Yes , but - you still have people in the office opening and scanning mail which means those people aren’t working remotely and you have a “few clients who want to do things the old way”. On the other hand, my husband’s employer * has few , if any, customers who want to do things the new way - most will not place their orders online , preferring to speak to a sales rep in person or to order over the phone. If they won’t order online , they certainly will not pay online with an electronic check and at the point where nearly all the payments, cash or check are coming to the office either through the mail or through the delivery drivers , you might be able to let one or two people work from home. Assuming you can do that and still have enough people working in the office.
* Their customers are mainly small, single location retail stores . Most of them don’t even want to pay by check - some probably don’t have a business checking account.
Yes, we have one person who comes in every day (compared to about 15 before COVID). That person reviews the mail, sends the checks and bills to the bookkeeper, sends the other mail to the electronically to the person who needs it, and answers the phone. The phone part could be done remotely, but she’s in the office anyway. Our bookkeeper can deposit up to $5M in checks on her phone without going to the bank. We never deal in cash, but we do receive and send money via wire transfers (also without going to the bank)
We probably could do away with an office (mail could go to a PO Box), but see value in keeping it, even though on a smaller scale.
Just because they can be done doesn’t mean they will be done. Some online processing incurs extra fees that clients don’t want to pay. Invoice fraud is rampant and some clients don’t trust online banking for that reason. Operations below a certain size can’t afford the staff and security for mail receiving and digitizing. It helps that more clients do pay digitally but 100% conversion is unlikely.
Used to be we had lots of people doing this work. Now it’s much much smaller, and as the old folks who don’t want to change retire, it will only get smaller.
It’s not just an “old people” thing though. I have a younger client right now who refuses to do online payments after getting burned by an invoice scam. The more stuff goes online the more criminals follow, and the more pushback there’s likely to be as people try to protect themselves.
I frequently had to have my accounts payable team cut checks to the US Department of Homeland Security to process H-1B (immigration) petitions. But for the most part, our AP can send funds through electronic transfers instead of checks. But they’ve still got to be there at times so people like me can get checks printed.
For the most part, I find people in their early 30s and younger prefer to avoid human contact at all costs and do everything over an APP. It’s like some of them are allergic to talking to people.
I have a feeling that the equilibrium will be that most people are going to end up working a few days in the officer per week, but the rest at home. Some will be required to come in full time, and others will be allowed to be fully at-home.
That seems to be the trajectory that my job and my friends’ jobs are taking; and honeslty, a couple days a week has turned out not to be very bad at all; since there’s no coordination where I work as to when we show up for our couple days a week, it’s still mostly like being at home, only I’m in a blissfully quiet office and away from some of the distractions of home. It’s kind of the best of both worlds in a lot of ways.
Whichever way it goes, I just wish people (in my office) would stop whinging about it. Would I rather work totally remotely? Hells yeah, but that’s not what my EMPLOYER wants. The reasons may be all the stupid things mentioned earlier but at the moment, that’s the way it is. Just because you find yourself in the unique position of preferring working at home doesn’t mean anyone wants to hear about it. You’re not entitled to it.
Yes, and God Forbid the Holy EMPLOYER not get everything they want, without regard to any of those petty concerns of those ungrateful peons they deign to employ.
But employers are often sensitive to employee preferences. They have to compete with other employers for employees, after all. And many people will choose a nicer workplace over some degree of income, so there are solid financial reasons for employers to care what their employees want. And unemployment remains low, so employees have some bargaining power.
This is the time to complain if your employer is making you treck into the office when you can do your job without that, a prefer working from home.
My employer lost 30% of staff in a couple of months when they mandated a return to the office. We lost massive amounts of sales and market share which we will probably never get back. But management just complained about entitled employees.
Of course the people we lost were the best of the younger people.
My department is now hybrid, with most employees in the office once a week, and many in the office twice a week. I remain full time WFH, which means I need to go in for a day or two every couple of months. Management made up some reason why I needed an exception, but the real reason I’m full time WFH is because they decided they wanted to keep me, and knew that was more likely if I could continue to WFH.
That wouldn’t have played out the same if I hadn’t made sure management knew my preference. Call it entitled whining if you want to.
And EMPLOYERS all over America would like to pay less for more work, so is that okay, just because “they are in the position to get what they want”?
At the same time that employers are telling people they have to come back to the office because “that’s what they want”, they’re also complaining about “no one wants to work any more!” because they can’t find enough people willing to work under those conditions. So I’m entirely unsympathetic to the EMPLOYERS concerns.
For decades now, I’ve heard people extolling the virtue of free market capitalism over government regulation of the economy, and one of the most compelling arguments was that businesses would swiftly pivot to adjust to rapid changes in the marketplace, that “old slow dinosaurs” in government simply could not react to fast enough. But the last three years have shown that this is largely bullshit. Governments adjusted to the challenges of the pandemic quite quickly, while lots of those free enterprise people did nothing more than whine and complain about everything. How dare anyone expect them to do anything differently, just because society was facing the biggest crisis most of us alive today have ever seen?!?
This is the new reality, free enterprise. Adapt or die. The workers clearly have adapted. This is a you problem, not an us problem.
Why would I? You’re not complaining about anything. Sounds like you have an employer that was willing to work with you, so good on ya.
I’m not taking the side of the employer, just expressing my opinion about the folks in my surroundings
who spend so much energy griping about it. It’s not going to help and it’s not going to change things. My company has a huge, oft visited campus that they are unlikely to shut down any time soon, if ever.
It’s up to each of us to decide if we want to work here or not. It sucks, it feels like a waste, and I would love to only come in when I have an in person appointment but the boss of me does not allow that at this time.
That sounds kind of like the opposite of employers getting what they want. Like anything else in life the party with the most options ( and therefore the most power) gets what they want - if an employee is in high demand because of their skills and can leave an employer who insists on in-office work , they will probably not be forced to work in office , at least not if the employer wants to retain them. But not all employees are in that much demand - a company hiring for a minimum wage call center might have no problems insisting on in-person work.
Entitlement runs both ways. Workers are not entitled to WFH, and employers are not entitled to WFO.
Worker/Employer is a business relationship. For that relationship to thrive, both sides need to feel satisfied with the conditions. Historically this relationship, in regards to bargaining, has favored the Employer because Workers, well, need to eat every day. Workers depend on that single weekly check far more than Employers depend on one worker’s weekly tasks being completed.
Today, with unemployment as low as it is, the negotiating power has swung towards Worker, which means working conditions are not entirely defined by the Employer. Workers have more leverage, and they’d be foolish to not use it.