Work from home needs a flexible IR system

Working from home is a privilege many employees value for the flexibility it affords in managing family responsibilities and saving hours of commuting time, fares and parking costs. But however conscientious their staff, employers are entitled to question the impact of WFH on performance and staff interaction.

Such a significant workplace relations issue should be addressed in enterprise bargaining negotiations with a view to maximising productivity. The Australian Industry Group is serving the interests of its 60,000 members – from international companies to small businesses – that employ a million Australians by proposing a new WFH clause be added to the Fair Work Commission. It would allow the trading of entitlements in the clerks award, for example, in return for employees working remotely.

Such a constructive proposal is worth developing across sectors in which employers regard WFH, at least for part of the week, as suitable to their needs. Under the proposal, clauses relating to overtime, penalty rates, allowances, breaks and hours of work could be changed or removed by agreement between employer and worker, Ewin Hannan wrote in Tuesday’s paper.

As Jim Chalmers seeks to maximise productivity in Labor’s second term and prepares for the productivity roundtable between unions, business and community associations, the proposal should be taken into account.

The Australian Services Union is aghast, claiming such a change would “drag workplace standards back decades”. National secretary Emeline Gaske said it would allow employers to refuse to pay overtime, remove penalty rates, eliminate breaks and roster staff for as little as 30 minutes a day “all because someone works from home”. The “attack”, Ms Gaske claimed, was “the biggest act of workplace discrimination I have seen as a unionist”.

That attitude, if representative of most unions, will undermine efforts to lift the nation’s abysmal productivity on which living standards depend. The clerks award, AI Group chief executive Innes Willox said, operated as a barrier to employers agreeing to WFH arrangements. It was out of step with current working practices and the flexibility many employees wanted.

The award was written at a time it was assumed that employees worked from their employer’s premises and failed to reflect the seismic shift in work practices since the pandemic, Mr Willox said. While some in the union movement wanted to cling to the complex web of outdated workplace laws, working arrangements could be modernised to be fair and flexible for all parties.