Employers and employees split on working from home, a new Swinburne University and Fair Work Commission report reveals.
Employers remain divided on whether work-from-home (WFH) arrangements improve productivity and efficiency, with 42% citing it as a reason to approve WFH requests, while 35% are declining requests due to productivity concerns, the research by Swinburne University of Technology has revealed.
For employees, 39.5% reported working longer hours when WFH, compared with only 13% who said they worked fewer hours when WFH.
Research lead and workplace expert Swinburne Associate Professor John Hopkins compiled the report into WFH practices for the Fair Work Commission on the Clerks Award, covering employees such as administrative assistants, receptionists, bookkeepers and their employers.
“We know working from home can offer a wide range of benefits for employees,” he said. “If a request to WFH is supported and the circumstances are reasonable, it can make a huge difference to that individual employee’s life and make workplaces more accessible and sustainable.”
Key findings for employees from the surveys include:
-
Eighty-six per cent of employees said the ability to WFH had a positive impact on their work-life balance, 76% said it had a positive impact on their mental health, and 67% said it had a positive impact on their physical health.
-
Female employees under the Clerks Award are seven times more likely to have a WFH request denied compared to their male counterparts.
-
Employees aged 25-34 are most likely to have a WFH request approved (35.1%), while employees over 45 are more likely to be able to WFH without formal approval, compared with younger colleagues.
-
Female employees (13%) are more likely to be able to WFH without seeking formal approval compared to male employees (9%).
-
Two-thirds (66%) of employees surveyed indicated being able to WFH to some extent, with over half (52%) currently doing so.
-
Female employees (51.5%) were far more likely than male employees (39.4%) to identify ‘household management’ as a WFH benefit.
Weekly income was not found to impact access to WFH arrangements.
Key findings for employers from the surveys include:
-
Fifty-five per cent of employers offered WFH for all or most clerical roles, 25% offer it to some employees on a case-by-case basis, 20% rarely or did not offer WFH.
-
Employer-level barriers to WFH uptake are that the role cannot be performed remotely (43%) or requires in-person client interaction (28%), and collaboration is more difficult remotely (36%).
“WFH opportunities are often thought of as something only available to employees on high incomes, so it was interesting to see just how many administrative employees actually have access to WFH arrangements, with employees on lower incomes found to be just as likely to have access to WFH arrangements as their counterparts,” Hopkins says.
“Reasons WFH may not be accessed include managerial preferences, legacy management styles that rely on visibility to override productivity concerns, company policies, and the absence of a right to WFH,” he adds.
Hopkins hopes this report will be useful in bettering the working conditions for Clerks Award employees and employers alike, some of whom were previously unaware of their rights before the request to take part in the study.
“This study provides comprehensive insights into current WFH practices, highlighting significant trends, barriers, and demographic differences. It’s clear that WFH is now commonplace in many roles and industries in Australia, so it’s important for employers to understand the needs of employees and how this practice can be best accommodated and supported,” Hopkins concludes.
