The interviews revealed that space-time work flexibility in the shape of flexitime, teleworking arrangements and considering commuting time as working time make it easier to live in more than one place and commute between residences. Flexitime allows people to start work later on Mondays or end earlier on Fridays, even allowing some respondents to commute to Stuttgart or Milan on Monday mornings instead of Sunday evenings. Moreover, teleworking agreements as well as the availability of ICT facilities such as laptops, mobile phones and network access allow more time to be spent at the remote residence. Most respondents had such facilities, enabling at least part of their work to be done remotely. However, there were also employees who were not allowed to do so, which to a far greater extent encouraged them to consider quitting their jobs.

Flexible space-time work arrangements can be formally enshrined in company collective agreements, employment contracts or addenda. In other cases, flexible arrangements are informally agreed between the employees and their superiors. Formal agreements were more the norm in Stuttgart than in Milan. In both cities, some respondents requested (greater) flexibility on their own initiative. Others received offers for flexible arrangements from the employer after a probationary period or right from the start. Working as an engineer for a big international company in Stuttgart, Raúl was able to work from home right from the start:

He decided to take up the job offer, because teleworking helped him spend longer periods at his main residence. The statement also shows that not all employers are willing to allow employees to work from home. The interviews suggest that the more specialised and irreplaceable an employee is and the greater the shortage of skilled workers in a company, the more likely employers are to be flexible in terms of space and time.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between employer types. The interviews suggest that employees working in universities and research institutions are more likely to have flexible work schedules and (in-)formal teleworking arrangements than those working in industry. Existing studies also associate universities and research institutes with flexible work and a great number of multi-local employees due to project-based work (Bauder 2015: 85; Petzold/Hilti 2015: 279). In both Stuttgart and Milan, the share of multi-local employees as well as flexible work arrangements also differs between locally rooted older companies and international companies recruiting from outside the region or country. Working for a start-up software development company in Milan which recruits all over Italy and beyond, Omar put it this way:

Omar explained that his company was aware of the individual living situations of its employees and supported them as a staff retention measure. The literature also sees employers recruiting internationally as forerunners of flexibility (Morris/Wright/Trevor et al. 2009: 986). By contrast, in both cities locally rooted older companies were less used to recruiting outside the region, and thus less aware of support needs for specific living arrangements. These employers often still stick to old attendance patterns and fixed working hours. Nevertheless, respondents from these companies explained that skills shortages were increasingly forcing their employers to widen their recruitment radius (also Plöger 2020: 1741).

Flexible work arrangements depend not only on specific employer types, but also on individual superiors. In both cities, in some companies working from home is allowed in certain departments and is forbidden in others, despite employees having the same working conditions like computer-based work and no client contact. Kai, an engineer in a big locally rooted company in Stuttgart, had this to say:

This quotation shows that even if respondents are permitted to work from home, they are not always supposed to talk about it to avoid envy and frustration among their colleagues. This refers especially to the first employees in a department to negotiate work flexibility.

Reasons mentioned about why superiors forbid working from home include security problems due to sensitive data and maintaining the work environment. Phone and video calls were used in the minority of the respondents’ departments to replace face-to-face meetings. However, we can assume that online meetings have currently (at least temporarily) increased in most respondents’ companies due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some superiors had had negative experiences with home office arrangements, being unsatisfied with work results or annoyed about not being able to easily contact employees at home. Moreover, a superior’s lack of interest in individual living situations was cited as a reason for a lack of work flexibility. It can be assumed that such companies (still) have few problems in recruiting appropriate employees, meaning that they do not have to think about the specific living arrangements and support requirements of (future) employees. Nevertheless, most respondents in both cities believed that their employers would expand work flexibility in the future as it can contribute to employer attractiveness and reduce staff turnover (also Felstead/Henseke 2017: 208).

Further possibilities for employers to support multi-local lives include financial compensation for transport or housing expenditures. The benefits in the respondents’ companies varied from subsidised train tickets, fuel or car insurance up to the full reimbursement of train tickets, cars or hotel rooms. These benefits are for the most part individually negotiated between the employee and the superior. The length of time spent in the company plays only a minor role, in contrast to work experience, with some employees explaining that their employers tried to attract experts by offering them financial support right from the beginning. Our analysis revealed that financial support was more likely in Stuttgart than in Milan, with Milanese respondents considering the lack of their companies’ resources to be the main reason.

Only few respondents see their employers – mainly larger ones – as being in a position to provide financial support. In Stuttgart, some (high-skilled) employees were even provided with hotel rooms. Working for a big international company, 38-year-old engineer Bernd slept in a hotel for the three days spent each week in Stuttgart:

On first relocating to Stuttgart or Milan, most respondents looked for centrally located smaller or shared apartments. Due to the tight housing markets in both cities, nearly all respondents had difficulties finding an appropriate flat at the beginning of their stay and some decided to first rent temporary accommodation or to sleep at a friend’s house. No employer in either Stuttgart or Milan had company apartments. But most interviewees talked about informal help in finding a flat, such as colleagues asking acquaintances about available apartments. One employer in Stuttgart and one in Milan provided furnished apartments for a few months until new employees found their own flats. These were private companies recruiting nationwide and beyond, endowed with sufficient financial resources and, as mentioned above, more aware of specific living situations.

The analysis revealed that employer practices on multi-locality and spatial conditions influence each other. On the positive side, employers attract people who would not normally live in these cities, i.e. respondents lived in Stuttgart or Milan mainly for work reasons. This influx of highly qualified employees strengthens the knowledge intensity of the regional economies, while the additional purchasing power is a boost to retail sectors in Stuttgart and Milan, at the further residence and in between. On the negative side, respondents’ prolonged flat searches indicate that multi-local employees can put further pressure on housing markets, possibly even displacing existing population groups focused on the same housing segment (e.g. small-sized flats). However, this effect is eliminated when companies pay for hotel rooms.

Besides, spatial infrastructures in both cities facilitate life in and between the residences. For instance, respondents were able to make use of (inter)national train, car and plane connections. Appropriate employer support can further facilitate commuting: employees in Stuttgart who travelled a lot, e.g. visiting clients or doing on-site research, often had company cars or rail cards paid for by their employers and could use them for travelling to the other residence. An employer’s sector plays a role in terms of support: respondents working for automotive companies received less support for public transport but were able to lease or buy company cars at a discount. Thus, employers’ actions can influence the means of transport used for commuting.

As a negative spatial effect, multi-locality can further swell traffic volumes and the use of long-distance public transport, especially on Mondays and Fridays (ARL 2016: 16). However, employer practices can soften these effects: flexible work can reduce traffic volumes and relieve public transport systems, with several respondents stating that they commuted on days other than Mondays or Fridays. For employers, telework can help reduce office space and costs, with interviewees stating that they had no assigned desk or shared a desk with other employees. This reduces office space requirements, subsequently leading to less land consumption or freeing up space for other uses such as housing.

The interviews revealed a further consequence of flexible work: in addition to personal attitudes favouring social involvement at their places of residence (Petzold 2013: 394), respondents allowed to work at their main residence were less able and willing to socialise after work and made less use of leisure facilities in Stuttgart or Milan due to financial restrictions. For example, one interviewee stated that she would have liked to join a fitness studio, but that it “is not worth it if I can’t use the membership from Thursday to Monday”. Others cited time restrictions due to high workloads when they were in Stuttgart or Milan for just a few days per week, as one explained: “When I’m here, I’m often working until late in the evening, so it’s pointless to think about evening activities.” Social cohesion in neighbourhoods with a large number of multi-local employees may suffer if people only stay there a few days a week or month.

Shuttles lived and worked in Stuttgart or Milan, yet had their main residence outside the region, mostly with their partners or families. Commuting frequency and the duration of stays at the residences varied in line with distance and work flexibility (Hesse/Scheiner 2007: 145). In our study, respondents tended to commute every week. The Stuttgart case revealed 12 shuttles, 11 of whom were in a relationship and two of whom had children. The Milan case revealed two shuttles, both in a relationship without children. Aged between 30 and 52, shuttles were older than the following two types and thus had more work experience. Shuttles in both cities considered employer support for their living arrangements to be crucial, because their centre of life was elsewhere and they were the only person in their household commuting between the residences. Respondents with fixed hours and workplaces felt constraints on their work-life balance.

The two Milanese shuttles spoke of a lack of job opportunities near their main residence in southern Italy or rural areas, which meant they felt pressured to stay in Milan. They lived multi-locally in their attempt to combine the social and natural environment of their main residence and the job opportunities in Milan. Both were well aware of the labour surplus in Milan and were afraid of losing their jobs, stating that they were easily replaceable. Therefore, they accepted a lack of support for their living arrangements and were reticent about demanding support.

All 12 Stuttgart shuttles had space-time flexibility at work and most were allowed to work at their main residence for several days a week. Some even got financial support such as subsidised train tickets or hotel rooms. These were older shuttles with more work experience and probably better negotiating skills than younger colleagues. Most could imagine living multi-locally for a long time, as they enjoyed their work and the support. Shuttles from structurally weak areas in Germany also faced problems finding jobs near their main residence, viewing their living arrangements as a chance to combine a good job and the preferred main residence. Most were not afraid of losing their jobs, underlining the skills shortage in knowledge-based sectors in Stuttgart.

Regarding infrastructure use, shuttles were less likely to take part in leisure activities, with these mostly limited to occasional meetings with colleagues. They worked as much as possible when staying in Stuttgart or Milan in an attempt to have more free time at their main residence, especially for shuttles in a relationship and with children.

The second type is living-apart-together (LAT-partners), couples in a long-distance relationship with two separate residences. One partner lived and worked in Stuttgart or Milan, while the other lived outside the region. The partners took turns to commute, mostly on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The Stuttgart case comprised ten LAT-partners, the Milanese case seven. All were 33 or younger, and viewed the living arrangements as temporary, seeking to live together as soon as they started a family. The literature suggests that this type of relationship is particularly common among young adults and is usually only maintained for a few years to reconcile partnership and (first) employment (Asendorpf 2008: 761–762). LAT-partners mostly did not consider employer support to be as necessary as shuttles, because they took turns with commuting and thus commuted less. LAT-partners in need of (more) support were mostly too afraid to request it, particularly at the beginning of their careers.

The Milanese respondents – especially the ones from southern Italy or living in rural areas – spoke of their huge difficulties in finding an appropriate job near their partner’s residence. Most LAT-partners believed that northern Italy and particularly Milan offered better job opportunities, which meant they intended to live together with their partner in Milan in the future. But the partners’ attachment to their current residences or to their workplaces inhibited the partners from relocating to Milan (yet).

Similarly in Stuttgart, several respondents spoke of their difficulties in finding a job near their partner due to a lack of jobs in their profession. But for the most part, attachment to the employer, to the job itself or to Stuttgart was a reason to not (yet) look for a job near the partner’s residence. On the other hand, the respondents’ partners did not want to relocate to Stuttgart (yet), due to their attachment to their current jobs or places of residence or because of a lack of jobs in the – engineering-dominated – Stuttgart labour market.

For LAT-partners, finding an appropriate, centrally located residence was more important than for shuttles, as their main residence was in Stuttgart or Milan. All LAT-partners were interested in using leisure facilities like sports clubs or music schools and building social networks extending beyond colleagues. Some even engaged in voluntary work like tutoring or animal aid. These activities tended to take place during the week, with weekends reserved for visits from or to the partner.

The analysis revealed a third type often overlooked in recent studies: young multi-local employees. Living and working in Stuttgart or Milan, they had a room at their parents’ home where they slept every second or third weekend. Reasons for sleeping at the parents’ homes included family, friends and specific facilities such as sports clubs. Two respondents in Stuttgart and six in Milan belonged to this type. Aged 29 or less, they were younger than the shuttles and LAT-partners studied. None of the young multi-local employees had requested (more) flexibility at work, as they were at the beginning of their careers and felt too inexperienced. Besides, most of them did not see it as their employers’ task to support their multi-local life.

In contrast to shuttles, most young multi-local employees saw the centres of their lives not just in one place, but in two. There is rather a co-existence of two important residences (Hilti 2013: 112), allowing them to combine working and living in Stuttgart or Milan with access to the place where they grew up. One interviewee put it this way: “I see myself in both places. I know what I miss when I’m here, but I also know what I miss when I’m there.” Most respondents did not yet know whether they wanted to move back to their hometowns in the future. Those who had grown up in structurally weak or rural areas in Germany or Italy believed that they would probably never go back to their hometowns, insofar as they wanted to keep a good job.

All young multi-local employees made use of leisure facilities and built social networks in Stuttgart or Milan. At the same time, the respondents maintained strong social networks in their hometowns, with social contacts, leisure and voluntary activities being the main reasons for maintaining these residences.

The literature shows that multi-local employees tend to terminate their jobs when their contracts expire. Others quit due to dissatisfaction with the job itself, due to the financial burdens of their living arrangements or to live with a partner or family (Asendorpf 2008: 761; Lück/Ruppenthal 2010: 51). Our study reveals that a lack of acceptance at work for their living arrangements can also be a reason to quit. Shuttles, in particular those with strict working hours and places, tend to resign when they find a job offering better working conditions or a similarly good job close to their main residence.

In particular, employees on permanent contracts face a lack of acceptance for their multi-local lives. The interviews indicated that certain employers still think that permanent contracts and their supposed (e.g. financial) security encourage employees to relocate to their places of work. They seem not to understand that attachment to other places due to social contacts, regional preferences as well as a partner’s job can be an obstacle to relocating. As an example, 30-year-old project manager Inga had a temporary contract in Stuttgart for one year. During that time her employer accepted her multi-local living and even paid for her to commute to her main residence. On receiving a permanent contract, the financial support was stopped. Her superior and colleagues could not imagine why she refused to relocate to Stuttgart. She had this to say:

Some respondents even decided to quit on account of the lack of support. It was not just the financial burden or the temporary absence from their families and friends, but also the lack of acceptance which made them resign upon finding a new job elsewhere.

Quitting is not an option for employees with specialised professions who are unable to easily find a job elsewhere. Moreover, tight labour markets make it difficult to find another job. Both the Milanese respondents and those from Stuttgart who had their other residences in structurally weak regions did their best to hold on to their jobs, even though the lack of acceptance and support made them feel bad at work. Francesco, a graphic designer in Milan, stated that his employer forbade working from home and ignored his requests to leave work earlier:

This quotation suggests the employer wants to keep the work environment within the company. With many colleagues being fired due to financial problems in the company, Francesco wanted to avoid getting dismissed as well. Because of difficulties finding another good job in Milan or near his main residence, he tolerated his job and the associated working conditions. Employers can afford to refuse support when employees are unable to find another job due to tight labour markets and can easily be replaced. The Milanese respondents felt themselves more easily replaceable than their Stuttgart counterparts.

Some respondents stated that their very jobs may be undermined by a superior who knows that the main residence is elsewhere. For example, Stefanie worked for a large company in Stuttgart and tried to negotiate working sometimes at her main residence in Cologne. Turning down her request, the superior even undermined her job:

Stefanie accepted the temporary contract to avoid further fights with her superior, making her feel bad at work. Her superior thought that she was about to quit her job to get back to Cologne. He preferred having a fixed end date for her contract, allowing him to better plan for new employees. It can be assumed that such employers or rather such departments have few difficulties in finding new employees.

Some employees concealed their multi-local life to avoid negative consequences for their current job or their career prospects. Our analysis revealed that shuttles, much more than LAT-partners or young multi-local employees, either consciously spoke openly about their living arrangements at work with a view to negotiating support or consciously concealed them.

Shuttles who wanted to relocate to their main residences due to specific pressures but had problems finding a job there were particularly prone to concealing their living situations. In particular, respondents wanting to start a family or care for elderly parents felt pressure to leave Stuttgart or Milan.

Employees on permanent contracts consciously concealed their living arrangements so that their employers would not think that they were less motivated and focused due to commuting between the residences. Furthermore, the respondents wanted to hide their intention to quit once they had found an appropriate job near their main residence. Working in Stuttgart, 31-year-old Esther wanted to relocate to her main residence to start a family, but jobs in her specialised profession were not easy to find there. She consciously did not tell her boss where her main residence was, because she was afraid of negative consequences like losing out on good assignments and thus getting less satisfaction from work:

At the same time, she felt no need to request support, as home office arrangements and flexitime made her living situation easier, with her superior unconsciously supporting her living arrangements.

For employees on temporary contracts, concealing a multi-local situation while at work can be a strategy when they are afraid of not getting a follow-on contract. 35-year-old Lorenzo worked as a researcher in Milan and had his main residence in southern Italy where it was difficult to find work. On starting work in Milan, his boss wanted him to relocate. Even though Lorenzo was allowed to work from home he wanted to be seen at work, displaying productivity and doing everything to stick in his superiors’ minds to get future contracts:

Even though he liked his job, he would prefer to work in his hometown. It became clear that his superior wanted employees who worked well and would not suddenly leave the department. The respondents were aware that their superiors’ fear was justified: if they got the right job they would move to their main residence straight away. Moreover, the interviews made it clear that the job situation in specific fields was difficult in Milan. Respondents were afraid that negative impressions could lead to an employee being ‘replaced’. Nevertheless, they were able to consciously conceal their living situations, not being forced to communicate at work that their main residence was elsewhere.