[innsertnamehere]

In tech there are a lot more remote-only jobs than prior to the pandemic.

However, in a bit of anecdata, my company is moving to a hybrid model, where there are two fixed days in the week that employees can choose to work remote. This reflects internal preference, where people want the in-person contact as well as flexibility around commutes. I actually think it’s a well-considered middle ground.

That's the route a lot of companies are going to go I believe. But even 2 days a week at home mean reduced commuting levels. This will possibly be offset by more people moving to the suburbs in the last year, but we have to wait and see.

 

[Bordercollie]

That's the route a lot of companies are going to go I believe. But even 2 days a week at home mean reduced commuting levels. This will possibly be offset by more people moving to the suburbs in the last year, but we have to wait and see.

You cannot return 100% of the workforce back to the office and be able to social distance.

I doubt that we will ever see a return to 100% capacity like we did before. A lot of things will continue to be done remotely until everyone is fully vaccinated, and for some time still.

 

[Jonny5]

What will be interesting is whether the longer term pattern is to spread attendance out over the work week (say, a 60% of past peak every day, Monday to Friday) or align around a common "at home" day. (Replace Casual Fridays with Work at Home Tuesdays and Fridays). That has a major impact on transit as under the former scenario, ridership will not display the same peaks, whereas under the latter there may still be peaks some days but not others.

I suspect the former because employers will be able to leverage real estate economies.... whereas if every worker comes in at once, the peak needs will remain but office occupancy on other days will fall - bad economics.

This is a problem we have where management wants economies to shrink the total office space used, but then also wants entire business units to still have a common weekly day where everyone works in the office. It gets difficult to map that out. You can't consolidate space and then insist that on some select days everyone is present.

 

[Northern Light]

What will be interesting is whether the longer term pattern is to spread attendance out over the work week (say, a 60% of past peak every day, Monday to Friday) or align around a common "at home" day. (Replace Casual Fridays with Work at Home Tuesdays and Fridays). That has a major impact on transit as under the former scenario, ridership will not display the same peaks, whereas under the latter there may still be peaks some days but not others.

I'm a bit suspicious of ideas like this; first because of the real-world experience in the U.S., in tech companies, thus far.

But secondly, because it really doesn't account for childcare, for a start.....
See what happens if you try, with most childcare centres to reserve space only 3 days a week........
I think you'll find you pay for 5, or your child does not have a space.

There are lots of realities like that that creep in...........

Imagine that everyone is told 3 days in the office, 2 at home.

But first, to achieve real estate optimization, those days at home need to be different.

But if they are different........then all your staff can't collaborate in-office; and you couldn't fit them all either.

If everyone's days at home are different, coordination is more of a pain.

****

None of us know for sure.

But I really don't see remote work taking off, in the near-term, the way some think. (statistically significant change).

I think we continue to see evolution in that direction........but a shift of 1-3% is utterly immaterial to the office market, and the commuting market in Toronto.

 

[TRONto]

I'm somewhat involved in the "Future of Work" planning for the office where I work which is a large global financial institution. For the past few months, every big firm that has space in the downtown center towers has been waiting to see what everyone else is going to do first before making an announcement. No one wants to be the first mover. However, a growing consensus is emerging that there will be only modest changes. I would expect at minimum 85% will be back at work as they were, with no more than a small allowance for working from home on an occasionally booked basis. Some firms already had this before, though only once a month or so and it may become three or four times a month. The other 15% will be working from home on a more regular basis, or move out to new and/or expanded satellite offices in the outer suburbs. Probably 5% or less will work from home a majority of the time. There seems to be near zero appetite for this in the financial and legal industry, and over in the tech businesses which had trumpeted forever working from home, we now hear they are quietly walking that back internally to a point they might wind up with 80% staffing in offices regularly too.

There would be a modest drop in downtown workers from this, but space consolidation will happen quickly, and that new vacant space will be immediately back-filled from offices moving into the core from the core-shoulders or other less desirable areas to take advantage of rent incentives from the institutional owners.

Some firms in the past few months projected a 2022 return based on the very slow initial vaccine roll-out, but now they are moving up the return projections to September, given the current quick vaccination pace. Also, many are separating the "return to work" from the "future of work," so they may call everyone back to the office for the same daily grind as before, and only later finalise the plans for a work from home vision that would go into effect next year.

Overall, I expect this time next year to have a slight increase in traffic into downtown compared to February 2020 (assuming that the COVID shut downs are actually over - if not it's a different story).

This has been exactly my impression during lockdown. I interviewed at many different places (around 15?) financial/tech/etc. *All* said they would be returning to the office once the lockdown is over.

"There would be a modest drop in downtown workers from this, but space consolidation will happen quickly, and that new vacant space will be immediately back-filled from offices moving into the core from the core-shoulders or other less desirable areas to take advantage of rent incentives from the institutional owners."

This point is commonly missed. Cheaper commercial rent means more opportunities to get the 'preferable' downtown real estate. With the # of commercial buildings in progress, in 2023 I would imagine transit will be busier than 2019.

 

[TRONto]

I'm a bit suspicious of ideas like this; first because of the real-world experience in the U.S., in tech companies, thus far.

But secondly, because it really doesn't account for childcare, for a start.....
See what happens if you try, with most childcare centres to reserve space only 3 days a week........
I think you'll find you pay for 5, or your child does not have a space.

There are lots of realities like that that creep in...........

Imagine that everyone is told 3 days in the office, 2 at home.

But first, to achieve real estate optimization, those days at home need to be different.

But if they are different........then all your staff can't collaborate in-office; and you couldn't fit them all either.

If everyone's days at home are different, coordination is more of a pain.

****

None of us know for sure.

But I really don't see remote work taking off, in the near-term, the way some think. (statistically significant change).

I think we continue to see evolution in that direction........but a shift of 1-3% is utterly immaterial to the office market, and the commuting market in Toronto.

I've not heard of working from home being mandatory. Only being in the office is mandatory so parents would do whatever works best for them which I assume would be 5 days in the office (assuming daycare is near the office).

 

[Northern Light]

I've not heard of working from home being mandatory. Only being in the office is mandatory so parents would do whatever works best for them which I assume would be 5 days in the office (assuming daycare is near the office).

If an employer is moving to reduce office space by reducing in-office employment, they would require a predictable reduction in people present.

No employer wants to retain empty office space.

So jobs would have to shift in a predictable way, in larger worker places.

If, an employer is only doing this is as a 'perk' then that may be different. But I don't see that being done on a wide-spread basis.

 

[crs1026]

I've not heard of working from home being mandatory. Only being in the office is mandatory so parents would do whatever works best for them which I assume would be 5 days in the office (assuming daycare is near the office).

COVID is a special case in that employers have responded to gathering restrictions by telling people to work from home (temporarily... it only seems like forever...). In that case, they are doing so as a matter of compliance with the health authorities (and maybe relieving employee anxieties about commuting and close contact with others during the pandemic as well).

Outside of COVID, I certainly know of people whose employers have changed their work conditions such that they work from home and no longer have an assigned work station or "office", but may attend the employer's premises (and possibly use a hotelling station) at various times.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know what the employment law precedent or risks of that change would be.... but as an old Human Resources staffer, I do know in general terms that employers cannot arbitrarily change an employee's working conditions without consent or negotiation. Doing so can lead to allegations of "constructive dismissal". Telling someone to set up a home office certainly seems to me to be a significant change in the employment contract, for those who previously had an assigned workspace. Presumably employers get good legal advice before they do this, and it happens .... so likely there is some consideration offered and mutual agreement.... but I would not assume that it can just be done out of the blue without employees having recourse.

- Paul

 

[Undead]

Ahhh, I can't wait to head back to the toxic office environment to be around people I don't give a rat's ass about and do work that can be done entirely remotely. Being a rat-race office drone feels soo good!

Sorry not sorry, I'm a vehement anti-workplace fanatic

 

[UrbanJon]

Great Twitter thread about why a Cambridge to Guelph GO Train is a bad idea and why a bus to connect those cities makes way more sense.

Highlights:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391450884777906186

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391451571561586689

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391461979508903939

 

[tmlittle]

Great Twitter thread about why a Cambridge to Guelph GO Train is a bad idea and why a bus to connect those cities makes way more sense.

Highlights:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391450884777906186

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391451571561586689

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391461979508903939

Insufferable KW tech bro has an opinion on twitter. Big news. What's with the crusade against trains, man? It feels a bit unhinged.

This guy clearly can't get out of the mind space of "train = infrequent and expensive, bus = frequent and cheap". If there was the rapid transit-style service he wanted, then even buses would benefit in obvious ways from a dedicated ROW. At that point you might as well go with rail anyway, especially since it would scale better. He also obviously can't get past the capital costs, ignoring that buses have their own capital costs too, especially if he wants high frequencies - lots of vehicles and garage space and somewhere to put it all.

 

[Urban Sky]

Insufferable KW tech bro has an opinion on twitter. Big news. What's with the crusade against trains, man? It feels a bit unhinged.

It's not a crusade: almost everywhere else in the world (especially places recognized as hosting comprehensive and efficient transit/rail networks) new/reopened passenger rail corridors are predated by exactly the kind of fast and frequent feeder bus service to already existing passenger rail corridors described in these Tweets, whereas certain people in this country (especially in forums like this) seem to believe that trains ought to act as a safety net on every single corridor where private bus operators can't be motivated to provide unsubsidized service.

It's the same as with VIA's HFR proposal: some people propose modest but sensible medium-term solutions, whereas other people prefer to shout down everything which isn't the gold-plated rail service they seem to feel entitled to...

 

[UrbanJon]

Cambridge councillors eager to get on the GO

A recently released feasibility report suggests the preferred location for the end point in Cambridge at or near the Pinebush ION station

www.cambridgetoday.ca

I was disappointed to see council's reaction to the report. I would have liked for them to recognize the poor value of this project and to stick it on the backburner. But of course for political points, they are endorsing the "GO Train" because constituents love the word "GO Train" and it will get them reelected.

I like to see trains where they are useful, but there are a lot of places in the province where they are not useful and there are many proposals to put them places where they are a poor choice simply for political reasons.

We need to get past GO train and move to GO service. Busses can provide a good service and people need to realize this. Trains have a niche but they shouldn't operate outside of it.

 

[ARG1]

Cambridge councillors eager to get on the GO

A recently released feasibility report suggests the preferred location for the end point in Cambridge at or near the Pinebush ION station

www.cambridgetoday.ca

I was disappointed to see council's reaction to the report. I would have liked for them to recognize the poor value of this project and to stick it on the backburner. But of course for political points, they are endorsing the "GO Train" because constituents love the word "GO Train" and it will get them reelected.

I like to see trains where they are useful, but there are a lot of places in the province where they are not useful and there are many proposals to put them places where they are a poor choice simply for political reasons.

We need to get past GO train and move to GO service. Busses can provide a good service and people need to realize this. Trains have a niche but they shouldn't operate outside of it.

It really depends on how its done. Trains don't have "a niche", they have several "different niches" that wildly differ. For something like a train between Cambridge and Guelph, I find it unfortunate that they aren't pushing for a frequent DMU service akin to the Trillium Line in Ottawa. I notice that the tracks are owned by CN so I'm not exactly sure how feasible such a service would be, but all you need to theoretically do is build 1 or 2 stops in Guelph on top of Guelph Central, add some passing loops, build a few stations in Cambridge, and finally order some small DMUs, and you can easily have 15-30 minute service between the two cities and for cheap (again barring any complications with CN owning the tracks - I have no idea how that line is used or how important it is to CN). This is what Ottawa did with the Trillium Line in 2001, and they built that for 2.6 million dollars per km which is incredibly cheap.

 

[lenaitch]

COVID is a special case in that employers have responded to gathering restrictions by telling people to work from home (temporarily... it only seems like forever...). In that case, they are doing so as a matter of compliance with the health authorities (and maybe relieving employee anxieties about commuting and close contact with others during the pandemic as well).

Outside of COVID, I certainly know of people whose employers have changed their work conditions such that they work from home and no longer have an assigned work station or "office", but may attend the employer's premises (and possibly use a hotelling station) at various times.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know what the employment law precedent or risks of that change would be.... but as an old Human Resources staffer, I do know in general terms that employers cannot arbitrarily change an employee's working conditions without consent or negotiation. Doing so can lead to allegations of "constructive dismissal". Telling someone to set up a home office certainly seems to me to be a significant change in the employment contract, for those who previously had an assigned workspace. Presumably employers get good legal advice before they do this, and it happens .... so likely there is some consideration offered and mutual agreement.... but I would not assume that it can just be done out of the blue without employees having recourse.

- Paul

I agree. I'm anything but an HR expert but I would think an enduring 'work-form-home' shift, even if partial, would be considered a material change in employment. The Labour Board would likely view any shift during the pandemic as a special response during the crisis and in keeping with provincial and federal health orders, but as things normalized, I'm not so sure they'd be so forgiving. In addition to child care, as mentioned, issues such computer access ('we only have one -for the whole family'), adequate connectivity (who pays), etc. will likely come into play. Down the road, the issue of compensation may raise its head, in the context of the employer feels they doesn't need to pay you as much because your living expenses in terms of commuting costs are less.

How the employer assesses productivity is largely dependent on the type of industry.

How do you introduce a new hire into the workplace and corporate culture?

I remain unconvinced it will settle in in a significant way, but could be wrong. It's a brave new world.