Brussels Proposes Mandatory Remote Work Day to Curb Energy Crisis

Brussels proposes a mandatory remote work day to save energy

A mandatory weekly work-from-home day and cheaper public transport. This is what Brussels has put on the table to mitigate the energy crisis, according to an EL PAÍS tweet that has circulated recently and landed like a cold splash of water across much of Spain. The idea sounds reasonable in an air-conditioned office. In a construction site, a bar, or a truck cabin, it sounds like a joke.

The first reaction is common sense: if 7% of Spain’s active workforce works in construction, as a circulating calculation reminds us, then the remaining 93% doesn’t lay bricks. This data, which seems obvious, is used to dismantle the argument that remote work is a universal solution. Because the issue isn’t the percentage, but who can actually apply it.

Jobs that cannot be done remotely

The list is long and well-known. Healthcare, construction, hospitality, logistics, retail. Doctors, nurses, bricklayers, waiters, drivers, cashiers. Jobs requiring physical presence that are also often the worst-paid and the earliest-starting. The irony escalates: “Let bricklayers take their concrete mixers home,” summarizes one message. “Waiters take their bottle peine, security guards leave a camera and watch it on their phones,” adds another.

The argument isn’t that remote work is bad, but that it’s proposed from a bubble. Those who can already remote work know it. Those who can’t don’t need Brussels to remind them. And that’s the communication problem: a measure designed to save energy is perceived as a class imposition.

Real energy savings: How much is saved with one remote work day?

The calculation is simple: fewer commutes, less consumption. But the devil is in the details. If remote work is concentrated on one specific day, savings in public transport may be marginal. If spread out, the impact on the power grid is different. And if forced upon those who already remote work, the effect is null.

Some argue the measure is “the chocolate of their own” (a Spanish idiom meaning insignificant savings). The comparison isn’t gratuitous: swapping ham for chicken to save for vacation. The problem isn’t the savings, but that it’s presented as a solution when it’s merely a patch.

Public transport as an alternative

Making public transport cheaper is the other pillar. But there’s a capacity problem. In Madrid, as someone who uses it daily recalls, the metro is already “packed like sardines.” If its use is incentivized without expanding supply, the result is gridlock. And not everyone lives in a city with a metro. In industrial estates, public transport is scarce or nonexistent. There, the car isn’t a luxury; it’s the only way to get there.

The measure, therefore, benefits those who already have alternatives and penalizes those who don’t. It’s not a design flaw; it’s an origin bias.

The gap between office and industrial estate

The underlying debate is about the value of work. Some argue many office jobs are dispensable, that they could be automated or eliminated without notice. Others respond with a list: the house you live in was designed in an office, the car you drive was designed in an office, the road you travel on was planned in an office. Without that prior work, there’s no construction.

The discussion isn’t new, but the energy context has rekindled it. The question isn’t whether remote work is possible, but who can afford it. And the answer, for now, is the usual one: those who already had the advantage.

---

The disconcerting data: if 93% of workers don’t work in construction, why is the measure presented as if remote work were an option for everyone? The answer, perhaps, is that those designing it live in that 7%.