Stuart Rose is wrong: the world has moved on from the shop floor
Stuart Rose has claimed that remote working is “not proper work”. That may make sense for retail but it’s wide of the mark when it comes to legal and financial services, says John Hayes
Stuart Rose, the former head of supermarkets, Asda, Ocado and M&S and one of the most influential retailers of the past 30 years has stated that remote working is “not proper work”. He claims that the UK has “regressed… by 20 years in the past four” through having embraced remote and hybrid working. He asserts that this is having a deleterious effect on personal development and the country as a whole (although clearly not golf clubs).
In fact, the true position is a lot more nuanced than what Stuart Rose asserts, as our client work demonstrates.
The prevalence of hybrid or remote working is very much industry specific: in short it depends upon whether the work can be carried out through access to efficient IT systems, remotely. The common working pattern for London’s lawyers and accountants (FTE) is 3:2, three days in the office and two at home. This working pattern is having no adverse impact on profitability or productivity: as you can see in the surging profits in London’s legal sector alone. Many of London’s professionals would take issue with (perhaps be insulted by) a statement that they are “not doing proper work” when their fee-earning (and other targets) are just as high for remote working as when in the office.
Many of London’s professionals would take issue with (perhaps be insulted by) Stuart Rose’s statement that they are “not doing proper work” when their fee-earning (and other targets) are just as high for remote working as when in the office
Clearly, whole sectors of the UK economy (retail, leisure, care etc.) can only be carried out at a physical workplace and it is an uncomfortable fact that some of the City’s more privileged workers can afford to work remotely whereas those who serve them (or their families) cannot. Stuart Rose is one of the UK’s foremost retailers and it is perhaps understandable that he is a ‘boots on the ground’ man.
It is also the case that, as a law firm, we are seeing some of our clients now mandate a return to either full-time attendance in the office, or in a recent case, a stricter hybrid policy, moving from 3:2 to 4:1 (although presumably Lord Rose would object to even this).
It is not even clear that Stuart Rose’s views reflect UK (and particularly London) working practices: a number of international studies demonstrate that the UK has been quicker to embrace hybrid and remote working, and it is more permanent here, than in most other European countries. There may be reasons for this: better IT/wifi connectivity and perhaps the time and cost of travel into Europe’s biggest city.
I declare an interest here. We are largely a remote-working law firm. We’ve reduced our overheads and reduced our rates: something that a leading retailer would approve of. Consumers can benefit from remote/hybrid working. And not just consumers: our workers too and (perhaps more crucially) the families of our workers. We have a PA who describes herself as feeling “reborn” as a result of working here. The reason? She can pick up her 14 year old son from school (he has minor special needs). He will have a better life as a result of his mum working for my law firm.
We are big, complex country – surely we can tolerate and embrace fluid working patterns.
John Hayes is managing partner of specialist employment law firm Constantine Law