Let’s get one thing straight proper on the outset: The thought of banning working from house isn’t merely daft, not a bit ill-advised, however a spectacular, full-on mental automobile crash carrying a silly hat.
And the truth that this notion is being flirted with critically in political circles tells you every part it is advisable find out about how out of contact this nation’s Westminster bubble has turn into.
In case you’ve been studying my scribblings on this topic for the final decade, corresponding to Why forcing a return to the workplace is a step backwards for enterprise and Our bodies, bums, price cash, are you able to go digital, then you definately’ll know I’ve not precisely been shy about waving the flag for flexibility. I’ve argued that work isn’t a location; it’s a factor you do. Deadlines don’t care about Tube strikes. Creativity doesn’t flourish since you’ve bought a nook desk with a view of Canary Wharf. Pencils don’t write higher within the Metropolis.
And but right here we’re, in 2026, watching the identical fossils who championed landing desks as in the event that they have been a breakthrough in human civilisation roll out the identical outdated chestnuts about presenteeism, ‘workplace tradition’, and “We’ve got to see folks at their desks!” — as if productiveness is instantly proportional to proximity to a swivel chair.
What makes this iteration of absurdity notably galling is the political context. The present political temper music means that Nigel Farage may properly be the following Prime Minister of the UK. Now, I’m not right here to begin a partisan fracas, however I’m right here to name out nonsense wherever it crops up, no matter which facet of the aisle it’s draped in. And when somebody positioned to steer the nation describes working from house as one thing to ban, it’s a must to wonder if they’ve ever, you understand, labored.
In case your understanding of distant working is proscribed to the fleeting glimpse you get when the BBC cuts to a house workplace with a bobble-head on a shelf, then sure, you would possibly assume working from house is an indulgence. A luxurious. A gentle type of leisure. However as anybody who has truly managed groups via screens, as I wrote in Managing your workforce via a small display screen, will inform you, there’s nothing remotely relaxed about aligning international calendars, teaching via glitches, wiring up video calls whereas your canine thinks he’s invited, and delivering outcomes that matter.
One of many clearest articulations I’ve learn on this got here from Mark Dixon, founding father of Regus, sure, the versatile workspace titan with a vested curiosity in desks current all over the place, and but unambiguously clear that banning distant working is idiotic. His feedback, in an interview with The Instances, pierced the standard fog of clichés: flexibility isn’t the enemy of collaboration; it’s its enabler. Folks don’t wish to be pressured again right into a dungeon of desks 5 days per week; they need significant connection on their phrases. If meaning assembly in particular person for ideation and spending the remainder of the week the place they’ll operate finest, then nice. If it means satellite tv for pc places of work nearer to the place folks stay, good. However banning WFH altogether? Solely somebody with a pathological affection for sepia-tinted workplace fantasies may again that.
Let’s unpack why this issues past the tedium of managerial turf wars, and to place my bona fides on the market on this subject Capital Enterprise Media – homeowners of Enterprise Issues – has doubled turnover in three years with not a single workers member being in the identical ‘workplace’ as their colleagues.
First: productiveness. One of the best proof we’ve, from numerous companies giant and small, is that output doesn’t collapse when folks make money working from home. The concept that distant work is synonymous with loafing is a fantasy lazy commentators cling to as a result of it’s a handy continuation of their very own nostalgia for commutes on Tube trains smelling faintly of remorse.
Second: expertise. The fashionable workforce isn’t static; it doesn’t orbit places of work like electrons round a company nucleus. Folks prioritise flexibility, and expertise migrates to the place they discover it. Firms that cling to “You should be right here 9–5, no exceptions” don’t turn into magnets for the very best folks; they turn into boarding homes for essentially the most compliant. If banning WFH turns into laws, companies will reward political interference with a alternative: transfer work overseas, automate it, or collapse underneath its personal inertia.
Third: the economic system. There’s a pernicious assumption amongst some policymakers that an workplace stuffed with our bodies equals financial vitality. However let’s be sincere, the workplace economic system is a facade propped up by overpriced espresso, sandwich chains with doubtful pension plans, and pastry carts wheeled out of a want to really feel busier than we’re. Actual financial worth is created by efficient, sustainable work, whether or not it’s executed in a studio in Sussex, a flat in Glasgow, or an airport lounge in Zurich throughout a layover.
Removed from being a quaint perk, distant working is an financial power multiplier. It reduces carbon emissions from commuting, diminishes strain on housing markets in overheated city centres, and spreads spending energy geographically. It’s not a risk to society; it’s an evolution of it.
So let’s be clear: banning WFH isn’t nearly the place folks sit. It’s about management. It’s a couple of cultural insistence on seeing busyness as advantage somewhat than effectiveness. It’s about politicians pining for a world they half-remember via the filmy lens of “workplace tradition” brochures from the early 2000s.
My suggestion? If anybody critically proposes a ban on working from house, we must always ask them this: “Have you ever ever delivered a complete quarterly enterprise evaluate over Zoom? Have you ever ever coordinated a multinational venture with out as soon as stepping foot in an workplace? Have you ever ever truly assessed work by outcomes somewhat than appearances?”
Till they’ll reply sure, I’d be cautious of taking their recommendation on the way forward for work critically.
As a result of no matter occurs subsequent in Westminster, let’s not consign the world of labor to a bunker known as an workplace. That’s not progress. That’s nostalgia dressed up as coverage. And in an period when adaptability is a aggressive benefit, banning working from house isn’t simply backward-looking, it’s lunacy.
Learn extra:
Banning WFH is lunacy, and the politicians out of contact sufficient to mandate it are too
