The COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the operations of workplaces and universities. The virus made remote working and learning a necessary alternative. This period of remote work and education resulted in some improvements that shouldn’t be forgotten amidst the push for a return to normalcy.
Workers and students have more flexibility when they stay home; this makes balancing various obligations easier.
Remote operations reduce costs for students and workers by eliminating commuting expenses. Costs are also reduced for employers who’ve saved money on business travel. Eliminating commutes also reduces the negative impact that popular modes of transportation have on the environment. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions fell 4.6% in 2020, according to the International Monetary Fund; this was partially due to a decrease in transportation.
Advocates for a return to in-person classes have already gotten their way; nearly all university classes are in person. They pointed out the decrease in student performance; however, the degree of that discrepancy is difficult to measure, especially when prioritizing college students and excluding K-12 numbers. If the extent of the difference is minimal, it would be fairer for universities to offer more online or hybrid options for students who feel capable of learning that way.
Promoters of a return to work claim that decreasing productivity is the reason. However, there is no solid evidence to support a marked change following the widespread implementation of telework. Given that no definitive conclusion has been reached, employees should be given the option to work remotely.
Supporters also focus on the social aspect of in-person work and learning. Critics of remote operations point to human tendencies to socialize; they benefit from the interactions that work and school provide.
This is true to an extent; however, it bears mentioning that the interactions in these settings are forced. Typically, time spent around work or school colleagues isn’t as fulfilling compared to time spent around close friends.
With the time saved from remote operations people would have more of their day to spend with friends. They could join clubs or community groups; these have a built-in common interest that isn’t guaranteed when meeting someone in an office or school.
Some motivations behind the push for in-person returns are questionable. Many proponents of a return to work have something to gain financially or are being influenced by those that do. For instance, an article published by Jason Hughes, the CEO of commercial real estate company Hughes Marino, emphasizes the negatives of working from home. His business’ ability to profit was a reason noticeably missing from the list. Hughes’ article is as valuable as an article from Exxon about the downsides of saving the environment or an article from Xbox about the perils of exercise.
The increase in the ability to work and learn remotely was a silver lining of the pandemic. The push to eliminate those options is an infringement on personal autonomy and should be rebuffed.
Frank Kidd is a 21-year-old mass communication major from Springfield, Virginia.