Working From Home Sounds Great, but Should It Become a Legal ‘Right?’

Commentary

Flexible work can benefit employees, families and employers. But there is a crucial difference between encouraging flexibility and turning it into a government-enforced entitlement.

That distinction should be at the centre of Victoria’s debate over the Labor government’s now-delayed work-from-home law.

The proposal has been presented as modern workplace reform designed to give employees greater control over where they work. Who wouldn’t want less commuting and greater flexibility?

The question is not whether working from home can be beneficial but whether politicians and bureaucrats should determine arrangements better negotiated by employers and employees who understand their circumstances.

The proposed Victorian scheme would allow employees up to two days of working from home each week, subject to reasonableness, while employers could refuse where remote work materially affects productivity, performance, customer service or operations.

Related Stories

But what constitutes a “reasonable” request? How should productivity be measured? When does remote work have a material impact on a business?

Once these questions become legal rights, workplace disagreements can become legal disputes.

A policy intended to increase flexibility could instead create another layer of workplace bureaucracy.

Working from home can increase productivity for some people and types of work by eliminating long commutes and workplace distractions that can make it harder to concentrate.

But it is simplistic to assume remote work automatically makes everyone more productive. For some, it’s an opportunity to slack off.

Productivity is about more than completing tasks as businesses depend on collaboration, innovation, training, accountability and the exchange of ideas.

Some of the most valuable workplace interactions happen spontaneously: a conversation between colleagues, a manager helping a junior employee solve a problem, or a team developing an idea simply because people happen to be in the same room.

An experienced employee performing independent work or an employee with global teams may thrive remotely.

Meanwhile, a young employee requiring training, mentoring and supervision may benefit from being physically present at the workplace.

Good workplace policy should recognise industries, roles, workers and business needs rather than impose a single model on everyone.

Unexpected Consequences for CBD Businesses

Another consequence that deserves attention: what happens to businesses that depend on people being in the city?

Someone working from home may buy one less coffee on the way to work, one less lunch at a local café, one less after-work drink and make fewer visits to CBD retailers.

Individually, these decisions may seem insignificant, but collectively, they can have a major impact.

Melbourne’s CBD businesses have already faced years of disruption and changing patterns of city life. For small businesses operating on tight margins, losing a significant portion of their weekday customers can mean the difference between surviving and closing.

The closure of Laurent Bakery’s CBD stores is a reminder that businesses cannot simply be expected to recover revenue lost when workers stop coming into the city.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in asking struggling businesses to absorb the consequences of reduced CBD activity while governments look for ways to recover billions of dollars to fund major projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop.

If governments want Melbourne’s CBD and local businesses to remain vibrant, they need to consider the entire economic ecosystem.

Office workers support cafés. Cafés support suppliers. Retailers employ staff. Customers moving through the city create economic activity far beyond their own workplaces.

This is not an argument for forcing everyone back into the office five days a week. It is an argument for recognising that workplace policies have consequences beyond the workplace.

If fewer people come into the city, governments should not be surprised when businesses that depend on those people struggle or fail.

The Social Value of Workplaces

The debate also tends to overlook the social value of workplaces.

For many people, work provides connection, friendship, mentoring and a sense of belonging.

A conversation in a corridor, lunch with colleagues, learning by watching an experienced co-worker, or simply being around other people can provide social connection that is difficult to replicate through a computer screen.

For younger workers, early career development involves more than completing tasks. It means building relationships, confidence and communication skills.

Remote work can improve wellbeing, however, the sensible answer is flexibility, allowing workplaces to find the right balance between remote and face-to-face work.

If a job can genuinely be performed remotely, technology makes it easier to offshore roles to lower-cost overseas markets. This is particularly relevant to sectors such as technology, administration, accounting, customer support and professional services.

The more governments increase the cost, complexity and rigidity of employing people locally, the stronger the incentive to move work elsewhere.

A business facing additional compliance costs may eventually question employing this role in Victoria at all.

Victoria should make local employment more attractive, not inadvertently encourage businesses to discover how many jobs can be performed elsewhere.

The Labor government should trust Victorian workers and employers to negotiate sensible arrangements rather than assuming it knows what is best for them. Government should stop interfering in other people’s lives.

If working from home works, employers and employees should be free to make it work. If it does not, they should be free to recognise that too.

That is what genuine workplace freedom looks like.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.