Yes, I know. I’m somewhat late to the party on this one, but let me explain. Firstly, I’ve already blogged about the topic and I try to be at least slightly original. Secondly, I just knew that every “thought leader” on LinkedIn would be posting inane commentary on the subject, and frankly, I’d rather be contrary. I am of course talking about anti-abortionist Chris Luxon’s announcement that public sector workers should really be doing nothing in the office, as opposed to doing nothing from home.
The whole topic of “WFH” has been the bane of our recent existence here at Rice & Co. Increasingly faced with a client base who are keen to get everyone back in the office, our candidates have very much decided that at least 2 days flicking themselves off to The Weakest Link is a birthright. And round pegs into square holes does not make for invoices being sent. This is no comment on Anne Robinson’s hole by the way. There just seems to be an increasing divide around what a business wants and what the candidate demands, and when you’re a good biller, it’s hard not to get your own way. I’ve been pondering the numbers on this.
Firstly, I believe that the number of people who bill more money working from home than in the office is so tiny, that it is ridiculous to base policy around them. It’s akin to setting a maximum speed limit for runners in your local park of 9.85 seconds/100m. It applies to so few. However, many recruiters would not agree. They will swear blind that they bill more from home, and I swear blind they won’t. My view is that a recruiter billing $300k a year from home would most likely bill $400k a year from the office. Part of divide we have between the boss and the employee is that these figures mean more to one group than the other.
Let’s look at an example.
A recruiter billing $300k would earn about $100k total package by most commission schemes. Someone billing $400k would earn $130k. After the tax man takes his cut to rebrand Te Whatu Ora, that’s $75k versus $95k respectively. The gap is already closing. Now if you are a fat bastard like I once was, you spend about $20 a day on lunch in the city, but maybe only $4 making a sandwich from home. So city workers are spending over $5k, and homebodies are spending a grand. And if you have to drive in, that $16 a day even with early bird. If you do the sums on this alone, billing $400k from the office leaves you with about $86k. $300k leaves you with about $74k, with 10 hours less commuting time, no depreciation on your car, no one looking over your shoulder, and as much Weakest Link as your bean can handle. Billing about 30% more makes you about 15% better off, best case. You can see how a grand a month doesn’t mean as much to the recruiter as the $100k of gross margin means to the business. And so we see ourselves at a Mexican standoff. The business wants the revenue, but it simply isn’t worth it for the recruiter.
So what are we going to do about it? Well I suppose we could address some of the costs involved. Firms could provide lunch or a lunch allowance for those in the office. That might be a thing, but like Jon Rice’s dogs, are we really bribing recruiters with food now? We could pay for parking or provide carparks, but in Auckland and Wellington, there simply isn’t the space, and we shouldn’t be encouraging this anyway. We could just say “everyone now back in the office“, but in a competitive market, this will make it very hard to attract and retain top recruiters.
Personally,I think there’s another way. Also imperfect, but I think if we can create better working cultures and environments, we have more chance of convincing people that an office is a better place to spend your days. If we were to say “You’re place of work is the office, unless you need to be somewhere else” it covers most situations. Got a delivery? Work from home. Got a sports day? Off you go and good luck to your kid. Not feeling it today or got a load of profiles to type up? See you when I see you. Then, we have to make the office fun, fit for purpose, and collaborative. We also need to move on dickhead managers. Thankfully I don’t have a manager, as the two fellas who run this place sound awful, but why would anyone willingly come in to a toxic environment? If we allow some fun, the odd cheeky pint, and work together on filling roles, whilst also giving people the freedom to complete some “life admin”, I reckon we might strike a balance.
Anyway, more from me next week of course.
^SW
