Latest news with #work from home
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Workers like Jason question ‘broad brush' return to office mandates as WFH tussle heads to Fair Work showdown
Jason Sennitt loves his job, but can't imagine going back to the office up to four days a week. The 53-year-old lives in an outer suburb of Geelong with his wife and two school-age children as well as his elderly mother who has dementia and needs someone to be home. An employee of one of Australia's largest energy providers, Sennitt has been told to return to the office at least three days a week, and four days a week from next year. 'Even though I have to travel five hours to do an eight-hour shift, I'm happy to do that a couple of times a week,' says Sennitt, who works in customer service. 'But being in the office … it's not necessary for me to do my job well and it feels like the business hasn't really considered this.' Sennitt has applied for an exemption to the office mandate, but he believes the company's 'broad brushstroke' policy doesn't take proper consideration of its workers. His comments come ahead of the 1 August submission deadline for a Fair Work Commission process designed to modernise the award for clerical and administrative workers by taking into account work-from-home arrangements. The clerks award, which informs the working conditions of millions of Australians, is seen as a test case for the broader workforce amid a growing tussle over flexible work. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads While employees can request flexible arrangements, there is no assumed right to work from home in Australia. Sennitt's employer, Origin Energy, says it supports its office-based employees to work from home up to two days a week, with the ability to request additional flexibility. 'We believe a balance between work and home locations enables connection, collaboration, productivity, and health and wellbeing benefits,' an Origin spokesperson says. Once seen as a rare perk, remote work exploded during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. After pandemic conditions eased, the significant time and financial saving from reduced commuting, and flexibility to care for family members, has made many workers resistant to return to the office. Many employees also report being more productive working from home. Some employers, however, are worried about being compelled to offer flexible arrangements when it is not practical for their business. There is also the enduring suspicion that some workers slack off at home. The issue has pitted employer association Australian Industry Group against the Australian Services Union (ASU), which has a large base of administrative and clerical members, including Sennitt. AI Group has reportedly proposed to give employers the right to trade off overtime, penalty rates and breaks in exchange for allowing employees to work from home. The confidential proposal was first reported in The Australian. The ASU's national secretary, Emeline Gaske, told Guardian Australia that AI Group wanted to use working from home as an excuse to strip away basic entitlements. 'This is a lurch back in time by the [AI Group] that wants to drag workplace standards back decades if a worker seeks to work from home,' Gaske says. An ASU members' survey found that the ability to work from home was 'not a perk, but an essential condition that makes work possible', allowing many workers to manage health conditions, disabilities and caring responsibilities. Employers and their representative bodies are expected to use the Fair Work process to test whether current provisions are suited to flexible work. For example, the clerks award ensures employees have at least 10 consecutive hours off after working overtime. If an employer doesn't comply, the worker earns double their hourly rate. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Employer groups question if that 10-hour rule should apply if a worker is at home, and therefore does not need to commute. They are also raising questions about what constitutes normal working hours in an at-home setting, given penalty rates often apply outside those hours. The Fair Work process may also bring clarity to how flexible work interacts with right to disconnect laws. The AI Group chief executive, Innes Willox, says there is an obvious need to free up restrictive provisions that either prohibit working from home or discourage employers from implementing them. He says the union is engaging in a 'misleading scare campaign'. 'We aren't arguing that overtime and penalty rates should not apply simply because someone is working from home,' Willox says. He says the clerks award contains archaic rules that require all ordinary hours are worked continuously and within strict timeframes. 'If employees want to take breaks during their ordinary hours of work to attend to personal matters, like picking their kids up from schools, and instead work those hours in the evening or early in the morning, they should be able to do that, if their employer agrees,' Willox says. 'Obviously, an employer shouldn't have to pay a penalty for agreeing to an employee request to work this way, but that seems to be what the unions want.' During the federal election, the Coalition spectacularly reversed its policy to restrict work from home arrangements for the public service. Polling found during the campaign that the public service proposal was unpopular, especially among women and working families who have come to rely on flexible work arrangements. As the submission deadline for the Fair Work process nears, there are growing expectations Labor could legislate a work-from-home right for workers. Another Melbourne corporate worker, who asked not to be identified, told Guardian Australia that greater flexibility would lead to increased productivity and improved morale. For them, the only public transport option from their outer-Melbourne home requires a 40-minute bus ride followed by a 55-minute train commute. The bus schedule also doesn't line up with work hours. 'I leave home at 4.30am to get a ride with my husband,' the worker said. 'I'm not allowed to leave [work] early. I still have to stay until 4pm.' 'We find the days [in the office] to be the most unproductive days there are.'
BreakingNews.ie
4 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Companies have right to strike balance on remote working, McEntee says
Companies have the right to strike a balance on remote working based on their business, Minister for Education Helen McEntee has said. It comes as several companies and State departments shift away from the remote working arrangements introduced in the aftermath of the pandemic. Advertisement The option to work from home came into force during the Covid-19 pandemic due to restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus. A right to request remote working came into effect from March 2024, inspired by those arrangements. Mandated 'hybrid' arrangements by employers have raised concerns, where people are able to work from home some days but must come into the office a minimum number of days a week. Earlier this year, the Department of Social Protection made efforts to increase the minimum number of days staff worked from the office from one to two. Advertisement The Department of Finance had also requested an increase in the number of office days, in a move that was resisted by unions. This week, reports emerged that AIB is to reduce the option of working from home five days a week to just two for non-customer facing staff. Asked about the shift in the option to remote work and the effect it would have on families, Ms McEntee said companies 'have that autonomy'. 'I'll be honest, I think it's important that we provide that flexibility and that structure at a government level, but that we also have that autonomy within companies as well,' she said in Dublin. Advertisement 'For some people, it's simply not possible to work from home [with] the type of job or the career they're in. 'For others, there is that flexibility, and I know certainly some companies like to have that balance, that people are in work, they're in the office, they're getting to know their colleagues. 'There's a way in which you can work that you can't when you're at home, or you're perhaps not meeting people face to face. Business Legislation in employers' favour but 'claims of de... Read More 'So I think it's about providing that structure to allow that kind of flexibility. Advertisement 'But ultimately, companies do have to make decisions based on what's right for them, what's right for the way in which they're working, while at the same time trying to support and recognise and acknowledge that people have families, that they have school, that they have commitments, that they have to try and work with them to make sure that everybody benefits from it. 'But you know, it is about that flexibility and the same time acknowledging, for some people it works better than others, and for some companies that will work better than for others.'
CBC
17-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Starbucks orders increased return to office. Is remote work going away?
Henry Goldbeck, founder of Goldbeck Recruiting, says companies are trying to pivot remote workers back into the office due to issues with team communication and the lack of work being completed at home.
Daily Mail
16-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Major new work from home rule every Aussie needs to know about - after worker tried to fight decision to go back to the office fulltime
A Sydney father's bid to work from home two days a week has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission, in a case that could have legal ramifications for Aussies forced back into the office Paul Collins, a long-serving tech specialist at global software firm Intersystems, requested to continue working remotely on Wednesdays and Thursdays. This followed the company's decision to end its COVID-era remote work arrangements in February and require all staff to return to the office full-time. In his request to Intersystems, the specialist said he wanted to work from home for better work-life balance and to help care for his eight and ten-year-old kids, a responsibility he shares with his wife, who also works at Intersystems. While the employer denied the request, it offered a one-day-a-week compromise, which Mr Collins rejected, before the matter escalated to the Commission. But the Fair Work Commission wasn't convinced. In a decisive ruling, Deputy President Lyndall Dean said a 'personal preference' for remote work simply wasn't enough. 'His written request merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work and failed to articulate how working from home two days per week specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities.' The Commission found Collins failed to show a direct link between his request and any specific parental duties that required him to be home during core working hours. 'He conceded in cross-examination that he has no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9am and 5.00pm, and that he and his wife are able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility including adjusted start and finish times,' she said. Ms Dean ruled the specialist's written plea, which expressed a preference to continue with a pre‑existing pattern of remote work, failed to articulate how working from home specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities. Monash University business law lecturer Amanda Selvarajah said the Fair Work Commission now seems to require parents to provide formal evidence of direct caregiving duties, such as personally supervising children, when applying for flexible work. Broader parental responsibilities, like cooking meals or maintaining the household, are often dismissed as irrelevant. 'The FWC appears to have assumed that flexible work requests as a parent will only have a requisite nexus where the parent can prove they are engaging in exclusive, direct caregiving responsibilities,' Selvarajah said in her paper. 'This neglects other potential parental obligations such as preparing meals or cleaning the home.' She warned the Commission's strict evidentiary standards are likely to disproportionately affect women, who tend to carry the bulk of caregiving responsibilities. 'This does not align with the Fair Work Act's objective of promoting gender equality,' she said.
