I get it. There are a lot of jobs that simply cannot be accomplished working remote. Trucks require CDL Drivers to move freight. We’re not at the point where society has broad-base vehicles that can be driven autonomously. In the same manner, other automotive jobs like In-office Titling roles require employees to physically verify documents, apply wet signatures, and hand-process forms. Hospitality jobs are also largely not performed remote.
Caveats such as these aside, it’s long-past time to address the elephant in the metaphorical office; return to work policies. As the pandemic ends, more and more employers are forcing employees back to the office. These steps come on the heels of the world working almost exclusively remote for the past two years. Entire industries and countries were shut down. Businesses were forced to close. Others were pushed to virtual work. In short, a significant portion of society did not go to work onsite. Now, after two years of operating in a remote environment, organizations are claiming that it is “essential to business” that employees return to work. Why?
Goldman Sachs recently implemented a return-to-work plan for their entire office of 10,000 employees at their New York City HQ. CEO David Solomon insisted for weeks that employees would return to full-time, in-office work by February. New York City Mayor Eric Adams also met with Goldman employees to stress the importance of bringing workers back to his struggling city. Despite the best efforts of Solomon and Mayor Adams, only 50% of Goldman Sachs employees showed up to work on the mandated return date. Moreover, Goldman Sachs has not reported the daily in-office attendance rate. The company merely reports the percent of employees that attend work in person weekly, which does not equate to daily attendance. These statistics seem to imply that employees are not taking the policy seriously.
Policies such as Goldmans not only effect personnel but impact shareholders as well. As mid-March, Goldman is down 15% over the past 90 days. Contrast this with Wells Fargo who is up over 5% during the same period. More concerning, however, are the underlying implications these policies have on employee migration. Countless studies indicate these policies directly led to the “Great Resignation.” A USA Today study showed that 50% of workers would take a 5% pay cut to work remote. Another study by Parks Associates showed that 54% of households had at least one person working remote and plan to continue doing so post-pandemic. With only 43% of non-tech industries allowing remote work, the “Great Resignation” is showing no signs of slowing down.
Offering remote work has countless benefits. Companies immediately open their recruiting pool to a much broader range of talent. This increases the competitive nature of hiring and decreases the amount of time spent in the recruitment process. The less time spent on recruiting saves on human capital hours and leads to better workplace efficiency. It also ensures that businesses remain competitive in the current economy and keep up with market demands. The war for talent is real and bucking the remote or hybrid model is a losing proposition.
Adrian Russo – VP of People and Talent – Swish Analytics | LinkedIn
