Employers must get real about union push to lock in work from home

Working from home has made many employees happier and more contented.

It’s not surprising that unions have jumped on the working-from-home bandwagon and are pushing for its extension; ignoring this huge revolution would make them even less relevant than they already are to so many workers.

That’s what is so astonishing about the shift from the formal workplace to the kitchen or the cafe; it’s a movement truly driven by individual workers, not by ­organised labour, or even groups of people.

The WFH exercise is personal for many workers who simply ­ignore the entreaties from head office to return to their desks. Once they could never have dreamed of exerting such power, but distance has bred confidence and less fear of that call from the boss. As time goes on, employees may find they need unions and the law to “protect” them from an employer who wants them to turn up sometimes from nine-to-five, but for many, for now, it’s just a case of staying put and not paying too much attention to HR.

And that is why working from home has become such a dangerous issue for employers.

They have long argued that they should be able to deal one on one with employees with no third parties, like unions, involved in discussions about work arrangements. But many are finding that one on one doesn’t really work in a world where power has shifted so dramatically.

The world is getting yet another lesson about the pluses and minuses of the technology that drives our economy and can deliver unimaginable efficiencies and profits but which has also liberated so many employees. Who thought that a device you can hold in your hand could offer so much autonomy and power?

The move by the Community Public Sector Union to insert a generous “working from home” clause into 103 public service agreements would remove a formal cap on the days workers are expected to show up. It has alarmed many. But it’s important to note the employer has the right to reject a WFH request if it’s unreasonable on business grounds.

Even so, many employers find it shocking that unions are demanding a right, backed by law, to choose unlimited remote work – that is, to never go to the office.

It is indeed confronting – both at a philosophical and practical level – because it up-ends our ­assumptions about mass production (including of ideas) that have dominated industrial and even post-industrial economies.

We’re learning that it is something of a numbers game.

For years, a handful of people angled for remote work; mothers asked permission to “telework” on Fridays; some just wanted to make the commute on four days out of five.

Most were blocked by managers who argued they could not be sure of the return on their investment – the salary – if people stayed home. Individuals faced an uphill battle standing up to the company.

But, as is endlessly noted, the pandemic changed all that because (as unions know) there is strength in numbers. When everyone is working from home, it’s easier to simply ignore an employer – and you don’t really need a shop steward or other union official to “protect” you.

Of course, employers can apply pressure on remote workers, using the same processes they use to sack underperformers. But if dismissal has proved difficult when you can map and monitor workers in the office, it’s even more complicated when those workers are operating remotely. And if 50 per cent or 60 per cent of your staff is working from home, the sheer scale of assessing individual performances with an eye to dismissal can make it almost impossible to go down that route.

There are other strategies for employers who can’t cope with remote workers, including scaling back activity and cutting work­forces; becoming more realistic about profit margins; and investing in businesses, such as the care economy, where the job demands a physical presence.

Perhaps, in time, it will be the knowledge workers who will miss out as the smart money finds the products (such as caring for the aged) that are in high demand and which eventually will create profits and higher salaries but which will require workers to show up.

There’s little doubt that Ross McEwan, chief executive of ­ National Australia Bank, is right when he says that bosses will favour those in the office.

As he told this paper this week: “So, when you’re looking at a screen, after Covid, and you’ve got 50 on the screen and 50 are in front of you, tell me which of the 50 are going to get on?”

The problem for McEwan, as for many other leaders, is that there will be some brilliant people among those 50 sitting on Zoom and simply consigning them to the low-way, low-profile basket will means NAB misses out as well. A more sophisticated approach is needed.

Workers have proved over the four years since the first lockdown in 2020 that much work can be done remotely and that even a nice office in the CBD has lost some of its shine. Some remote employees are taking the boss for a ride, but that’s the case in an ­office as well, where you can hide behind your computer, if not your mobile phone.

Many people have found they are more efficient, calmer and happier working by themselves without distraction. Those who aren’t are finding their way back to headquarters, with or without a mandate from the boss or the lure of a free lunch.

Employers are not necessarily wrong to argue that productivity is down, or that they can’t really build company culture with remote workers. There’s more research to be done, more strategies to be explored, but it’s clear that a rerun of work as we knew it will not be the answer.

As this paper editorialised on Friday, “the trend in workplace engagement is one towards optionality rather than flexibility”. That shift has frightened many employers who are realising that treating your employees as individuals, and making the most of their labour and talent, has just got a whole lot more complex.