So we're starting week 8 of the UK-wide lockdown and last night the PM gave us an idea, albeit a bit vague, of the "exit strategy" to ease the restrictions on movement whilst also ensuring that we all remain safe and well. Honestly, nothing unexpected. We're to keep doing what we're doing, despite the minor change in the slogan, and we've now got a rough idea, dependent on good behaviour, on what will happen over the next couple of months.
There will be more information, more questions being asked, and more scrutiny of the strategy in Parliament later today, so I'm hoping that this will make the Sunday evening message a bit clearer. Personally I welcome more information on this. I'm keen to see my friends again, to hug them, to go out with them again. Seeing each other on Zoom just isn't the same!
But at the same time, I have fears about what would happen if we move forward too quickly. A second peak? Cases and deaths spiking again? Another lockdown for another few months or possibly until the end of the year? Who knows! But that's the thing - its the "who knows" part that worries me.
Perhaps one thing that can alleviate my anxieties somewhat is news that I have come across that is suggesting that the right to work from home is to be enshrined in law. (1) (2) (3) It is reported that officials at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy department are said to be considering allowing staff to operate remotely after restrictions are lifted.
It will make it easier to adhere to physical distancing*, which is being suggested must continue intermittently until 2022. (4) Furthermore, it is hoped that if this is enshrined in law, then overcrowding on public transport will be reduced, further helping us all to adhere to physical distancing, and it will help employers save money on measures to make their workplaces safe in a post-pandemic industry, which all will inevitably be required to do as a duty to their workforce.
Working from home has been a part of flexible working measures for a long time now and has been of a benefit to a large number of workers. The most obvious demographic that this measure has benefitted is new parents.
Let's imagine that an employee has given birth, the maternity/paternity leave has now expired, and they are now expected to return to work. Likely the child will be 1 year old, there or thereabouts, when this is expected to happen. But the parent(s) can't afford childcare or has no other family or friends who are able to care for their child, and obviously the parent will not leave a young dependent child in the house alone. Therefore the most obvious flexible working arrangement that the employer and employee would look to discuss and agree upon is working from home. That way, the employee will still carry out their duties as expected, but the added flexibility of being able to do this at a place away from the office means that the parent can continue to care for and raise the young child.
Let's also consider another example with regards to neurodiversity.
It is not uncommon for persons with Autism spectrum disorder (including Asperger Syndrome like myself) to have some social difficulties, including being physically around people such as in a workplace. For some, it may cause sensory overload. For others, it may cause anxieties or possibly meltdowns. For others who have their own way of seeing the world and as a result their own way of reacting to the world or getting on in the world, which could, in turn, be different to their other colleagues, the worst-case scenario is that they might experience bullying from either ignorant (willfully or innocently) or hateful colleagues who latch on to that difference and use it as a means to bully (I speak from experience here!).
Say, for example, an autistic employee is having a particularly difficult day at work and they are just not able to function in the office so need to go home. They can still carry out their duties, but the environment at home on that given day is better suited to help them perform at their best and complete their duties. This may be because there is a dedicated quiet space in their home that they have set up to help them work from home, or because there are fewer negative/more positive stimuli at home that enable them to carry out their duties far better than they can at work on that day. It isn't uncommon for autistic employees, me included, to have a "safe" person or place or object that helps to ground us and give us that safe feeling in a place where, let's be honest, there are so many stimuli and that could very well cause us to become overwhelmed due to the sensory overload. So if a manager is receptive and understanding of this and has had that conversation so that they can understand that working from home can benefit the company and the employee, then this is a good example of how a flexible working arrangement that includes working from home can benefit a neurodiverse worker.
The suggestion that WFH be a default right instead of something that needs to be applied for is a welcome one to me. Sure, the UK government is brainstorming this as a means to control infections and keep workers safe, but the government and in turn employers who employ autistic employees can also understand that this will mean we can continue to fulfil our duties and contribute to the company, thereby creating a much more diverse and inclusive workplace.
Diversity is great to show on a piece of paper that an employer employs X number of female employees and Y number of disabled employees with Z number of those disabled employees being autistic, but inclusion I believe is much more important.
Inclusion means all employees from every background based on gender, culture, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status are equally and equitably welcomed, respected and accepted for who they are. Inclusion is a sense of belonging, which is what everyone, regardless of their background, is seeking in a workplace and in life.
I have a couple of hopes for this:
1) Employers can now see that working from home is entirely possible. Anecdotally speaking, lots of employers do raise objections to employees working from home, but this pandemic has shown that employees can work from home, the employer isn't at a detriment, and it should reinforce the notion that employers pay for workers and not "bums on seats"
2) Regardless of whether it will or won't be enshrined in law, people are now talking about this. A bit like if you tell someone to not talk about a subject, they're going to talk about it (we're just like that!). But more people will be talking about it, and those people will hopefully include employers and company directors etc. Perhaps then if some employers are ahead of the game on this and include the right to work from home as a right in a contract of employment, in lieu of it being actual law at this moment, then certainly those companies will receive a real boon. I see this being because those companies recognise that their employees have been able to WFH despite the employers' resistance to allow it en masse, and since they now see that it is possible and with there being a minimal difference in output (I believe), they could market themselves, or have themselves be marketed by others, as game-changers or positive disruptors or more innovative than their competitors by way of inclusion measures, thereby making them more attractive to investors, job seekers and clients, and giving them an edge in the industry.
Or maybe this is all just wishful thinking and I'm just seen as a disruptor. Perhaps. But humans are not the only disruptors in the world. Do you know what another disruptor is? A viral pandemic forcing the closure of normal business as we know it, and thereby forcing businesses to get creative and disrupting the normal way of working and operating in the world! And we've shown that we can do it.
Let's see where this goes. I'm looking forward to it, and willing to have a further discussion about it. I'm all for increasing diversity and inclusion measures and schemes in work, particularly in the legal profession, and am looking to see where I can help, either with real-world examples, personal experiences, or further education.
Be safe! We're getting there ..... together!
Cover image credit: Bench Accounting on Unsplash
* I personally prefer to use the term physical distancing as opposed to social distancing because we can still be social and still be around friends and family during this time, obviously with the physical distance between us so that we keep each other safe. Humans are social creatures by nature so for us to be non-social goes against our nature and doesn't do any of us any favours. We can be physically distant whilst continuing to be social. That's the beauty of modern technology in this day and age!
Comments