Almost six years after the global workforce was sent home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the debate over the right to work from home (WFH) continues to intensify. With each new legal ruling, advocates and detractors alike claim victory, suggesting that the outcome will finally resolve the contentious issue. Yet, the question remains: Is working from home a right or a privilege?
Recent developments highlight the complexity of the issue. Last week, the Fair Work Commission in Australia upheld the dismissal of a Melbourne worker for failing to comply with a new policy requiring three days of in-office work, despite his contract initially allowing for remote work. This decision appears to favor employers, granting them the authority to dictate work arrangements.
Conversely, a ruling late last year saw a Westpac employee successfully challenge the bank’s WFH policy, which mandated two office days per week. The commission ruled in favor of the employee, marking a win for those advocating for employee rights. These cases underscore the ongoing tug-of-war between employers and employees over work arrangements.
Legal Battles and Their Implications
The Fair Work Commission’s docket is likely to remain full as more disputes arise. Each case is unique, determined by individual contracts, circumstances, and legal nuances. While these rulings offer insights into the broader WFH debate, they do not provide a definitive answer to whether WFH is a right or a privilege.
Employers, who are responsible for paying salaries and setting workplace rules, still hold significant power. Last week’s ruling revealed that the employer had conducted hybrid work trials and consulted with staff before implementing a phased return to the office. This reflects a broader trend where businesses retain the flexibility to change work locations as needed.
The Evolution of Work From Home
During the early pandemic years, employees gained unprecedented leverage, but employers have been gradually reclaiming some of that power. Hybrid working models have become a fixture in many workplaces. According to Roy Morgan data from August 2025, 46% of employed Australians, or 6.7 million people, work from home at least part-time.
Professor Nick Bloom from Stanford University notes that WFH has stabilized at about 25% of workdays in the U.S., a threefold increase from pre-pandemic levels.
These figures suggest that while WFH is more prevalent than ever, it is not as widespread as some might expect. The balance between remote and in-office work continues to evolve, influenced by both employee preferences and employer policies.
Finding Common Ground
The key to navigating the WFH debate lies in crafting reasonable policies that balance the needs of both workers and organizations. Employees must temper their demands, while businesses should consider the benefits of flexibility when designing work arrangements. The goal is to create a mutually beneficial environment that accommodates diverse needs.
As legal battles continue, neither side can claim an outright victory. The WFH wars are likely to persist, shaping the future of work for years to come. The ongoing dialogue between employers and employees will play a crucial role in determining whether WFH is ultimately seen as a right or a privilege.
Tim Duggan, author of Work Backwards: The Revolutionary Method to Work Smarter and Live Better, offers insights into the evolving workplace landscape. His regular newsletter provides advice and perspectives on making work more effective and fulfilling.
