Neil Williams wrote:

On Dec 21, 4:43 pm, Tim Watts wrote:

No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury
Lane or anywhere near it...

But in the end taking that job with the commute is a choice.



It might however be that the other choice is highly undesirable, e.g.
unemployment, and thus that it was not a viable one.

Exactly...

The real problem is getting over the mindset that a majority of big
employers like being in London, when they could operate just as well from
many random sites.

Mine is a bit special, being University of London, so they are unlikely to
move to Sussex ;-

But at least I have a working at home day guaranteed. In fact, when I return
in January, it will have been nearly 4 weeks since they have actually seen
me, due to working nights from home doing a massive vmware systems
migration.

Which rather goes to show how useless my 3 hour commute is. The only time I
needed to be there was to physically install the equipment. Even my humble
broadband connection in the sticks gave me a similar "feel" for the systems
to when I am at work.

I'm going to request 2 days/week working from home now

Which, really, is the way to solve this whole rediculous problem of millions
of people sitting on trains and in cars every day - get as many people whose
jobs permit working out of their houses - or in small satellite offices
dotted around. It's the way forward. Then the people whose presence is
actually required will have an easier time of it too.

This is the sort of thing that will not happen by itself - it needs some
incentive, such as taxing the hell out of city premises or something. But
that won't happen...
--
Tim Watts