Teleworking: a treat or a chore?
While teleworking is often favoured by those who have experienced it, significant criticism is also emerging, notably reporting a reduction in efficiency, an increase in fatigue and a feeling of isolation.
Research based on seven case studies, including 60 interviews, conducted in companies of different sizes and in various sectors, provides an overview of the possible effects of this particular work format.
- Thoemmes J., 2023, « Le paradoxe du télétravail ». Les mondes du travail, n° 30 : 119 36. https://hal.science/hal-04206134v1/document
- Thoemmes J., 2024, La seconde autonomie. Temps et travail en France, Allemagne et en Chine, Toulouse : Octares Editions (sortie 15 janvier), 236 p.
Jens Thoemmes, Director of Research at CNRS, UTOPI, University of Toulouse Jean-Jaurès: [email protected]
The telework in question
The pandemic profoundly transformed the world of work, notably due to the surge in teleworking which impacted many employees and companies. By 2050, it is reported that half of all jobs could be done remotely (see Senate report). This changes the balance between professional and private life, forcing workers to adapt to a different physical and temporal working environment. Although the tasks themselves may not have changed much, this transition represents a major break in the daily routine.
Teleworking is widely endorsed by those who have experienced it, with a majority of satisfied teleworkers wishing to continue working this way after the pandemic (see Ugit-CGT survey). However, there is a general preference for part-time telework rather than its full-time format. In parallel, significant criticism has emerged, notably to do with reduced efficiency, increased fatigue and a sense of isolation.
Here, we will start by defining telework, and then present the contradictory effects of this form of working, its application and the opinions of employees according to our research. We will then examine the contribution of negotiation and the role played by employee and union representative criticism in order to understand the paradox of telework.
The difficulty of defining telework
Defining telework presents three major challenges. First, the terms used to describe it vary both in relevance and meaning. Second, the legal codification and collective bargaining of telework differ from context to context. Third, its implementation in businesses poses practical challenges which further reflect the diversity of its forms, ranging from working at home to working in shared spaces. Despite this complexity, a general consensus defines it as an activity that is carried out remotely, sustained by communication technologies.
In France, the concept of teleworking has been covered by a specific legal framework aimed at collective agreements since the 2017 “Macron” orders. These agreements cover a wide range of topics, ranging from the selection of eligible teleworking positions to the issue of adapting employees to this practice. Collective bargaining and company agreements therefore play an increasing role in regulating telework, reflecting a shift towards more structured remote working practices.
Contradictions and ambiguities
According to research, telework has contradictory effects (see DARES surveys). On the one hand, it increases autonomy, productivity and concentration; while reducing distractions, absenteeism, commuting time and stress. On the other hand, it can intensify work, increase psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal disorders, decrease motivation and identification with the company, and also lead to isolation. The TraCov survey has revealed that one in ten workers felt that their working conditions deteriorated because of telework.
In terms of application, the majority of employees prefer a hybrid model of teleworking, combining remote and on-site work. Our research shows that employees feel a greater sense of autonomy and can manage time better when teleworking, while also acknowledging the benefits of on-site work, such as maintaining social interactions and connection with the company. Preferences vary according to the work aspects considered, revealing a range of individual opinions and the quest for a balance between work patterns. In conclusion, telework, although appreciated, is also a source of criticism and the ideal solution seems to lie in a customised balance between remote and on-site work.
The negotiation of telework
While it is essential to understand individual attitudes regarding telework, it is equally important to consider the collective dynamics that influence these stances. Our case study of seven companies reveals an instability in the rules governing telework, exacerbated by successive lockdowns and a new familiarisation with this new form of work. The pandemic precipitated a shift to telework for half of the active employees in France (DARES surveys), catching collective bargaining off guard. Companies that had already incorporated teleworking before the crisis adapted better to these changes.
Our sample shows different approaches to telework depending on previous experiences, activity constraints, social relations and company size. For example, an IT company allowed its employees to telework 100% while a service company unsuccessfully tried to set up two days of teleworking per week. Negotiation is often a long and evolving process marked by successive agreements and endorsements, and it can sometimes limit telework to just one day per week.
The examples of four companies highlight the need for caution in trying to carry out an analysis of the evolution of telework that applies to all establishments. For example, in an agricultural trading company a signed agreement limited telework to occasional requests, except under special circumstances. A metal company had to adapt quickly to telework during the first lockdown, with an agreement later limiting telework to one day per week. An insurance company has reverted to its pre-pandemic policy, with telework limited to one or two days per week. Finally, in regional civil service, telework has gradually returned to one day per week.
The negotiation of telework therefore follows contextual developments, with rules that vary according to each company. Although telework is popular, the rules negotiated often tend to encourage a return to the workplace. National statistics for 2021 confirm this trend, with a majority of companies only allowing telework for a limited number of days per week (DARES surveys). The reasons for this limitation are diverse and reflect the complex dynamics of the changing world of work.
Telework under pressure: criticism leads to restriction
Telework, with its known advantages and disadvantages, is often somewhat regarded with ambivalence by individuals seeking a balance between remote and on-site work. Collective bargaining reflects this duality, tending recently towards a return to the workplace. Reluctance on the part of employers, who prefer physical presence, plays a crucial role. However, we propose an additional perspective, suggesting that collective bargaining, agreements and their implementation could be a way to resolve the paradox of telework.
The main criticisms of telework during the pandemic include a “paradoxical autonomy” (freedom for employees to organise their schedules but work/private life porosity reducing this sense of autonomy) and a negative impact on mental well-being. The first criticism points out a blurring of the boundaries between professional and personal life, affecting group cohesion and collective expression. This situation is further exacerbated by the need to rearrange the living space for work, resulting in problems surrounding confidentiality and management of work and rest time.
The second aspect of the criticisms concerns mental and physical health. Telework has led to an increase in social isolation, which in turn exacerbates stress and loneliness. Trade unions have played a key role in conveying these concerns, highlighting the reduction in common social interactions and their impact on employee well-being.
The return to more restrictive teleworking arrangements, often limited to one day per week, suggests an attempt to reconcile these criticisms with employees’ preference for the telework format. Union delegates therefore find themselves in a difficult position: while defending the right to telework, they also recognise the need for workers to return to the office in order to counter the negative effects of isolation and keep things fair for employees. This creates a risk of dissatisfaction among teleworkers, especially those for whom the new rules seem too restrictive.
Conclusion
A complex subject studied over three decades, telework presents an obvious paradox. On the one hand, it is appreciated for its flexibility and autonomy; but on the other hand, it draws criticism related to isolation and loss of social interaction. Despite these criticisms, a large majority of employees wish to continue working this way. This desire raises a crucial question: how can telework be balanced with the varying individual needs of employees ?
Companies are trying to resolve this paradox by establishing appropriate teleworking rules, each with their own approach. These rules are often the result of negotiations and do not constitute an automatic right to telework. They must be adapted to the changing needs of employees and variable working conditions. In addition, the stability of these rules is being called into question, adding to employees’ uncertainty regarding the future organisation of their work.
According to our research, as the pandemic threat lessens companies are tending to limit telework, often to just one day per week. For some, this change from full-time to such a drastic reduction reveals the significant impact of social regulations on work practices. Management and unions generally agree that telework should be restricted, citing reasons such as the negative impact on social interactions and a growing sense of isolation.
However, the pandemic has redefined the expectations surrounding telework, prompting some unions to advocate for an extension of this practice. This situation raises several crucial questions: How can companies better integrate individual needs into telework policies ? What are the best strategies for balancing telework and on-site work ? Finally, how can companies ensure the equal inclusion of all employees in these new working arrangements ?
- Boulay-Espéronnier , Cukierman C., Sautarel S., 22 octobre 2021, rapport d’information n° 89 (2021-2022) fait au nom de la délégation sénatoriale à la prospective
- DARES, 2020, Enquête flash : Le télétravail pendant la crise sanitaire., Paris : Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Insertion
- DARES, 2021, Activité et conditions d’emploi de la main-d’œuvre pendant la crise sanitaire Covid-19, Paris : DARES
- Ugict-CGT, 2021, Enquête nationale sur le télétravail, Paris
To see more of her drawings, visit https://adelehuguet.wordpress.com/
For other articles in English
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons Attribution Utilisation non commerciale Pas d’Œuvre dérivée 4.0 International
. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont “Tous droits réservés”, sauf mention contraire.
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Jens Thoemmes (11 mai 2026). Teleworking: a treat or a chore? Mondes Sociaux. Consulté le 19 juillet 2026 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/16744
