Show table of content Hide table of content
The forced return to the office triggers a wave of resignations and an indefinite strike at energy supplier Holaluz. The end of teleworking, presented as a solution to financial difficulties, turned into an internal social crisis.
A quarter of employees on the move: a wake-up call
Teleworking, once seen as a mere trend, has become a crucial issue in the business world. For Holaluz, a Spanish company specialising in the marketing of electricity, its abolition has triggered a storm. Faced with major financial difficulties in 2024, the company decided to return to a 100% face-to-face model, arguing that teleworking was incompatible with its situation. This radical decision had unexpected consequences: an indefinite strike and the resignation of a quarter of its employees.
Teleworking, which was widely adopted during the pandemic, had proved effective for many companies, offering flexibility and, in some cases, improving productivity. However, Holaluz felt it was time to turn back the clock, citing an “internal evaluation of how teleworking is working”. The problem? The company did not share the data from this evaluation, leaving employees sceptical and frustrated.
Holaluz’s decision comes against a backdrop of growing social tensions surrounding the return to the office. After years of teleworking, many employees appreciate the flexibility and work-life balance it offers. Imposing a return to the office without valid justification is perceived as a lack of respect and a challenge to the trust placed in employees.
The reaction of Holaluz employees was swift. Around 25% of them, or some fifty people, decided not to accept the new working conditions and to leave the company. An alarming figure that reflects the general dissatisfaction and loss of confidence in management.
According to union sources, the number of resignations could even reach 30%, representing a major drain on the company. This wave of departures has also affected the Works Council, which has seen its membership reduced, weakening employee representation.
Faced with this situation, Holaluz has tried to minimise the impact of these departures, assuring us that its operations are proceeding normally. However, the opening of new positions to replace the employees who have resigned bears witness to the reality of the situation: the company is indeed facing a staffing crisis.
Unlimited strike action to defend the right to telework
In addition to the resignations, the abolition of teleworking triggered an indefinite strike by the UGT and CGT unions. The employees are protesting against the substantial change in their working conditions and are demanding that teleworking be maintained.
The strike, which began with partial work stoppages, intensified to become a full-time and unlimited strike from 28 January. Although Holaluz claims that participation in the strike is limited (around 16% of employees at the start), it inevitably disrupts the company’s operations and tarnishes its image.
According to sources close to management, the abolition of teleworking is part of a cost-cutting plan aimed at saving €250,300 by 2024. Holaluz, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, received financial backing of €22 million from the investment company Icosium Investment. In return, the company has undertaken to rationalise its expenditure. However, Holaluz did not detail the specific savings linked to the abolition of teleworking, reinforcing the feeling of a lack of transparency and fuelling employee anger.
More than just teleworking
The Holaluz case highlights a deeper issue than just teleworking. It is an issue of trust, social dialogue and respect for employees. A company that takes unilateral decisions, without consulting its employees or justifying its choices, runs the risk of provoking an internal social crisis and losing its talent.
The Holaluz case is a warning to companies considering abolishing teleworking. It is essential to take account of employees’ expectations, conduct transparent negotiations and offer alternatives that preserve the work-life balance. Far from being a mere benefit, teleworking has become a factor in attracting and retaining employees, and doing away with it can have disastrous consequences.
The crisis at Holaluz is a good example of how a seemingly insignificant decision can turn into a social tug-of-war. The company’s future will depend on its ability to re-establish dialogue with its employees and find a compromise that safeguards both its financial interests and the well-being of its staff. Because, at the end of the day, a company is only as good as the people who run it.
