Working from home is once again the topic of conversation following a landmark Fair Work ruling. Australia’s Fair Work Commission recently ruled that an employee of Westpac had the right to work from home five days a week, citing that Westpac failed to provide a “reasonable business case” as to why the employee’s role needed to be done from the office.<\/p>\n
It’s reignited much of the discourse around work from home arrangement, many of which reached fever pitch during the last Australian\u00a0Federal Election<\/a>. The Liberal Party proposed mandating full-time office attendance for public servants. The purpose of such a move? They believed it would enhance productivity. \u200bOf course, the Liberal Party then lost the election by a record setting margin. Some believe this was a clear message from the Australian public; wfh is here to stay.<\/p>\n Working from home arrangements are widely recognised by experts to increase productivity and worker satisfaction. However, there are still many critics and some workplaces like Amazon have mandated that their employees come back to the office five days a week. So what does this new ruling mean for work from home arrangements? Does this mean they truly are here to stay?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In short, no.<\/p>\n Employers are generally able to set their own policies about office attendance, and even change them as they need. For example, when the Liberal Party proposed banning wfh, it was specific to public servants, i.e. people that would be employed by them, the Government employees.<\/p>\n But the new Fair Work Commission ruling from October around the working arrangements of Westpac employee Karlene Chandler has potentially created a precedent. It could mean that employers need a legitimate business case as to why your job must<\/em> be done from the office if they want to force you back in<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Critics argue that enforcing a strict return-to-office policy would disproportionately affect women, who often rely on flexible work arrangements to balance professional responsibilities with caregiving duties. During the Federal Election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the ruling Labor Party highlighted that such a move could exacerbate gender disparities in the workplace and negatively impact modern family dynamics. \u200b<\/p>\n Following the Westpac decision, the national secretary of the Finance Sector Union (who represented Ms Chandler) said the Fair Work ruling “paves the way for workers who have caring responsibilities just like Ms Chandler to secure work from home rights”.<\/p>\n The benefits of work from home arrangements are well-documented<\/a>. They decrease commuting hours, increase employee wellbeing and increase worker productivity. And it’s not just workers who cite the benefits of working from home. 72 per cent of employers cited that work from arrangements have either increased productivity or kept it same<\/a>. When workers are asking their desired number of days to work from home, the popular answer is two or three, highlighting the preference for a hybrid arrangement.<\/p>\n Despite this, work from home still has its critics. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and wealthiest man in the world, controversially requires all his employees to have at least 40 hours of face time in the office per week. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and former wealthiest man in the worl (2018) is also against work from home arrangements. Amazon employees are required in office full-time<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\nIs WFH at risk of being banned?<\/h3>\n
Why work from home still a contentious topic?<\/h3>\n