‘Not one size fits all’: Readers have their say on the rise of working from home

As Britain claims the title of Europe’s working-from-home capital, readers were quick to weigh in – and Emma Clarke’s honest take on the daily commute struck a nerve.

Once a proud commuter, Clarke now sympathises with those still battling packed trains and steep travel costs. Her shift mirrors a wider rethink: is the office commute still worth it?

In response, Independent readers offered sharp takes on today’s working world. Many praised remote work as more productive and freeing, while calling out middle managers clinging to control.

Others flagged that WFH isn’t always practical – especially for parents, flatsharers, or those in frontline jobs like retail and healthcare.

Access and fairness came up again and again. From junior staff stuck hot-desking to hybrid setups favouring the senior, readers want a system that works for everyone.

One thing was clear: readers felt that the future of work must be flexible and fair.

Here’s what you had to say:

WFH isn't for everyone. In academia, it is very common and popular. Also encouraged by senior management as it works out cheaper for them, and they swing towards hot-desking and other methods to make space usage more "efficient".

It works for me, but I'm fortunate enough to have a spare room where I can set up an office. I have many younger colleagues who, due to academia now being dominated by more or less zero-hours contracts for anyone under 40, are still living in HMO flatshares and often have very little space to work from home.

It's all too common for those of us a little bit more privileged and able to WFH to forget that there are those for whom it is not a practical option.

Padraig Mahone

Is working from home the future? Share your view in the comments

Many employers just don't have the option to offer either flexible working or working at (not from) home.

Take a hospital. 99 per cent of the staff in a hospital work shifts (some work 3 x 12.5-hour shifts, some work 5 x 7.5-hour shifts, but they all work shifts and the only "flexibility" is staying longer than the allotted hours when it is needed. It has to be that way because if everything were flexible, there would be gaps in provision.

Small shops need their staff to be there when the shop is open. My local shop is open from 07:00 until 21:00, seven days a week. There is family labour, the day shift, four or five of them (08:00 to 17:00 or 09:00 to 18:00), then there's the evening shift who also cover weekends and they are all part-time – some at college, some still at school – supported by family labour at any time. But they all have to work to the rota or the shop isn't open.

Herdsmen milk their cows (or their employers' cows) to a strict timetable because cows don't like having their routines messed around, and yields drop when it happens. Many herdsmen manage the twice-yearly clock changes by moving just a few minutes per day over seven to ten days to avoid upsetting the cows. And, once again, there is no respite; milking is a seven-day-a-week job, 52 weeks every year.

I agree that anyone who can should try, but it is never possible to give everyone exactly what they want, even in systems which offer some flexibility.

MarchesMood2

Any employer who applies a one-size-fits-all rule to flexible working does not have their employees' best interests at heart. It's really as simple as that.

Ryu

My ten pence worth...

I have a hybrid way of working (lucky me).

I work longer hours at home and can concentrate on complex reports (whilst the kids are at school). I cannot do this whilst hot-desking in a noisy, cold, open-plan office. Being productive at home improves my mood and how I feel about work. It also allows more parents to balance responsibilities with work life.

Having said that, it's important to feel part of a team, build relationships, friendships, and learn from hearing/seeing/talking to colleagues, which is nowhere near as impactful through a Teams call as said above. I also have a better routine when going into the office, but the cost of travel to London is extortionate!

If possible, hybrid is the way forward.

Jezabel

I have worked from home for the last 35 years. It is not compatible with childcare during working hours, particularly since mine requires silence and concentration.

MonteRosa

It's crazy that WFH has become a part of the 'culture wars' when technology was always going to make it inevitable and useful for a female workforce if childcare is still a huge issue.

TDme

Covid told thousands of London-based firms that their middle managers were lying weasels, who only wanted to feel the power of micromanaging their workers and the power of standing over their personal empires, and that staff could, in fact, work from home just as well, saving the companies collectively tens of billions in office costs – often working longer hours than when they were in the office, because they no longer spent hours commuting every day.

BlueWhale

Remote-first works well. Hybrid doesn't work unless it's just a day a week of flexibility. But unless the CEO and 70 per cent or more of staff are fully remote, you end up with hybrid work processes, geo-located teams, and compromise upon compromise.

Better to do full office if it's like that – it's a waste of money, bad for business compared with remote-first. But it works well for old-fashioned, low-tech companies.

WFH

I had a similar experience before going fully remote about a year after WFH "ended". I'm the only one in my team located in the UK, and due to having a regulated position, it required that I have a 'closed' door office. I would lug my laptop each way on a 45-minute commute to sit by myself in the office. It became very depressing.

The conversation overall needs to turn from a one-size-fits-all to what actually works for how that company is set up in terms of team structure (people actually being in the same office) and productivity requirements. Even when mentoring younger colleagues or teammates, it doesn't matter if you're both in the office, if you're in different countries.

GS1415

If every person who could WFH did, imagine how easy commuting would be for everyone who can't WFH. I ferry a laptop two hours each way to sit with my headphones in 90 per cent of the time. The other 10 per cent could be an email or a Teams message.

Fortunately, I've managed to swing my contract hybrid so I only do this commute twice a week, but that's still a full day's time spent tired and stressed, driving an explosion/lightning-powered 2-tonne chariot surrounded by my fellow bald chimps also tired and stressed in explosion/lightning-powered 2-tonne chariots.

Hear me out: we shouldn't be commuting at all.

Hax0r

When records were mostly on paper, offices were necessary so that a number of people could access them in quick succession. IT has removed that constraint, so offices' main function these days is as places for social interaction.

It is not immediately obvious that discussing last night's footy around the coffee machine is an essential business function, but it does help cement relationships.

On the other hand, maintaining offices, particularly in London, Is very expensive. Some of the more productive meetings that I have attended were in a coffee shop in Reading.

LordNelson3

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.