Interesting proposal. I do see quite a few issues with the article though.
I think the “helping people work face to face” is because that 5% would go directly to funding grants for such people. I have little faith that it would actually work out that way.
I do worry that employers will see increased WFH as an opportunity to downsize offices and thus save money, which will impact commercial real estate values. My employer (a large firm, with lots of consulting) has an office building, but the times I’ve been there it’s largely empty because we all work at client sites.
A friend’s employer (some years ago) had limited budget for raises, so they offered much more flexible WFH options as an alternative. If WFH remains pervasive. you know some employers will give lower raises than they might have otherwise. And that’s actually not completely awful (though it WILL get abused): part of my salary is intended to cover the normal costs of commuting. If I am not commuting, I don’t need as much money… though if I then get told I need to start coming into work, they’d bloody well better fix the money situation. All in all it’d be a mess, and the employees will be the losers.
The article suggests that people who work from home are freeloading, in a way:.
"However, the report also said it meant remote workers were “contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits.” " -
This makes little sense to me. If I’m earning x dollars a week, I’m earning that whether I work from home or go to an office. I’m not driving on the roads so that’s less wear and tear. I’m not polluting as much. I’m not benefitting from the company paying rent on an office building - but they are still paying that rent (until they aren’t - see above). I’m paying every bit as much in taxes (unless I was commuting into a high-tax area, e.g. NYC).
Now, if I work from home, there are some places where there’s a direct economic effect. I won’t be buying lunch anywhere, for example.
In any case, it’s a nice thought experiment - but there really is no way to slap a 5% surcharge on people and have it even remotely equitable. At a minimum it would be a bookkeeping nightmare: If you work at the office 1 day a week do you pay 5% on 4 days’ salary? What about vacation weeks? What if you go in an extra day one week?