Working From Home: Advocacy, Privilege and a Trend Gone Mad

 

On March 11, 2020, the world went mad with the World Health Organization making an announcement about a new global pandemic, which set everything adrift very quickly.  Businesses and organizations around the world began to panic and send everybody home and to cancel their in-person engagements, worried that world was going to soon shut down.  This was the kind of event that everybody can tell stories of what they were doing when the world shut down.  Events, courses, meetings and even court dates in my own life were cancelled, leaving me wondering for how long and how we would make a living after.

Soon thereafter, governments began this requirement that if you can, that everybody must work from home.  This led to a lot of issues in my part of the world, the people I meet and serve.  While there is little media coverage about this, many people quit their jobs as soon as they were directed to work at home.  They began to work in jobs they knew they could do, such as food delivery, Uber or even working in a grocery store.  Others were unemployed. The whole issue about working from home again, was never given great consideration by the powers that be, because the people making these orders usually made very high salaries and lived in comfortable homes.  Nobody asked any of these folks if:  (a) they had a computer and related access to technology; (b) whether they had high speed Internet; (c) whether they had a private place to work; and (d) whether they were able to work effectively at their residence.

As part of the "essential" class of occupations, this was less related to my profession, although we tried it, but after a week, I began to struggle with the technology, isolation and my inability to connect with clients remotely.  Many though not all members of my profession felt the same way, while others were forced to close down entirely.  I remember those early days, as the federal government did issue some help, although mostly in the form of loans to assist small business to bridge themselves through the pandemic.  Nobody paid me (or anybody else I know) the funds required to retrofit one's home and furnish a private home office.  I did set one up anyways and paid several thousands of dollars, because the room was not set up that way and it took us three weeks to throw out a lot of junk, left over by a hoarder that unfortunately lives here.

Fast forward to 2021 when people who had been working at their home offices for so long, were now being asked to return to their work offices.  Many surveys paid for by technology and software companies spoke to people, who obviously did not miss their commute and said they would quit their jobs if they had to return to their offices.  To me, that is a privileged response, as prior to the pandemic, they commuted just fine.  And they will again, as essential workers continued to commute throughout without an issue to keep WFH colleagues comfortable. Not a lot of people like to commute, but they did not want to dump it on their boss for making them do so, prior to being forced to work at home.  WFH (work from home) advocates state it is better for the environment if they did not go back to the office, although plenty of articles do state this not to be the case.  Just because you no longer commute to the office does not mean you do not commute to dozens of other places, both during the working day and after.  If this were indeed true, WFH folks would get rid of their vehicles and only accept delivery or rely on Uber to go to the fewer places they allegedly might go. The trend is actually opposite, where more people were actually buying cars, as opposed to less.

Further, there tends to be a strong socioeconomic bias in terms of favourable conditions for working from home.  If you earn a higher income, you naturally can afford more house.  Study after study confirms this bias.  In fact, some WFH advocates traded up for a larger home in the suburbs or even further from their jobs, in hopes they would never be called back to the office.  Many have whole sections of their homes now devoted to work from home, especially if more than one person in the household is doing so.  In the meantime, others who are not so well paid are working from their bedrooms, laundry rooms or their kitchen tables, using old and non-ergonomic furniture, secretly longing for the day they return to the office to rid themselves of this ridiculous isolation.

The media bias about this is horrible, as the voices from those that do not WFH well are almost drowned out by the highly paid remote IT workers that surround themselves with a large home office, an outdoor pool, an indoor gym, Pelaton, big screen TV and home cooked meals from Chef Plate or similar products.  The ones I work with do not have any of that, and are more likely to share their rental spot with others, making their concentration and productivity weak at best.  One of them lived in a place with three roommates, where they transformed the living room into a bedroom, where the one room was used for two of the roommates to work from home and study and the kitchen for the third worker.  In some of these cases, their employers have ditched the offices and decided to go remote permanently, which has left many of the latter people with no choice other than to quit and find other employment or go back to school.  I met these people and know this, even though the media will never share this with the public, because big tech wants to make it so.

WFH advocates want to talk about the Great Resignation where the employees are taking over the workplaces.  This is another movement gone mad.  In my view, if you are an employee, who has not invested in the company or taken any risks to get that company off the ground (and keep it there), what right do you have to dictate what works for your boss?  In some cases, remote may work, especially for a limited range of occupations where collaboration and task variation is not part of the work you are doing.  However, some of the very highly paid workers say they do not ever want to go to an office again, which is again, privileged horse fodder.  If you are being called back to the office, there is likely a reason:  remote work is not working for the company.  Face it.  Or they would have let this continue and support it financially.

The truth about the Great Resignation is that most of the people referring to this are those in lower paid hospitality, hotel and restaurant sectors, who have gone back to school or took other jobs that pay better.  Many are also women who are stuck at home and unable to return due to child care responsibilities.  The media makes it look like the people getting six figure salaries are all quitting their jobs because they have to commute to work, which is a bit stale, if you ask me.  I asked some of them to post the jobs that they are quitting so that others on the forum who are looking for work can take these jobs.  Most of the unemployed do not care if they had to commute. It is interesting how nobody did this, because in fact, six figure earners are not leaving in droves, although people in lesser paid positions might be exploring their options.

If you are a worker that now wants to work when you want, where you want, how you want and with whom you want (including your employer's competitors), then quit and hang out your own shingle.  Take on all the costs of starting your own establishment and if you are any good at what you do, eventually you need to hire employees.  Take on the full cost of your employees as well.  Only then, will those privileged at six figure salaries will begin to realize that all of this costs money and elbow grease to get started.  Work-life balance does not exist when you are self-employed, at least until you get to that point where others can take on at least the mundane stuff.  I know one of those people who recently quit a large company and went on her own and proudly told me she is clearing about $80,000 a year self-employed, but, but and but ... she has to set up an office (as her type of business cannot be done fully remote), which will set her back about about $24,000 of that, plus hire two assistants (so she is not working around the clock), which will take up another $70,000 of that ... and yes, she will have to work harder to bring in more business and make less money, but she will have the work-life balance she said she craves.  This is a reality:  it is called capitalism.

The WFH fully push their employers to close their offices, as who needs offices anyways, they say.  They say their employers can save a ton of money that way.  Let's take this one step at a time.  Office rent hardly constitutes a majority of a business' expenses.  Labour does.  Even the lowest paid labourer on their own probably costs your employer more money than their office space, especially for a smaller business.  For larger businesses, the real estate costs may be higher, but then again, there are also a significantly larger number of employees which construct a higher percentage of costs, all of whom cost the employer at least 40 - 60% of their total budget.  Many of these employers do constantly look for ways to save money, like any business does.  If your employer is a global company, they just have to look eastward to find businesses that specialize in contracting labour from cheap labour countries like India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, etc., where many of their workers are similarly skilled and believe that a $10,000 a year salary is "rich".  Be careful what you ask for.  I have watched many people earning six figures get laid off because of a decision by their employer to move their labour offshore, even during this pandemic.

Another issue I noticed with office workers working at home is the amount of time it takes for somebody to email or phone me back when I try to contact them, even for something urgent.  Many times, people do not return their calls at all.  Many businesses do not even have somebody answering the telephone when you call.  At least when they do, that person answering the phone can ensure the person you are trying to reach gets the message.  However, lately when people do not even answer the phone, I stopped leaving messages.  I complain to their superiors instead.  If people are really working at home, then they should be just as responsive to outside callers as they were when they worked in the office.  If not, they should be asked to return to the office.

Further, a push to WFH even post-pandemic has serious consequences on the economy, especially in cities with a large percentage of office workers in the central district.  During the pandemic we saw so many signs "closed temporarily", "take out or delivery only", etc. and hardly a car on the roadways made the city centre very despondent and isolated.  Many jobs were lost, as well as businesses, where business owners ended up having to go on relief.  This is in turn has consequences for other businesses that may not have taken as large of a hit in the pandemic, whereby less workers, less businesses and people having less money, means less people able to buy from the "essential" businesses.  Many WFH friends I know were very disappointed when they learned a favourite pub closed for this reason; without the office traffic, many of these businesses do not survive.  

The impact on the city's tax base also takes a hit.  Less office space used or leased, less retail space (due to having to close, etc.), means less property being taxed at a higher commercial rate.  This can only mean two choices:  higher property taxes for residents, or service cuts, such as cuts for transit (which many essential workers rely upon), road maintenance and social services.  I noted a particularly larger number of visible homeless in my own downtown since the pandemic,  More are openly using drugs, disposing of their syringes and sleeping rough, than did in the past when office workers were around.  A property that becomes neglected attracts this type of activity.  Henceforth, we had several fires started that burned down properties that have been empty for some time.  

To me, it is only a matter of time until the WFH crowd and other homeowners become angry at substantial tax hikes that have to be made by their cities or towns they are in to keep operating a base line of municipal services.  To me, if their employers really want them to work at home, let them bear the full costs of each employee they have at home, from their set up, technology, security, internet service, as well as any difference in utilities and taxes.  I calculated the cost of what all of this would be for an average office business with a full remote policy, and they would likely be paying more to keep people at home than just to bring them into the office.  Software and technology companies that often sponsor these articles and surveys financially benefit from having more people possess licenses and use various types of software in their work, including theirs.

To me, it is following the money.  Since the pandemic started and towards the end of 2020, no less than $100 billion in profits were made by Amazon because people took deliveries from that company, as well as many grocery chains made a ton of money.  I was mindful and refused to use Amazon or any large technology company for my deliveries or work; where possible, I utilized local services where small businesses benefited.

If WFH advocates think that these small businesses will simply relocate to where they are, they are mistaken, as there is nowhere near the volume of business that they had downtown where the WFH folks are living.  They are disparate in their geographic locations and in residential neighbourhoods, the ones that were food deserts before will remain food deserts.  The ones that had a pub in their neighbourhood before will still have a pub (but if you noticed these areas, they are more densely populated and have a mix of commercial and residential, not just residential).  The 15 minute neighbourhoods many planners talk about will still not happen; in fact, they are less likely to happen, simply because even those who WFH now but used to take a bus to work are now driving everywhere.

In my city, many people do live downtown, but most do not have a lot of money to spend.  If the population that used to fill the downtown completely leaves permanently, most amenities, such as banks, pharmacies, boutiques, hairdressers, dry cleaners, etc. will likely move away from the downtown, as will most employers.  With a reduction in bus service, as many downtown dwellers do not drive, they will end up having to commute more daily to the suburbs to get simple needs met, as opposed to getting them met downtown like they used to.  This creates even a greater division than there was in place before, wider inequalities in income and opportunities, as well as even basic accessibility to services.

If you suggest the downtown dwellers to move, this is not the greatest suggestion, given that even rents have doubled or even tripled since the pandemic.  People who are used to six figure incomes have no clue as to how their choices, directly and indirectly impact on the rest of the community.  I am not saying they are doing anything bad, but the onus is on cities to ensure the correct mix of office, retail and commercial, as well as residential downtown and to ensure that commercial taxes are properly appropriated to those that should be paying, such as employers that enforce work from home.

THE MYTH OF DRIVING AS A PRIVILEGE WHEN ONLY THE PRIVILEGED CAN DRIVE

Often I attend overcrowded Provincial Offences Courts in the Region, where individuals and companies are charged with various offences.  If you can get past the line-ups to the front to speak to the Prosecutor and wait your turn, quite often the Justice of the Peace explodes into a tirade about how driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right.  Reviewing the dockets on these days is an amazing test of stoicism, whereby one sees one person after the other charged with "driving while under suspension", "driving without a policy of insurance", or various other charges, whereby a failure to deal with as such can result in an automatic suspension of your license.  If people plead guilty to driving while under suspension, the Ministry of Transportation assesses a further six months of license suspension on the convicted defendant.  Defences for this charge are rare, as this offence is considered a "strict liability" offence, which means in essence you should have known better.  In theory, all of this makes sense, but in reality this whole concept needs a rethink.

On the other hand, I come across dozens of individuals in my practice who have been diagnosed with medical conditions that have led to an administrative suspension of their licenses on a temporary or permanent basis.  If people think this only happens to older people, they are mistaken.  Virtually all of those I have dealt with were significantly under sixty five, one being a mere twenty-three years old.  Once again, the Ministry is enforcing this whole theory about driving a vehicle being a privilege, again never questioning what happens to the person or their family once that "privilege" is revoked even on a short term basis.  A few of them come to my office and do get a greater than average chance of being placed on the Ontario Disability Support Program, simply because one is now unemployable because they lost their privilege to drive.  One adjudicator here looked me in the eye and asked me to convince her of this, citing there was "plenty of" transit service in the area.  I then readily produced a large package of advertisements copied from the newspaper, Internet or other job posting services, whereby almost all jobs demand of their candidates a valid G driver's license and usually, daily access to their own vehicle.  I then place the rhetorical question as to where this person is supposed to work if they cannot get their license.  If one thinks the state should not provide for these people, then think again.  If you are an employer, will YOU hire them?

In essence, driving is not a privilege here in Niagara, but nevertheless, the privileged are the only ones allowed to drive and thereby obtain all the benefits arising therefrom.  Those that have never experienced the issues above tend to blame the individuals and have in their mind an idea that they are "better than" those who have had their licenses revoked or suspended.  The truth is most license suspensions are not due to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but instead unpaid fines and medical reasons.  Many of my clients were not aware they were suspended because for whatever reason, they did not receive the letter in the mail.  In an average community, including Niagara Region, thirty percent of its residents over the age of sixteen do not drive.  Many people do not drive because they cannot afford to own and maintain their own vehicle, which means living here in this region will perpetuate that cycle indefinitely because there are no jobs available to those that cannot or choose not to drive. Employers just assume everybody drives, or they want to exclude the riff raff that doesn't, as those discriminatory requirements are in place in almost every job, not just jobs where the bone fide components largely involve driving.  As a result, the majority of people with disabilities, students, older persons and low income persons are trapped into this legislated cycle of poverty, perpetuated by accepted prejudice and legalized discrimination.

It is not just in employment, non-drivers are discriminated against or treated disdainfully by their community.  In order for a driver to remove their lens of privilege, they need to leave their car at home or dispose of it somewhere for more than a month, and then try to carry on their life regardless of not driving.  I would ask them to transport their children to school, drop them off at daycare (which may or may not be close by or at a bus stop), go to work, attend all of one's work meetings or attendances without a vehicle even if this means going to another city for a meeting, and then after work, return to pick up their kids, stop to grab a few groceries and then go home.  In the evening, after dinner (which means privileged workers get to be home by six), there might be time to take in a movie or go for a quick work out at the gym or the YMCA.  Remember, do not use your vehicle, just go to these places anyways ... enjoy the two hour trip there and the two hour trip back, to such a point where you do not want to go there anymore, as it is too much trouble.

As a non driver, you will eventually discover you cannot just do a grocery run on your way back home, as you do not have the time or the bus fare or flexibility in doing so.  You will find you have to take up one of your precious weekend days to do it, if your job or business allows you to have weekends in the first place.  For those without a vehicle, grocery shopping is a bigger chore than it is for those that do drive.  You can only go to the grocery store every week or every two weeks to do this.  You cannot shop at multiple locations.  Tough luck if there's a special in the meat department at one store and a special on produce in the other.  You can't go to both, because once you leave the first store, there is nowhere to put your groceries while you go to the second store to get the balance of them.  Drivers simply put the groceries from the first store into their trunk, but remember if you are leaving your car at home, there is no trunk, so you have to stick to one place.  Research has shown this will cost you at least 15% more even if you normally purchase the same products from two or three locations.  Once you finish the groceries, you need to get them home.  You only have two hands, so taking them on a bus might be impractical, especially if you live a long way from the grocery store.  Many phone a cab.  Cab companies, while charging an arm and a leg for their service, are not reliable transportation for people who work shifts, taking home groceries, or need transport for medical reasons. CT Scams, dialysis and some other non-emergency medical trips are required on a 24-hour basis.  Drunks, however, get instant service, while it is not unheard of for people to wait at a hospital, a grocery store or elsewhere for two or more hours to get a cab if one comes at all.  That is the kind of "service" and respect people that don't drive get in my own region.

I often hear drivers complain about the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. for their cars; however, it is more than likely that they have been able to secure employment that pays them enough to cover these expenses, while non-drivers have to pay five to ten times the amount drivers pay on a per kilometer basis and struggle financially.  I have no sympathy for vehicle owners, as they pay much less on a month to month basis than I do to get to fewer places.  In effect, our government, likely through the heavy influence of the auto industry, driving has become a necessity, not just for getting around, but for maintaining one's dignity and belonging to the community one lives in.  After all of these years, I have little attachment to the region because I feel I don't belong here.  I wouldn't miss much if I ever had the funds to move elsewhere.  Non drivers do not go to community events because usually these events are held on statutory holidays, where the transit service is non existent or unreliable.  Relying on other people for transportation is not a dignifying alternative in my region. Most drivers consider it a huge sacrifice to help someone else get somewhere, even if it is to go to the same place they are going anyways.  Non drivers don't have the same ability to use many community services, such as going to garage sales, trading on Kijiji or participating in a swap service, as drivers consider that if they are giving an item away for free, the person wanting it should come to get it.  If all of my transportation needs could be met by me driving my own vehicle, I would actually be able to escape poverty.  This is unfortunately never considered in discussions to find solutions to poverty.

It is harder to get somebody to invest in my business, because they think they will be stuck being a "taxi" for me, or having to sacrifice much of the firm's value on alternative transportation services for myself, thus not allowing the firm to make as much net profit as it would otherwise.  Many of my items have been "returned to sender" because I have been unable to take the full afternoon off to go to the Carlton Street location where the post office seems to send my packages, when in fact I have a post office near my office where it should go instead if I was not present when the package was first delivered.  Other times I had to pay over $20 in taxi fares to do so, so that my afternoon would not be wasted waiting for buses, etc.  To me, my whole community disrespects and treats with impunity non drivers because it could.  They want to force everybody to buy a car, yet thirty percent of the community does not drive and eleven percent do not have access to a vehicle or driver in their household.  I have encountered many members of that eleven percent. Very few are gainfully employed and if so, they are substantially under employed.  If they are young enough, they tend to make plans to leave the region to go elsewhere, because they see others older than themselves stuck here.  I am still trying to figure out what I had done to deserve the kind of maltreatment and disrespect that is rained upon me here in Niagara.

To me, if the Ministry of Transportation wants to maintain its right to decide who can and cannot drive a motor vehicle, and to retain this activity under license and privilege, then it has to provide meaningful, effective and reliable alternatives to those that cannot drive, cannot afford to drive, choose not to drive or who have been suspended for any reason, so these people can access most jobs and get around conveniently.  They would also work with the courts, human rights commissions and other enforcement bodies to ensure that denying people access to employment, other than jobs as drivers (e.g. taxi driver), should be made illegal and such companies would be forced to pay out enough funds so that the non driver can comfortably live without a job.  It should cost employers to deny access to jobs in this way.  If they complain and say, well people have to go here and go there, then too bad - find another way for this to work.  Put the onus on the company to ensure all of its staff can do the essential duties of the job.   Municipalities should also enforce the AODA if cab and private transportation companies even want to keep their license to operate.

For cab companies, I am sorry, but drunks are the last priority for pick-up.  If priorities were exercised properly, and medical, community and employment related trips were prioritized in that order, then drunks will only have to wait an extra ten to fifteen minutes.  This is not an undue hardship on either the drunks or the company itself, as they will still get their fares for all of these rides anyways.  They lose no money.  For priority trips, it should provide a ride within twenty minutes or the ride is free - simple as that.  Dispatchers have access to software where all requests are spelled out and priorities can be taken.  It would not be a substantial hardship to put medical, community (getting groceries) and employment at the top of the list for all dispatchers, while the drunks can wait a few extra minutes and will get taken home as well in a reasonable period of time. The later at night it is, there would be less "priority" trips, so it would not be an undue hardship.  Cab companies will complain about how they will now have to organize their fleets this way, but this is THEIR problem, not mine.  I am tired of waiting and waiting and waiting for taxis while my food is going bad, or in the rain, because some drunk needs to get home from some festival I couldn't get to anyways.

As somebody who has been unable to obtain a driver's license for years due a medical condition, and even if that were resolved, going back to the graduated system in place would be impossible for me at my age.  That should apply strictly for people under twenty five, as most of them still have access to parents that would be willing to assist, even though mine never did help me at all when I was that age (but my understanding is that most people's parents have been there for them and mine were in the minority even for my generation).  If the Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Infrastructure and other Ministries think that upgrading RELIABLE alternative transportation for communities is going to cost too much, then they need to reconsider what it costs for the individuals that are deliberately left behind, especially by the Ministry deciding if somebody can or cannot drive ... with the right to make this decision should come the responsibility for ensuring access to jobs and the community for those ruled out of driving.  I don't give a fig about the cost, especially when I have no way of accessing regular employment and enjoying a life where my stress levels can be kept at a minimum.  What if these people ruled out of driving for whatever reason did not want to be on Ontario Works or ODSP, or unemployed?

Then I would say the onus goes back to the government and our policy makers to make driving indeed a REAL CHOICE, and not deprive people of an income just because they cannot, choose not or cannot afford to drive. In my view, if this position were taken by all communities, there will be less dangerous or risky drivers on the road, so it will be much safer for those that do drive.

I am interested in hearing from folks that have concerns about this issue.