Remote Working Law: More Illusion than Rights for Employees

Following on from my remote working blog , I was interested to see a recent article about the law introduced in Ireland in March 2023 that allows employees request remote work.? I wanted to expand the topic to see some global examples of remote working laws.??

The idea of remote work in the modern age is that it would strike a balance between the rights of the employee and the needs of the company. Workers would have a voice to enable remote work and be flexible about their day-to-day arrangements, but the law isn't as balanced as one would think.??

The legislation appears to offer an employee a path forward to requesting remote work, but in practice, it reveals that it's more of a formal process for companies to decline that request. The company must “seriously consider” the application, and if the employee feels it hasn’t been considered properly, or fairly, they can escalation to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which is Ireland’s labor dispute body.??

The law is vague and insufficient and feels more like a box ticking exercise for employees. This got me thinking, and I wanted to see what the law was in other countries around the world — namely US, UK and China.??

Like a lot of laws in Ireland, the foundations are from benchmarking laws in the UK. Since 30th June 2014, employees with companies for more than 26 weeks have the legal right to request flexible working arrangements. This includes remote work, job sharing, compressed hours, and other forms of flexible working. Employers are required to consider these requests in a reasonable manner and can only refuse them for specific business-related reasons, such as the inability to reorganize work among existing staff or the negative impact on performance. Sounds familiar....... The requirements also take into consideration Health & Safety, GDPR and sharing client information and general business policy.??

The US is different to both Ireland and the UK, in that there is no federal law which provides employees with a general right to request flexible or remote work arrangements. Some states and cities have their own laws regarding remote work and flexible working arrangements. In California, employers are required to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred while working remotely, such as internet and phone costs. In New York state they have introduced legislation to address remote work-related issues, including worker classification and wage theft protections. Similar considerations around CCPA (The California Consumer Privacy Act - similar to GDPR), Health and Safety and business policies also apply.?

China is so different to all 3 examples above. Remote work requires a written agreement between the employer and the employee. This agreement should outline the terms of remote work, including work hours, location, responsibilities, and compensation. The labor contract law governs these agreements, and any changes to the employment relationship must be mutually agreed upon and documented. Similar considerations around data protection, Health and Safety and business policies also apply.?

However, in China there is more extensive workplace surveillance. This must comply with privacy regulations and must be communicated with the employee. Employers may monitor employees' activities to ensure productivity and compliance with company policies.??

From all the above examples, we can see that the practical effect of remote work law is that it grants companies a veneer of compliance while offering little substantive support for employees. While employers can point to the law as evidence of their commitment to considering remote work requests, the reality is that the legislation simply enables an easier way for companies to say no, whilst employees engage in a process that is essentially just an illusion of serious consideration, without any real power to challenge denials.?

So whilst the process is there for a right to work from home, or request it, it really falls short of empowering employees. Instead, it creates a legal framework for companies to maintain the status quo, offering a carrot without much substance. ?

Many organizations might remain hesitant to offer remote or flexible working arrangements, but it’s fast becoming a necessity to secure the best talent. In Atlas’ recent Global Employer of Record Report 2024 , it was shown that 72% of workers surveyed in a Korn Ferry report said that they would take a job with a lower salary if it meant they had flexibility to work from home.?

Not only is remote work becoming an expectation rather than a benefit amongst employees, but for employers themselves, facilitating remote work allows them to dip into the global talent pool rather than hire from within their post code. With a whopping 75% of global businesses report challenges in hiring key roles, it seems that — while the laws on remote work might be flimsy at best — organizations themselves would be well-advised to take employee requests more seriously.???