The Bank of England has long expressed concerns about the British economy’s comparatively weak productivity. Perhaps it ought to re-examine its own employment practices.
Last year, Bank staff spent almost 13,000 days apparently working from foreign climes. Around 5,000 of the Old Lady’s employees are eligible to work from other countries for up to 40 days per year – in addition to being allowed to work remotely within the UK for three days a week.
Many will ask why public servants are being given such extraordinary leeway. Are they being permitted to “work” from the beach, in a different timezone? If so, Bank staff are likely to be much less productive than they ought to be, or else the institution itself is overstaffed.
It is already apparent what a culture of absenteeism can do to public institutions. A Telegraph investigation earlier this year revealed that civil servants have been abusing flexible working arrangements to effectively do as little work as possible and extend their holidays. Are Bank of England staff being similarly tempted? Perhaps it was a sun-addled brain that proposed removing the image of Winston Churchill from our bank notes and replacing it with a squatting frog?
One of lockdown’s many grievous effects was to accelerate the take-up of flexible working until it became seen, absurdly, as a good in itself. It is not. Working from home – or abroad – should be judged on whether it produces better outcomes for employers and the taxpayer. In many cases, it clearly does not.
Today, firms across the private sector have weaned themselves off the policy. The public sector must do the same.
