Working from home: apparently asking for evidence is now “militant”

I was reading The Week’s summary of Ruth Sunderland’s attack on the “militant WFH brigade”, and one detail stood out. Unite’s request for an evidence-based explanation of why Barclays staff should spend more time in the office is described as inflammatory.

Imagine that. Employees asking a business to explain how a decision improves the business. I thought evidence and efficiency were supposed to be things the private sector was particularly keen on...?

Being at home isn’t being off work

The dispute, as described in the article, concerns moving from two office days a week to at least three. That is a disagreement about how work is organised, not a demand to abolish work.

Yet the column slides towards the suggestion that employees regard work as an oppressive burden to be avoided. It then brings in young people outside education, employment or training, as though a bank employee questioning an extra commute helps explain youth inactivity.

That connection needs demonstrating. People already doing their jobs from home are, rather obviously, doing their jobs.

If three days produces better results than two, show where and how. Different roles might require different answers. That sounds like management, rather than surrender to militancy.

There is evidence worth discussing

A randomised study published in Nature in 2024 followed 1,612 employees at Trip.com. Staff offered two days a week working from home had better job satisfaction and quit rates a third lower than those working entirely in the office. The researchers found no damage to performance reviews or promotion outcomes.

That doesn’t settle the Barclays dispute. It compared three office days with five, not two with three, and took place in one Chinese technology company. But it does undermine the assumption that allowing people to work from home is inherently bad for business.

Keeping experienced staff is a business benefit too. So is avoiding unnecessary recruitment. Employees saving time and money needn’t come at their employer’s expense.

There’s a class dimension here which deserves more attention. ONS analysis published in November 2024 found that workers with degree-level qualifications were ten times as likely to hybrid work as those with no qualifications: 42% compared with 4%.

Many jobs simply cannot be done from a spare bedroom. Care workers, cleaners and shop staff don’t have the same options. That should prompt a discussion about what flexibility, predictable hours and decent conditions look like for them, rather than a demand that office workers also spend more time travelling.

Final thoughts

Nobody needs to believe working from home is a universal human right to think an established arrangement shouldn’t be changed without a decent explanation.

What irritates me is the suggestion that asking “why?” is itself an act of aggression. If an extra office day improves the work, explain the improvement. If the argument is simply that the boss gets to decide, then at least be honest about that.

Calling the staff militant doesn’t provide the missing evidence.