Forcing workers onto “packed, overpriced trains” was the sharpest Yes argument, but it lost the vote: No won by nearly four to one. The mismatch matters — the most-respected case on the page belonged to the losing side, while No supplied the louder chorus.
No voters were chiefly defending managerial discretion, not abolishing home working. Their strongest formulation was blunt: “As an employee you work for an employer, who chooses what you do for the pay you receive”; another dismissed the proposal as “lawfare against business owners”.
Yes voters mostly argued for a conditional right in jobs where remote work is viable, rather than for refuse collectors or nurses working from spare rooms. One set the boundary clearly: “If work performance is poor, i.e. standards are not met, then employee could be compelled to work from the office.” The two sides often talked past each other: Yes heard “default” as a protection for feasible roles, while No heard a universal legal claim.
That leaves the vote inside the wider argument over whether employment rights should set a floor or leave working arrangements to contracts and employers — a live question as ministers prepare tighter rules around refusals. The Yes case also framed flexibility as “an equity issue”, particularly for disabled workers and people with caring responsibilities, but that moral claim did not overcome the room’s preference for discretion.
The settled position was narrower than the headline: flexibility, yes; entitlement, no.
36 Opinions
I think it's a good thing that some flexible options for employees exist: shifting working hours, condensing days, being able (easily) to take time off for personal errands/commitments, etc. However, I think the norm should absolutely be going to your place of work to do your work... it's how things have worked for the longest time and it brings real advantages to morale and community building and local businesses (a la workers popping out for lunch).
Tell me how someone working in fast food is able to work from home, maybe I'll change my opinion.
From my own experience, for roles where it’s possible to work from home, there’s been no difference to the output and quality of work produced. There’s fewer sick days, better morale and the team are far less tired. They also spend less on commuting and don’t waste as much time on it. It’s also a helpful option for those with disabilities. WFH tends to bother those who own office space and are not getting the same rent they were pre-pandemic.
I've seen what people are doing when they're working from home and it depends entirely on the individuals baseline output without doing bonus work to determine if paying someone to play video games for 60%+ of their workday. One of them worked for the police in HR... Government employee playing video games...
I've made a couple of assumptions here: 1) Being that it applies to occupations where it's viable. Clearly a refuse collector, for example, cannot work from home! 2) If work performance is poor, i.e. standards are not met, then employee could be compelled to work from the office.
A default right? No. Not every job can be done from home but where they can, there should be an option to do so, which isn't a problem if it is beneficial to either employee, employer or both. If there is no detriment to the employer why wouldn't they allow it. They know if work is being done & if employees can be trusted. The demonisation of those who work from home needs to stop.. It seems to be based on the false premise that those who work from home are feckless & lazy.
Employers should do more to create WFH opportunities where possible. It's not possible for every kind of work.
No and the govt should stop telling employers how their employees will work. Outside of necessary employment regulations, the govt should just get the hell out of the way
If a role can be done from a laptop, forcing workers onto packed, overpriced trains just to sit on Zoom calls is counterproductive. Completely different if workers have an operational reason to be on site. For perspective, I simply don't have an office I go to, I work from home / on the road and not once have I, or to my knowledge, any of my colleagues / employees pretended to be working when not... I think we need to do away with this archaic idea of presenteeism
It’s not all about the employee. Organisations need to build a culture reliance cooperation an esprit de corps etc to properly function. Working from home in many job functions silos people to their and companies detriment. Some job functions may equally be home based but to properly develop a company needs to be fully in control.