Even for Peter Dutton, the benefits of WFH are now too big to ignore.

This also allows employers to make a compromise: they can enjoy these savings on costs or pay a premium to send the participation of the offices.

Loading

Employers are also enjoying greater loyalty of workers. A recent Randomized control study Of the 1600 golden gold workers of a good studio-del Professor Nicholas Bloom design of Stanford University Economics, he discovered that the rates of stopping employees were reduced by a third if they could wfh. This has very real and very large financial and non -financial benefits for employers.

WFH is also helping to increase the participation of the workforce in a moment of shortcomings of skills in progress.

The overall participation rate of Australia has risen to the historical tops of the pandemic blocks and is now just under 67 %.

The productivity commission states that in the two years the increase in the altitude of Australian women of the age of 15 who worked full time was higher than any increase in the previous 40 years.

And previously we found participation in jobs in which people could work from home skipped nine percentage pointsS for women with young children and 4.4 percentage points for people with disabilities or health conditions from 2019 to 2023.

WFH growth has helped to overcome the barriers that previously made it more difficult for these groups to get a job, maintain jobs or increase working hours.

This is excellent news for the economy. It means that more income taxes are scrolling through the government speakers to support the budget and employers – including public service – they can now access a wider pool of talents.

With these earnings in mind, why should we encourage anyone to cut working hours and work sharing instead of working from home sometimes?

Leaving aside the fact that many people simply do not have the choice to work less hours as they need to pay bills, why should we want to relax so many earnings for workers, employers and the widest economy?

The reason provided by the coalition was that “these agreements led to a reduction in productivity”.

This would be a good reason if it were true. But the cited study It was conducted during the pandemic in India.

This was a bad time to study WFH due to other pandemic effects on productivity, the novelty of these ways of working and the fact that India has very different work environments, less childhood assistance and homes that are less suitable for WFH compared to Australia.

In fact, tests suggest that hybrid workers are as productive as full -time employees.

Loading

THE Bloom study They found no productivity differences, performance review results, promotion, learning or innovation between hybrid workers and only for office.

Once again, this episode shows the importance of political formulation based on evidence for all sides of politics.

If the coalition had consumed widely and examined all the tests, he could not have revealed his policy.

The coalition should be congratulated for listening to the feedback, considering the tests and admitting its error. This is a good thing and something that politicians should do more often.

As for the rest of us, the best way to make WFH work is to remember that the solutions of a size do not help.

Employers and workers should instead find solutions that work better for their circumstances, recognizing that this can change over time.

And we can all make both the remote expectations and those in the office work better: clarify expectations, evaluate the performance based on outputs rather than on inputs, formalizing the tutoring and the development of communication and management skills.

Cassandra Winzar is the Economist of Ceda, Committee for the economic development of Australia.

Take advantage of your health, your relationships, fitness and nutrition with ours Live Well Newsletter. Take it in your mailbox Every Monday.