businesses vacate their city/town centre premises – not to mention the knock-on effect on service industries that depend on office workers for their livelihood. Also, who pays for cleaning the home/office space that employees use on behalf of their employer? Presumably the employee.
There is also the question of insurance. What happens if an employee trips on a computer cable and injures themselves while working at home? Is this a domestic or industrial accident? Which insurance policy will agree to pay? What happens if an electrical fault in a work computer triggers a fire in someone’s home? Whose insurance policy pays for the damage?
We have seen with the big tech companies that technology outstrips current legislation on tax, health and safety, employment law and so on. The gig economy has already endured an enormous shift of cost and risk from employer to employee. We need to ensure that the shift from office to home working does not continue this process at the expense of employees’ health, safety and prosperity, and of the interests of the wider community.
Terry Kelly
Widnes, Cheshire
I was pleased to hear that Boris Johnson is now taking a more cautious approach and workers will not be discouraged from continuing to work from home (Ministers will not tell workers to return to office when lockdown ends, 17 June). However, given that working from home reduces carbon emissions, surely it makes sense for as many people as possible to work from home at least some of the time? It will help us move towards our zero-carbon goal. Even if we travel to work using electric vehicles powered from renewable sources, there is still likely to be an environmental cost, as explained by Thea Riofrancos (The rush to ‘go electric’ comes with a hidden cost: destructive lithium mining, 14 June).
Janet Poliakoff
Nottingham
Your print headline “PM will not issue order for return to offices” is extremely disturbing. Do we now live under a totalitarian regime? Since when do we accept the premise that it is for our government to issue, or not issue, orders about where we work? What a slippery slope this infantilised population, and its media, seem to be embarking on.
Caroline Mozley
York
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
