At a time when our leading politicians and most respected economists tell us we must lift productivity to ensure higher standards of living, the work-from-home (WFH) issue could split the Labor Party.

At a time when the nation’s leading politicians and most respected economists keep telling us that we have to lift the country’s productivity to ensure higher standards of living, the work-from-home (WFH) issue could split the Labor Party, with Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan set to enshrine two days out of the workplace for the state’s workers.

Allan is supporting WFH legislation so workers will have the right to work two days from home. This decision led the hosts of Seven’s Sunrise TV program to put the question to Federal Labor’s Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek, on whether the Albanese Government will also make WFH a right for workers nationally?

To that, Plibersek replied that the Government was on board with the WFH development in workplaces, provided it can be “done sensibly.”

This isn’t just a hot economic issue for businesses and governments, it’s a political threat that many politicians are scared to resist on the fear that it will kill voter support at an election.

The decision of former Coalition leader, Peter Dutton, to rail against public servants threatening to force them back to the office became a big issue that helped Labor to a surprising and historic victory in the May poll.

In March this year when Dutton played his anti-WFH card, abc.net.au looked at how entrenched this new workplace trend had become. “In 2024, around 36 per cent of employed Australians worked from home regularly, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is down slightly from the 40 per cent peak during the pandemic,” Rhiannon Stevens revealed. “Among workers aged under 40, a University of Sydney study found that in 2022 men were more likely to work from home than women, with 44 per cent of men compared to 38 per cent of women working from home at least some of the time.

“Analysis by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, released in 2024, found that in jobs where people could work from home workforce participation increased for women with young children and people with a disability.”
At the time, Andrew Hughes, a marketing lecturer at the Australian National University, saw Dutton’s move as dangerous political messaging. "What Dutton's trying to do is build that messaging that he's really in touch with people and he understands… that most people are doing it tough,” he observed. "It's making the assumption, on a very gendered ground, that only women work from home and only women are care providers."

Hughes said it was the right message for Dutton’s base group of supporters, but he already had their vote. However, attacking public servants or characterising working from home as lazy or inefficient was never going to help the Opposition leader win marginal seats, especially those held by Teals.

Given this huge political lesson from this year’s election, Minister Plibersek told Sunrise viewers the following:
1. WFH home has to be “sensible”, which means it can’t hurt a business’s productivity and ultimately its profitability.
2. She talked to her base by saying: “We’ve got a lot of public servants, for example, who work a couple of days a week from home. It’s supported productivity.”
3. Federal Labor had no plans to interfere with Victorian Labor’s WFH legislation.
4. While she conceded some workers can’t do WFH, like nurses, however, she added: “We support work from home for Australian workers where it’s practical, that fits in with the requirements of their job.”

Anyone believing that the Albanese Government will create obstacles for Aussies who want a WFH employment arrangement should note what Plibersek said to Sunrise: “We know that Australians value it and when Peter Dutton tried to get rid of it in the last election, there was quite a backlash.”

So, it looks like the only way an employer could force an employee to not adopt the WFH option would be to prove it’s not sensible. However, for a country and Government so committed to raising productivity, such that it has the Economic Reform roundtable on August 19-21, shouldn’t the test be: Does the WFH decision help the productivity and profitability of the business providing the jobs and the taxes that come out of the entrepreneurial gamble the employer is taking?

While I totally see the social pluses for families of the WFH innovation that has surged since the pandemic, the question is: should employers be asked to compromise the success of the business to keep workers happier?

By the way, some studies show happy workers have a history of being more productive, but it’s not a given that every business owner can trust a happy worker will help their business. In some cases, productivity of the worker could fall when working from home, but their golf handicap could improve and that could make the worker happier!