Associate Professor Sue Williamson and Dr Robyn May
Hybrid working is now widely considered the ‘new normal’ for professionals in non-service facing or manual labour roles, particularly in English speaking countries.
In Australia, up to a third of all workers now engage in some working from home, more than double the amount prior to the pandemic. These figures are consistent with other English-speaking countries.
Researchers also find that workers consistently prefer to work more days per week at home than employers are prepared to offer. This suggests that the benefits of flexibility are valued more highly by workers than by their employers. This notion is also supported by the increasing number of employers instigating return to office mandates.
What is happening with return-to-office mandates?
Return-to-office mandates require employees who are working from home or hybridly to return to the office five days a week. Return to office mandates originated from US companies such as Amazon, JP Morgan, Dell and X. Most recently, US President Trump has directed all federal government employees return to the office.
Such mandates are also being made by organisations in Australia. This may increase due to the latest political developments. Shadow Minister for Finance Jane Hume recently stated that, if elected, the Coalition would require Australian public service (APS) employees to work in the office five days a week.
Rebutting criticism from the government and others, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton then stated that APS women employees could still work flexibly, by job-sharing. This comment ignores the reality that job-sharing in the APS is virtually non-existent – only 1% of APS employees were in a job-share arrangement last year.
Some Coalition members are reportedly concerned that the mandate will be a political liability in the upcoming federal election, stating that the “policy was messaged poorly”, resulting in the electorate believing that the mandate would apply to all workplaces, not just the APS. Some are also worried that this position will alienate professional women who work flexibly or from home.
Do return-to-office mandates work?
Research shows that return-to-office mandates are backfiring. Mandates can breed resentment and weaken employee engagement, negatively impacting workplace culture and performance. Employees, particularly women, and highly-skilled workers are protesting by leaving organisations which have mandates. Forbes even states that the imposition of mandates is leading to a mass exodus of employees.
So why does this push to return people to the office exist? One commentator has explained the partisan underpinning – the political right is aligning with business and employers, and wants to force employees back into the office. The left is supporting workers’ interests and continued working from home.
What does the evidence tell us?
Fully remote workers can experience isolation and be less connected with colleagues. Working from home – and hybrid working in particular – does bring benefits. These include improved well-being through time gained by reduced commuting; increased flexibility leading to better work/life balance, which in turn improves well-being; and increased job satisfaction.
Working from home can also benefit specific groups of workers. Our research shows that carers, and people with disability are more productive working from home. CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development, has also found that working from home has increased workforce participation for carers and parents in Australia.
Is there a right to work from home?
Working from home is not a right in Australia. Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), employees can request to work flexibly. This includes requesting to work from home. Employers are required to discuss the request and genuinely try to reach agreement with the employee. Requests can be refused on “reasonable business grounds”, which include being too costly or impractical.
Similarly, there is no right to work from home in the APS, contrary to statements made by Shadow Minister Hume. The latest round of enterprise bargaining in the APS resulted in agreements including a clause which has created a bias towards approving requests to work flexibly. Requests can still be refused on reasonable business grounds. This bias in favour of flexible working was introduced to ensure that the APS can continue to attract and retain valuable employees.
What’s next?
Attacking the public service is seen as an easy way to score some political mileage and the Coalition may therefore stay with their policy. The Labor government may seek to continue to benefit by criticising a policy seen as gender-insensitive. Either way, the politicisation of working from home is likely to continue.
Sue Williamson is an Associate Professor of Human Resource Management and an Australian Human Rights Institute Associate, and Dr Robyn May is a Senior Research Associate, both at UNSW Canberra.