Suchergebnisse

The COVID‐19 pandemic compelled large sections of the workforce out of their workplaces and into their homes to work. Many commentators suggest this has forever changed how and where we work. This article analyses how Australia's biggest employers – state and federal governments – approached the transitions to working from home, and back into regular workplaces. It considers the timing of policy responses to the pandemic as one indicator of resistance to, or acceptance of, widespread working from home. The article also demonstrates previous resistance to working from home for public servants, and questions widespread conjecture that it will become the 'new normal'.

PurposeThe authors track the well-being of individuals across five European countries during the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and relate their well-being to working from home. The authors also consider the role of pandemic-policy stringency in affecting well-being in Europe.Design/methodology/approachThe authors have four waves of novel harmonised longitudinal data in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Sweden, covering the period May–November 2020. Well-being is measured in five dimensions: life satisfaction, a worthwhile life, loneliness, depression and anxiety. A retrospective diary indicates whether the individual was working in each month since February 2020 and if so whether at home or not at home. Policy stringency is matched in per country at the daily level. The authors consider both cross-section and panel regressions and the mediating and moderating effects of control variables, including household variables and income.FindingsWell-being among workers is lower for those who work from home, and those who are not working have the lowest well-being of all. The panel results are more mitigated, with switching into working at home yielding a small drop in anxiety. The panel and cross-section difference could reflect adaptation or the selection of certain types of individuals into working at home. Policy stringency is always negatively correlated with well-being. The authors find no mediation effects. The well-being penalty from working at home is larger for the older, the better-educated, those with young children and those with more crowded housing.Originality/valueThe harmonised cross-country panel data on individuals' experiences during COVID-19 are novel. The authors relate working from home and policy stringency to multiple well-being measures. The authors emphasise the effect of working from home on not only the level of well-being but also its distribution.

The COVID pandemic that took the world economy by surprise at the beginning of 2020 brought many drastic changes to the way individuals carry on their daily lives. One that will have long lasting effects, even after the spread of the virus is contained, is a shift towards flexible work arrangements, including remote work options. Initially implemented to comply with government imposed stay-at-home orders, many employers decided to allow remote work even after the orders were lifted. In this chapter we will review some of the metrics used in the literature to measure the potential that a specific occupation is suitable for telework. This is important because Working From Home was often the only option for businesses to remain open during the first part of the pandemic. We also review the results of the literature on two important dimensions of inequality: the gender wage gap and income inequality, Moreover, we review some evidence of the effect of WFH on worker's productivity in general and during the pandemic and on physical and mental health. We conclude with a description of what WFH may look like after the pandemic, by describing the process towards a possible "new normal" in the labour market.