In a post-covid world, whenever that might be, we employers must draw a clear distinction between work done at home and work done from home [see photo]. The notion of working at home, and from home, may sound the same but it is very different. Very few people do actually work at home. Artists can paint, write books, etc at home. Administrators, content creators, etc can do their work at home. But most work is designed to be done beyond the front door of one's home.
For many years I worked either onsite or offsite. The work done onsite was done with teams of people at the client's workplace, on campus with students, at Parliament House, in a training centre, etc. The work done offsite was done as a solo worker, on a computer, in my dreams, etc. Most of the offsite work was the precursor to billable hours done onsite. Thus work done at home, and that done from home, can easily become co-mingled. And that can become a mess.
If working at home is to prosper in the short-term then a complete rethink of the nature, value, price, and scheduling of productive effort must now be undertaken. Is the work suited to being performed at home? Does each work item fit neatly into the classifications provided on the timesheets for particular parcels of output? How is quality control maintained over the work done at home? Who pays for the quality-control system being provided for all those stay-at- home workers.
If working from home is prosper in the short-term then the contracts between workers and employers must be revisited. Who decides if someone working from home must be attend a diversity and inclusion course? Who establishes the sentience boundaries for those who work from home? Who selects and hires workers who contribute their productive outputs while working from their homes?
Richard.
Comments