MARCH 17 — Almost the only positive thing about the Covid-19 pandemic is that it pushed the idea of work-from-home (WFH) away from abstract theory and into hard reality.

WFH simply became a fact of life for companies and workers. When the pandemic ended, things went back to normal but six years later, we’re raising that question again — literally, as the Cabinet (at the time of writing) intends to moot the possibility of WFH for civil servants.

What everyone else is thinking with regards to the Cabinet session is why not extend WFH to as many sectors as possible not least because a) traffic in the Klang Valley has been murder of late and b) thanks to the Iran War fuel prices may skyrocket?

Well, why not indeed?

The sheer practicality and convenience of WFH arrangements (if the job suits it) makes the prima facie case for it an enviable one.

Many Malaysian employees and students see no reason why they can’t be allowed to stay at home especially if their jobs don’t require client facetime very often.

And with Zoom and MS Teams and what-not taking care of meetings, there is almost no reason to come to office if deliverables can be produced outside of it.

Furthermore, employers may gain an advantage by offering WFH as a perk. A frequent sticking point among Malaysian white-collar workers is this concern that bosses do not “trust” them.

A WFH arrangement more or less puts that idea to bed, leaving the ball in the employees’ court i.e.. “prove that your quality doesn’t fall with WFH”.

I personally know quite a few data analysts and content creators who, I’m sure, work even more efficiently when they do it from the comfort of their own bedroom or hall. I can’t say this is the majority of Malaysians but such folks exist for sure.

What’s the downside to WFH?

Back in 2023, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, in an interview with CNBC, suggested there were moral considerations involved in the entire notion of working from home (WFH).

Musk labelled Silicon Valley engineers a part of “laptop classes living in la-la land” not least because WFH folks like them usually expected others (especially service workers) to show up at work or be in the office.

If we go to a bank and expect to see someone at the counter — and if we’d be pissed if someone wasn’t — shouldn’t we apply those requirements to ourselves?

Do we want our entire economy to be a WFH one? Would we be glad if groceries, cinemas, restaurants, hair salons, cafes, hotels etc were all devoid of human personnel?

Thus, if these sectors of the economy still require people to go work from the office, how can other sectors demand WFH as a kind of entitlement?

Whatever you think of Musk’s perspective, I think the point he raises about the inevitability of service workers needing to leave their homes to earn a living needs to be heard.

Do I have the right to feel “robbed” of WFH privileges when so many others simply don’t have that option?

Many Malaysian employers in their late forties and older have spent too many decades working in an office to feel comfortable allowing workers (especially highly paid workers) to remain absent from office.

Many people associate “time for productivity” with “time in office” and, because they’re the ones paying out the salaries, they probably believe this debate is a waste of time.

Nevertheless, WFH may result in lower costs for some companies. Surely we’ve all heard of some start-ups which don’t need to rent office space because their team is 24/7 remote and mobile.

Also, I guess if fewer people show up in the office, this could result in lower costs for electricity, broadband and maybe even man-power costs if employees accept slightly lower wages in exchange for not having to commute every weekday.

Long and short, this debate will rage on whatever our Cabinet (or Musk) declares or doesn’t.

In the end, I guess the market will do the talking and that in the end is really how every final outcome will be decided.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.