Return To Office Mandates are Bad Business and Hurt Workers' Health
Over 200k American workers are dying from "work-related mortality," and more have work-related health issues. Work from home may help. Why did so many employers refuse WFH policies this week?
This week several companies are stepping up their return to office demands including Amazon, Blackrock, Farmers Insurance, and (ironically) Zoom.
This is a strange business decision, because work from home (WFH) policies have been a godsend to employers on paper. The bulk of data on WFH or hybrid employment policies show increases in company profits, worker productivity, happiness, and retention, all net benefits to both the employer and the worker, a true win-win.
Even better, companies that increase WFH or go full telecommute save money on office space. Sun Microsystems has been ahead of the curve and saved $387 million over the last six years by working towards a telecommute-first business model. They also report happier, healthier, more productive workers.
There’s no sensible business reason for return to office mandates, doing so only harms the company and the workers, a true lose-lose.
Americans are currently suffering through a silent health crisis related to working.
In 2016, business professors from Harvard and Yale released the study: "The Relationship Between Workplace Stressors and Mortality and Health Costs in the United States" To summarize the major findings:
“We find that more than 120,000 deaths per year, and approximately 5%-8% of annual healthcare costs are associated with and may be attributable to how U.S. companies manage their work forces.” (The full estimate is 120,000-144,000 annual deaths)
Some identified risk factors for health disorders or death associated with working include: Poor/no health insurance from employer, consequences of job loss, low job security, and other various stressful working conditions (such as long/late shifts or weekly hours, excessive work duties, unsupportive or threatening management, etc.)
If “work-related mortality” can be considered a cause of death, in 2015 “work-related mortality” was the #6 most frequent cause of death in America, more frequent than diabetes or Alzheimer’s.
Workplaces with more risk factors pose more risk to workers of physical or mental health diagnoses, or death associated with working. The contrary is also true.
Employers have control over most of these factors.
These health problems employees suffer lead to lost profits for employers, and it is suggested that workplaces without these risk factors have healthier workers and also have higher productivity and profits.
It’s important to mention that this study occurred years before the COVID outbreak. In another article, I attempted to extrapolate a post-COVID number (and find unaccounted for work-related deaths of despair), and estimated this number of Total Work Related Deaths rose to somewhere between 200,000 and 388,000 in 2021.
The stakes are high, and today burnout rates are at all-time highs, this is an ongoing problem. Employers who see this research should respond by being more proactively meeting their workers needs, and creating healthier cultures.
An aggressive return to office policy like many of these employers are pushing isn’t just bad business, it also affects workers’ health and lives.
Many companies are flip-flopping on WFH policies, and confusing their workers in the process. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook/Meta are the most visible example: in 2020 Facebook claimed WFH policies increased productivity and happiness, and the company projected 50% WFH hours companywide by 2030 as a target. The next year they repeated their WFH commitment, citing continued benefits.
This year, the now renamed Meta has reversed course, and instituted a hostile-sounding RTO policy. Meta previously reported several benefits from WFH, and implied having data supporting this for years, but their language today leads one to think they never made these previous statements: Meta will now “analyze performance data and potentially ‘update’ the policy.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally continues to say that WFH makes him “happier and more productive.”
The CEO of AAA Washington penned an op-ed this week that puts this whole situation bluntly: There is no sensible business reason, RTO demands are frequently driven by employers’ desire for control over workers.
What are workers attached to these companies to do?
The best option for navigating any conflict is assertive communication, directly asking for the need. The worker states their need directly, and the employer should work with the worker to meet this need; The worker should be respectful and open to some negotiation, collaborative, and never be threatening or hostile. Assertive communication often works in getting the desired result, and is the best option for resolving most conflicts and meeting our emotional needs as well.
Assertive communication also relies on the other party hearing the speaker and negotiating with them in good faith. It is always the #1 approach, but may not get the need met if negotiating with parties refusing to “negotiate in good faith,” those not believing the speaker’s need is valid. In many cases, if assertive communication skills don’t get the desired need met, they often reveal something about the other party, which helps the speaker break away to find healthier relationships.
Meta workers are being threatened with a strict RTO policy and Meta refuses to negotiate. Meta has flip-flopped between firm commitments to valuing and meeting their workers’ needs, and denial of the previous stance with additional hostility to workers who still value this need.
This is exceptionally cruel to Meta’s workers, who were granted this privilege, told to expect it would be ongoing, shaped their lives around this, then had their employer change positions, and communicate that this privilege was never valid.
Employers and supervisors lying to workers in a hurtful way in this manner is a good example of what has been defined as workplace gaslighting.
The problem of burnout and worker health affects company and worker. The solution has been identified, and these employers can change course to meet their workers’ various needs, or take a positive step by acknowledging them as valid. WFH vs. RTO is only one example, and individually a worker can have any number of possible needs unmet by their employer.
Luckily for the worker, they can always attempt to assertively communicate their needs to their employer. It is the responsibility of the individual employer to listen. This will occur on a case-by-case basis, more dependent on the employer’s listening skills and actual response than the worker’s speaking skills.