“There are still too many companies where teleworking would be possible but does not exist at all or at very low levels”, regretted Prime Minister Jean Castex Thursday evening February 4 during his weekly press conference on the health situation.
In fact, according to a Harris Interactive survey for the Ministry of Labor, 64% of workers who worked at the end of January did so exclusively at the workplace, against 14% exclusively by teleworking and 22% by alternating one and the other.
I know that we ask a considerable effort from the employees and that, for many, teleworking is difficult to live.
but we have no choice. We must mobilize again because teleworking is an essential lever to limit the circulation of the virus. pic.twitter.com/Qz5YT5crsh
— Elisabeth BORNE (@Elisabeth_Borne) February 4, 2021
“The use of teleworking has gradually eroded since the end of November, regretted Thursday evening the Minister of Labor Élisabeth Borne. 30% of those who can telecommute 100% did so against 45% in early November, a drop of 15 points. “
20% less contamination with teleworking
The Minister also recalls that a study carried out by Professor Arnaud Fontanet, holder of the “health and development” chair of the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, indicates that the risk of contamination drops by 20% for people working from home and 30% for those who are full-time.
The Harris Interactive survey also reveals that 37% of employees who work partly or totally on their company’s premises do so because their employer has asked them to. “Including to perform tasks which could be performed remotely”.
→ TESTIMONIAL. How to adapt your home to teleworking
In addition, if two thirds of those who are full-time at their usual place of work explain that their profession does not allow teleworking, 16% stress that their employer does not allow them to telework, even part-time, even though certain tasks could be done remotely … 6% also say they come for fear of repercussions on their career, such as the non-renewal of their contract.
One day a week at the office: “a safety valve”
6% mention the lack of adequate equipment (- 3 points compared to November, a sign of the efforts of companies in this area), 5% of family or housing constraints and 10% prefer to come to work to keep the link with their colleagues.
As for teleworkers, even partial, 44% say they are isolated (+ 3 points since November), 36% more stressed (+ 7 points) and 31% anxious (stable), while 33% admit not to be as efficient as usually. 32% of 100% teleworkers have asked their employer to come back at least one day a week in January.
“But it must remain a safety valve”, recalled Élisabeth Borne Thursday evening, explaining that her services would devote their efforts to the 2.5 million employees who do not telework at all even though their position would allow it.
“Great firmness in the application of teleworking rules”
In particular, she named the sectors of banking and insurance, communications, IT and real estate and law which, according to her, have relaxed the most since November.
On Wednesday, his ministry issued a circular requesting “Great rigor” in compliance with preventive actions and “Great firmness in the application of teleworking rules”.
→ EXPLANATION. Covid-19: is teleworking really an “obligation” for companies?
In addition to enhanced support for businesses, she stresses that “The verification of the measures taken to combat the risk of contamination and the implementation of teleworking for all teleworkable tasks will be systematic during the checks” labor inspectors. They will check in particular that the rules for information and consultation of the employee representative bodies are respected.
“Coercive legal tools”
“It is important that the works social committee be involved not only in the definition of teleworkable tasks but also in the practical methods of implementing telework”, explains the circular. The contrary case could constitute an offense of obstruction punishable by a 7,500 € fine.
Where teleworking is not implemented when it could, labor inspectors would also be justified in noting that employees are endangered and in using “Coercive legal tools” such as the formal notice. If the company ignored this, the labor inspector could refer the matter to the summary judge who could, for his part, even order a temporary closure of the company.
– .
