PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Working from home is a good idea – some of the time and for some people.

That’s one takeaway from two competing news developments in the last two days, both related to “now what” as statistics related to the coronavirus retreat, at least a bit.

In one case, Ford Motor Company gave 30,000 employees the option to work from home in what the newspaper called “another sign of workforce transformation.”

A day later, Google announced that it would spend $7 billion on new buildings and data centers in the U.S. this year, doubling down on a return to the office.  The new buildings will be In Texas, California, North Carolina and Minnesota.

Google was one of the first major U.S. companies to send its workers home in March 2020 as the coronavirus began to spread rapidly across the United States.  It now plans to bring employees back to the office in September, but unlike Facebook and Twitter, it hasn’t given them the option for permanent remote work.

A story in the Washington Post included this quote:  “Coming together in person to collaborate and build community is core to Google’s culture, and it will be an important part of our future.”

By contrast, Ford said many workers will have a new ‘hybrid option’ to work both remotely and in-person, starting in July.

The news caught my attention because, several years ago before I retired as a lobbyist, I moved my firm’s office from downtown Salem, Oregon to my home.

The reason was not related to the coronavirus, which at the time, was several years away.   To state the obvious, our small firm is very different than Ford or Google, but we faced some of the same decisions in a far smaller way.

The reasons for scrapping an office were, first, we were doing more and more work from home anyway, and, second, doing away with physical office space saved money.

As lobbyists, we often communicated with clients late at night or early in the morning.  Then, days during regular sessions of the Oregon Legislature were spent at the Capitol in downtown Salem.  And, when the Capitol became wi-fied, there was no need for an office.  Work could be done literally in Capitol hallways.

But there is no RIGHT answer here.  Just options.

So, to gain some perspective on this, I did what I often do, which consult with one of my friends who is a business consultant.

Here are excerpts of what he told me:

“…the pandemic has shown us that remote work options do work, though the option does not work for ALL jobs in all industries.  Based on the data I have seen, productivity has not declined and technology has helped to bridge the gap of working independently.

“If I were assisting a business which was considering remote work as an option, I would be asking:  Has the company spoken to its employees about the option and, if so, what have the concerns been; why are employers thinking about this as an option for employees; what do they hope to gain from it; have they determined which jobs would be eligible; and – relative to jobs that would continue to be done in place – what incentives have they investigated to compensate for the lack of flexibility; and, finally, what metrics will they use to determine the success of the effort?”

My friend also told me that he does not see the U.S. ever going back fully to what most of us have experienced in terms of “going to work.”

“The lost time commuting, traveling to locations to meet face-to-face, or even just standing around the water cooler or coffee pot just chit-chatting, will be pretty much gone for many employees.  Employers are saving a ton of money on leased space, travel, lodging, meals and some administrative costs.

“Managing employees will definitively have a different format with different expectations AND it just may very well be clearer and more effective that the ‘old’ model,” though questions will remain on whether working at home effects productivity.

As usual, good points all.

For me, working at home was effective and productive.  When I made the decision for my firm, the coronavirus was not involved; it was just the best decision for my firm at the time.

It might not be the same for all companies or all jobs, including the obvious cases such as at Ford where some workers will have to remain at physical plants to produce cars.

It strikes me that the smart move will be for companies to try working at home as an option for some employees, not a requirement, and then test the new model after a few years to make sure it works as designed.