Allan's WFH plan respects flexibility, not dogma

The Age

8 hours ago

To submit a letter to The Age, email [e-mail]. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
WORK FROM HOME
The revelation that Labor considered a federal work-from-home policy before the 2025 election, only to shelve it to highlight Peter Dutton's ill-fated office mandate, underscores a stark contrast in political acumen (″⁣ Labor's work-from-home strategy outshines Coalition's misstep″ ⁣, 6/7).
Labor's strategic pivot capitalised on Dutton's misjudgment, which ignored the realities of modern work-life balance, particularly for women and carers. His backflip, prompted by voter backlash, exposed a policy rooted in control rather than progress, echoing Tim Wilson's recent Australian Financial Review critique of flexible work as 'professional apartheid' despite his own party's retreat.
Labor's 2023 Fair Work Act amendments already strengthened remote work rights, fostering inclusivity and productivity, as evidenced by a 4.4 per cent rise in workforce participation. Premier Jacinta Allan's bold plan to legislate two days of remote work further cements Labor's forward-thinking approach, while the Coalition's flip-flops erode trust. Australians deserve leadership that respects flexibility, not dogma.
Sue Barrett, Caulfield South
Proposal discriminates essential workers
Working from home should be left as an agreement between the employer and the employee based on the needs and capability of both parties. It appears to be already working quite well without government intervention or interference.
It does not need to be, and should not be, a 'right' cemented in law. In doing so, it risks introducing an adversarial atmosphere into what should be a matter of negotiation between adults. Instead, it creates a two-tier level of employment that discriminates between those who can work from home (primarily white-collar workers) and those whose jobs require physical engagement (primarily essential workers such as nurses, teachers, police etc).
The only real beneficiaries of this will be the legal fraternity who are already preparing for some lovely taxpayer money as one arm of the public service takes on the other (' High Court battle looms for state Labor's work-from-home push ', 6/8). The law will no doubt also be tested in terms of what 'compensation' will be provided to blue collar workers who believe themselves to be discriminated against.
I would rather see laws enacted that protect workers from corrupt unions and predatory work practices, than ones that provide meaningless 'human rights'. But it's such a lovely distraction from the real woes of the state isn't it, premier?
Stephen Farrelly, Donvale
Employers' bait and switch
I disagree with your characterisation that Premier Jacinta Allan's working-from-home push is a 'furphy' (Editorial, 6/8). I work in the private sector and there have been numerous cases where my manager unilaterally changed my WFH days when it suited him. A two-day WFH would already rubber-stamp what is already considered 'hybrid' in the workplace and prevent a bait-and-switch by overzealous employers who promise 'hybrid', but is in fact a full return to the office. People would be outraged if employers just felt like changing people's yearly salaries, so why do it to their working conditions?
Christopher Lam, Saint Kilda East
Debate irrelevant to teachers
A letters correspondent to these pages (6/8) wonders if the new working from home proposals will apply to teachers. While long past the joys of going to that workplace every day, and having 'missed' the experience of working from home during COVID, I doubt that there are many teachers who would voluntarily choose to 'work from home'.
The policy is pretty irrelevant to the teaching profession and I'm sure that most teachers have no desire to work from home again. Let those who enjoy the benefits of such work practices continue to do so, without introducing irrelevant furphies.
Graeme Gardner, Reservoir
THE FORUM
Election on horizon
Chip Le Grand's incisive article ″⁣ Dear Leader Jacinta Allan will fight for your right to do what you're already doing ″⁣, 7/8), hits the spot about the state of politics in Victoria and the focus of the Victorian Labor conference.
As one of your letter correspondents recently remarked, we only seem to see our Premier in a hard hat (and high-vis jacket) along with several other ministers similarly attired, seemingly projecting their strong support of so-called 'working people'. But, I seem to recall that our leaders have committed to govern for all. And of course, bashing the opposition (notwithstanding they have been severely depleted) is a worthy parliamentary sport.
Forget the ongoing youth crime, tobacco wars, childcare problems, health waiting lists, alleged CFMEU corruption, the dire straits of our finances etc., many of which have plagued us for years now. Warning us about what the opposition did decades ago seems to be more productive in the eyes of our leaders than addressing some of these issues constructively and urgently. Must be an election coming.
Charles Griss, Balwyn
Putting people first
I was at the Labor State conference and found it interesting that Chip Le Grand's article focused on just one speech of about 20 across one-and-a-half days. I witnessed passionate individuals, (politicians, union members and delegates like myself), present on what the government is doing for, among others, First Nations people, the LGBTQI community, the disabled, women, renters, retirement home residents, regional Victorians, front-line workers, office workers, the elderly, the young, those with and those without.
So, yes the premier highlighted what the Liberals did, close schools, cut services and more, as a reminder to those of us who put people first, what we are fighting for.
Samantha Keir, East Brighton