October 26, 2020
Chris Ruggieri
September 3, 2020, I wrote an article about how I believed the Post-COVID era workforce should look like. During the course of sharing it out and discussing different opinions and views on the matter, I came across a LinkedIN post from Mrs. Diana Moldovan, that made a lot of sense and she was kind enough to suggest and agree to collaborate on the “Inverse Discussion” of the whole work from home vs return to the office scenarios. You can find her post here. Before we get into all of the details, I would first like to thank Diana for graciously accepting my request to collaborate and for providing a different perspective.
To start, let’s go over the three points that Diana brings up and then we’ll get to a Q&A style format.
Some of this I had considered, but shared living spaces and studio style flats/apartments were not. My initial
thought was families (in particular those with school age children) could share space at the dining room table and
it would allow the parent to keep an eye on their child to make sure that they are actually doing their schoolwork.
That argument is obviously very one-sided on my part. Full disclosure: While my wife and I tried and wanted children,
alas, it was not in the cards. Yet, families was my first go-to thought on it. I completely left out those with
roommates, working and going to school while living in flats/apartments on or near campus, studio style
flats/apartments, etc. Could those people work remotely and maintain the efficiency? That’s a question I don’t
believe any of us can answer. I know that video chat would be 100% a non-starter for people in those situations. So,
I guess my reply would have to be: Can it be done? Possibly. Is it the ideal or preference? Absolutely not.
This one hit home with many, many people and I can’t believe I missed it. You see, I am my own walking paradox. I am
an extroverted, introvert. I can strike up a conversation with just about anyone but prefer to be alone. Not
everyone, if fact most people, need that human to human contact. The one part of this one that hurt me the most,
personally, is the fact that I, like much of the world, glossed right over the mental health ramifications of the
isolation COVID-19 has lead to. This hit even harder when on September 21, 2020, I came across this post on Facebook
“I had spent an hour in the bank with my dad, as he had to transfer some money. I couldn't resist myself & asked...
"Dad, why don’t we activate your internet banking?"
"Why would I do that?" He asked...
"Well, then you won't have to spend an hour here for things like transfer. You can even do your shopping online.
Everything will be so easy!"
I was so excited about initiating him into the world of Net banking.
He asked "If I do that, I won't have to step out of the house?"
"Yes, yes"! I said. I told him how even grocery can be delivered at door now and how amazon delivers everything!
His answer left me tongue-tied.
He said "Since I entered this bank today, I have met four of my friends, I have chatted a while with the staff who
know me very well by now.
You know I am alone...this is the company that I need. I like to get ready and come to the bank. I have enough
time, it is the physical touch that I crave.
Two years back I got sick, The store owner from whom I buy fruits, came to see me and sat by my bedside and cried.
When your Mom fell down few days back while on her morning walk. Our local grocer saw her and immediately got his
car to rush her home as he knows where I live.
Would I have that 'human' touch if everything became online?
Why would I want everything delivered to me and force me to interact with just my computer?
I like to know the person that I'm dealing with and not just the 'seller'. It creates bonds of Relationships.
Does Amazon deliver all this as well?"
Technology isn't life..
Spend time with people .. Not with devices.
Writer: Unknown”
Between Diana’s comment and this Facebook post, I realized that not everyone can mentally handle the type of isolation
a 100% remote workforce would entail. The part that I can honestly say that I am ashamed of, is the fact that I
completely glossed over mental health. I am US based and, sadly, much of the US, and I’m sure other parts of the
World too, just gloss over mental health like it is the issue that “will go away if we ignore it.” The main reason I
am ashamed that I missed it is because I am a huge supporter of the work Mission 22 and similar programs are doing.
The purpose of Mission 22, and other programs like it, are to provide assistance for Military Veterans who are
suffering from mental health issues since their return and to stop the 22 veterans that commit suicide every day.
Yet, here I am, doing what everyone else has done about mental health and completely forgotten to include it. We, as
in the entire World, need to do better about addressing mental health.
This one I did address in the original article, but not to the extent that Diana did. A 100% remote work force is
completely impossible in certain verticals. The one’s I used were Logistics, Healthcare, and Grocery, but Food
Service is definitely one that would be in the same boat. Food Service jobs, many of which are underpaid to start
with, would be hit even harder, but I believe there would be a clientele shift from those that work in the area to
those that live in the area. It wouldn’t be enough though. Their jobs just got a whole lot harder to make ends meet.
One thing Diana and I both agree on is that we (the workforce of the World) should not be forced to do anything, whether it be forced back into the office or forced to be 100% remote. What we both are advocating for is choice. That organizations provide the flexibility and choice to be fully remote to fully on-site and everything in between. That choice argument can obviously be extended to other arguments (<cough> forced COVID vaccines <cough>), but we’ll leave that for other conversations and stick with the workforce argument for now.
Now that we’ve gotten those replied to, let’s kick the conversational side off with the Q&A.
CR (NP): Diana, you mentioned that you had more than those three as opposing views to a 100% remote workforce. What
others would you like to add? I would like to include those, my replies, and your replies to my replies. (Did that
sentence even make sense? The Grammar scholars at Oxford are likely rolling over in their graves about me at this
point.)
DM: Absolutely, I consider there are more things that are worth mentioning:
CR (NP): One of the things from the first article is the effect of fewer cars being on the roadways and could help reduce
the carbon footprints, but would also have the side effect of few cars being made in the long run, if more people
choose the more remote option. The question on this one is many-fold.
A) Do you see the environmental benefits outweighing the adverse effects to the automotive and oil industries?
B) Road rage is a serious trigger for some people. Do you think not being on the road having to deal with that
road rage would push more people to the more remote option?
C) Do you foresee “don’t wear fur” style attacks (like seen in NY where paint and other liquids were poured onto
people’s fur coats) against the people that choose the more on-site options? I’m asking this one because the
US, especially, has hit a level of hysterical madness that I’ve never even contemplated in my nearly 40 years on
this Earth.
DM: I completely agree that there would be important reduction in the carbon footprints if people work from home. I
personally don’t have a car, as I don’t consider I need it. I live in London and I use public transport.
Multiple people love working from home because they don’t waste 2-3 hours a day commuting, and I get it. I know very
few people from the UK who drive to work, most of them are using the public transport – and the public transport will
continue to work as there are many people who cannot work from home. It’s interesting the parallel with “don’t wear
fur”. I think people will make the difference that choosing to work from the office (even if this can have an impact
on pollution) is due to different reasoning (from health, to office space, to the need of human interaction, etc). I
think people need to learn to be a bit more empathic and don’t see everything in binary, especially when you are not
in the other persons’ shoes and you don’t know their circumstances.
CR (NP): We both agree that the REAL issue at hand for the Post-COVID19 Workforce is choice. The problem creating the
issue are the individual organizations. Like the screenshot from the one CEO that was on your post (below), he is
advocating 100% remote. There are other organizations that are 100% against ANY remote option (the traditional “must
have butts in seats” mentality). Finally, there are organizations like the one I work for that are adopting a hybrid
model where we are in the office every other week and remote the other weeks. How can we, as thought and industry
leaders, get organizations to, for lack of a better phrase, meet in the middle to offer employees that choice and the
percentage that choice would offer? For example, you mentioned that you would happily go into the office 2-3 days a
week. Our Compliance and Privacy Analyst declined the 50/50 option and is 100% on site. How can we get organizations
to move towards having that choice?
DM: I think the past 6 months proved that working from home is possible and it can be done successfully. I was shocked to
read that a CEO from a London company stated that he installed some spy software on his employees’ laptops to take
screenshots and videos of them while they work. This is such an unhealthy mentality and it just proves some trust
issues. I personally would never work for such a company. However, unfortunately some people don’t have a choice and
the business owners take advantage.
Happy employees=successful business. The leadership team should talk to the people, listen to them and find solutions
to accommodate as many categories as possible. There will be employees who want and can work 100% of the time from
home, there are people who want to work 100% from the office and there are others who want a mix.
I had weeks when I loved working from home, I had times when I absolutely hated it and felt lonely. We all have
different circumstances that can change. The leaders must find solutions to create a mixed working environment that
facilitates the “ups” and support and mitigate the “downs” of their workforce.
CR (NP): In regards to the infinite talent pool from my first article, would you predict a more world-wide average
salary for a position or would the salary still be more regional? What I mean by that is best described by an
example that happened to me recently. I was contacted by a recruiter on a position that was 100% remote and the
salary was dead in middle of average for the company’s location in Sacramento, California. I live in rural Alabama.
The salaries were not even in the same ballpark. The Sacramento deal was hard to turn down (it was contract work and
I’ve reached the point in my career where the uncertainty principle that comes with short-term contract work just
doesn’t appeal to me any longer), but conversely, there’s no way rural Alabama can offer a comparable salary with
Sacramento’s cost of living. If the industries move towards the choice option, do you see those salaries eventually
getting more equalized worldwide to accommodate for that?
DM: I think there will be a more world-wide average salary. However, I can see some people from the big cities worrying
about this already. To give you an example, the salaries in London are probably 15-20k more than in other locations
from the UK, however this is justified by the cost of living.
The talent pool will become bigger if the employers will consider hiring people from more remote locations, and it
will be in their advantage as they can offer a lower salary for the same work. How this will impact however the
people from the big cities, is difficult to predict. Probably many will choose to move out or hopefully the property
price and transport cost will decrease.
I like the idea of “work from anywhere”, but again, I am not sure what this will really look like in practice. I
would love the idea of working for 3 months from the UK, then 1 month from Spain, one month from Greece, etc. It
might be the future.
CR (NP): Diana, I want to thank you again for agreeing to do this. This has helped me tremendously and forced me to
remove a lot of my selection bias from the argument. Your added viewpoint made me look at this from an entirely new
angle and hopefully will get others to do the same.
To our readers, keep an eye out for Part 3 of this topic! I think everyone will be surprised and intrigued!