Firms that insist on full attendance lose staff to those that do not

The argument

The second argument treats the question as one about competition for workers rather than about preference. Proponents of this position argue that where employers differ on a condition of employment that workers value highly, the condition does not stay optional for long, because the firms offering it recruit from the firms that do not. Proponents argue that the arithmetic favours flexibility unusually strongly. Time saved commuting is time returned to the worker without the employer paying for it, which makes it an unusually cheap thing to offer. It is valued most by the people employers most want to keep, including experienced staff with children, people who cannot easily move house, and workers with disabilities for whom a daily commute is the hardest part of the job. And it widens the pool a firm can hire from, since a role that does not require daily attendance can be filled by someone two hours away who would never have applied otherwise. They add that the pressure operates through the people who leave rather than through a decision anyone announces. Proponents argue that a firm requiring full attendance does not confront the policy directly; it simply finds that candidates ask about it, that some of them withdraw, and that it is paying more than its competitors for comparable staff. Once a few large employers in a sector offer a hybrid arrangement, the others face the choice of matching it or accepting a worse workforce at a higher price. The argument concludes that because flexibility is cheap to give, highly valued by the workers most worth keeping, and offered by some employers already, hybrid work is the way of the future.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics answer that the competitive pressure runs the other way whenever labour is plentiful, and that employers have reimposed attendance requirements without losing the staff this argument says they would. They add that flexibility is only cheap if dispersal costs nothing, whereas firms report real losses in training, collaboration and the speed at which new staff become useful, and a cost that appears later is still a cost. Critics also point out that the benefit is confined to work that can be done from a desk, so even if the argument holds it describes the future of one segment of employment rather than the way of the future.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The pressure depends on labour being scarce, and where it is plentiful employers have reimposed attendance without losing the staff the premise says they would. [Rejecting P2] Flexibility is cheap only if dispersal costs nothing, whereas firms report losses in training, collaboration and the speed at which new staff become useful. [Rejecting P3] A firm can absorb a higher wage bill or a narrower applicant pool if it judges the gains from attendance to be larger, so the choice described is not forced. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that desk-based employers will compete on flexibility, which describes one segment of employment rather than the way of the future.