'Why waste an hour on the commute?': Man questions why employees who are productive at home need to come to office
A man has questioned the case for compulsory office attendance , asking why employees need to be physically present if they are meeting deadlines and delivering the expected output from home.
Aaket Panchal shared his argument in a video on Instagram. His position is that companies should focus on productivity and results, not on where an employee sits while doing the work.
The question about physical presence
Panchal begins with a direct question to employers. His premise is that if the work is completed, the location of the employee should not matter to the company.
"Man, explain one thing to me: if work is getting done from home, then why do you need an employee's physical presence in the office, brother? You want productivity, right? They're giving that to you. Take it, brother. What are you gaining by just changing the location of the chair?" Panchal said.
The argument rests on that output is what a company pays for. If that assumption holds, a change of seat does not change what the company receives.
The cost of commuting
Panchal then turned to the time employees spend travelling to and from work. He asked what a company gains by requiring the commute when the output stays the same.
"If an employee is delivering 8 hours of work in 8 hours, why do you want them to invest an hour in traffic, brother? What will you even get by calling them to the office? Only their body's location will change, not their output," he said.
The point here is about who bears the cost. The hour spent in traffic is not part of the working day, and it is spent by the employee, not the employer. Panchal's question is whether that hour produces anything for the company that the remote arrangement does not.
Panchal also rejected the idea that working from home makes an employee less efficient. In his account, the only difference between the two setups is the furniture.
"The employee is efficient, meeting deadlines and productive. The only difference is that instead of sitting at a desk and chair, they're doing it while sitting on a sofa. The work is still getting done, isn't it?" he said.
Panchal closed by returning to what a company requires from its workforce. If an employee is contributing to the company's functioning and growth, he said, their location should not be the main concern.
"Whatever the company needs to maintain the process and grow the business, they're already getting it," Panchal said.
Aaket Panchal shared his argument in a video on Instagram. His position is that companies should focus on productivity and results, not on where an employee sits while doing the work.
The question about physical presence
Panchal begins with a direct question to employers. His premise is that if the work is completed, the location of the employee should not matter to the company.
"Man, explain one thing to me: if work is getting done from home, then why do you need an employee's physical presence in the office, brother? You want productivity, right? They're giving that to you. Take it, brother. What are you gaining by just changing the location of the chair?" Panchal said.
The argument rests on that output is what a company pays for. If that assumption holds, a change of seat does not change what the company receives.
The cost of commuting
Panchal then turned to the time employees spend travelling to and from work. He asked what a company gains by requiring the commute when the output stays the same.
"If an employee is delivering 8 hours of work in 8 hours, why do you want them to invest an hour in traffic, brother? What will you even get by calling them to the office? Only their body's location will change, not their output," he said.
The point here is about who bears the cost. The hour spent in traffic is not part of the working day, and it is spent by the employee, not the employer. Panchal's question is whether that hour produces anything for the company that the remote arrangement does not.
Panchal also rejected the idea that working from home makes an employee less efficient. In his account, the only difference between the two setups is the furniture.
"The employee is efficient, meeting deadlines and productive. The only difference is that instead of sitting at a desk and chair, they're doing it while sitting on a sofa. The work is still getting done, isn't it?" he said.
Panchal closed by returning to what a company requires from its workforce. If an employee is contributing to the company's functioning and growth, he said, their location should not be the main concern.
"Whatever the company needs to maintain the process and grow the business, they're already getting it," Panchal said.
Next Story