Imagine a workplace where some employees enjoy the perks of working from home, while others are left behind, forced to commute daily. This is the stark reality that Victoria’s new Work From Home (WFH) laws could create, according to concerned small business owners. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the state government claims these reforms will level the playing field, critics argue they might actually deepen workplace divisions. And this is the part most people miss—the potential for a ‘two-tier’ system that could leave blue-collar workers feeling undervalued.
Menka Michaelides, owner of Pro Repair Auto Care Centre in Melbourne, is one such voice raising the alarm. With Victoria’s WFH laws set to take effect on September 1, she fears the legislation will split her workforce into two distinct groups: those who can work remotely and those who must remain on-site. ‘It’s not just about fairness,’ she explains, ‘it’s about practicality. How can I manage a team when half are at home and the other half are here, dealing with customers and repairs?’
Premier Jacinta Allan paints a different picture, insisting the changes will benefit everyone. By allowing employees to work from home two days a week—where reasonably possible—she believes workers will save on commuting costs, spend more time with family, and boost overall productivity. The policy, which will be enshrined in the Equal Opportunity Act, aims to modernize workplaces and adapt to the evolving needs of the workforce.
But for Michaelides, the devil is in the details. ‘Who decides what’s ‘reasonably possible’?’ she asks. ‘And what about the added red tape?’ Ensuring employees have a safe workspace at home is a challenge she’s not sure how to tackle. ‘We’re responsible for their safety here, but how can we control their home environment?’ she questions. ‘Yet, we’ll still be held liable.’
Swinburne human resource management expert Peter Holland offers a counterpoint, suggesting that small businesses could actually benefit from the flexibility. He compares the reforms to landmark changes like paid maternity leave in 1973 and superannuation in 1992, arguing that they could attract talent in a tight labor market. ‘It’s about adapting to the future of work,’ he says. ‘But it’s also about ensuring fairness for all workers.’
The policy’s scope is another point of contention. While it’s clear that roles like checkout staff in small shops won’t qualify for remote work, the line for back-office roles remains blurry. ‘Where do we draw the line?’ Holland asks. ‘And what happens to businesses that resist?’ The mandate, he suggests, is aimed at companies that are ‘recalcitrant,’ but it leaves many small business owners feeling cornered.
Opposition Leader Jess Wilson supports the idea of working from home but echoes Michaelides’ concerns, demanding more clarity from the government. ‘We need to ensure this doesn’t become a one-size-fits-all solution that ignores the unique needs of small businesses,’ she says.
As the legislation heads to the Victorian parliament in July, the debate rages on. Is this a step toward a more flexible, inclusive workplace, or a recipe for division and bureaucracy? We want to hear from you. Do you think Victoria’s WFH laws will bridge gaps or create new ones? Share your thoughts in the comments below and let’s keep the conversation going.
