Work from home best left to the workplace, not courtroom

Working from home has been one of the lasting impacts of the Covid pandemic. For many of those who have experienced it there seems to be no turning back. There are profound implications from the new way of working. Central business districts of major cities face the reality of empty office space and less retail spending around which services have been based.

Some employers have embraced the transition and are finding new ways to build rapport between managers and their distant workforce. Others are not convinced that working from home can deliver the productivity bonus that is promised from a happier, less-stressed workforce. It will be some time before the evidence of productivity changes and workplace culture can be properly measured. This is why there is a danger in moves by Fair Work Australia to recommend new laws around making working from home an enforceable workplace entitlement.

As Ewin Hannan reports on Friday, federal public sector workers are about to vote on extending work-from-home rights to 85,000 government employees. Workers include those from the Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia and the Home Affairs Department. The rights will include no formal cap on the number of days a worker can work away from the office and a “bias towards approving requests”. An agency head can refuse a request on “reasonable business grounds”, including that it would be too costly, would have a significant negative impact on customer service, or that it would result in a significant loss in efficiency of productivity. Employees who have a request refused can take it to the Fair Work Commission.

Employees are entitled to security around their workplace arrangements on which many important life decisions are based but employers are entitled to feel the balance is shifting away from them. When put together with new laws that effectively prohibit employers from contacting workers outside set hours, the trend in workplace engagement is one towards optionality rather than flexibility. The Fair Work Commission is looking at whether flexible work arrangements could be made a legal entitlement more broadly. About 2.2 million workers on award wages could be impacted by the findings of the review, which will make recommendations to the federal government.

Workplace Minister Tony Burke said there were plenty of examples where working from home brought “mutual benefit”. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said a lot of people had found working from home helped them balance work and caring responsibilities, and many employers saw the benefit of keeping staff happy in a tight labour market. These are all good reasons for Fair Work Australia to restrain itself from recommending that working from home be made a hard and fast new workplace law. Different workplaces have different demands, and each worker will have their own preferences. Some work best unsupervised while others appreciate the camaraderie of the office water cooler. Some managers prefer team-building to be via an out-of-office conference or event where staff are more relaxed and open to new ideas. Others value the demands of regular in-office meetings in front of the whiteboard.

The opportunity that working from home presents in letting workers find more affordable housing further from head office must not be overlooked. Anthony Albanese is right to say working from home is an issue that could be worked out between employers and employees. “It isn’t one size fits all … what we need is flexibility, a bit of common sense, and look for measures that help workers but also help employers,” the Prime Minister said. He must be reminded of these sentiments when the Fair Work Commission delivers its report.