The US has called time on working from home—here’s why the world shouldn’t follow

US President Donald Trump has called time on working from home. An executive order signed on the first day of his presidency this week requires all federal government departments and agencies to “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person.”

There are a few different models of working from home. Strictly speaking, remote work is where employees work from an alternative location (typically their home) on a permanent basis and are not required to report to their office.

This is distinct from “telework,” a hybrid model whereby employees work from home an agreed number of days each week. But it’s clear Trump wants to end telework too.

Under guidelines released on Wednesday, federal agencies were given until 5pm local time on 24 January to update their telework policies to require all employees back in the office full-time within 30 days.

Obviously, Trump can’t end working from home for everyone. Private organizations are allowed to set their own policies. But the US government is a seriously big employer, with more than 3 million employees.

According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), about 10% of federal workers are fully remote. The impact of this order will be far-reaching.

Trump abruptly pulls the rug

The work-from-home movement was a profound global shift, brought on by the COVID pandemic. We’ve been living with it for five years.

Federal workers who have been working remotely for an extended period are likely to have made significant life decisions based on their flexible working arrangements.

It may have influenced where they bought a house, what school their children attend, and what their spouse or partner does for work.

Trump’s order is likely to have a dramatic ripple effect on workers’ families and other life arrangements and responsibilities.

True, federal heads of department and managers and supervisors will be allowed to make some exceptions—including for a disability, medical condition or other “compelling reason.”

But the message is clear. What has been a growing but informal trend among some employers worldwide to “bring employees back into the office” is now being incorporated into US government policy.

Why the backlash?

Trump’s executive order reflects longstanding concerns among some employers and managers who think it is simply better to have employees in the office.

They argue, among other things, that in-office work makes it easier to keep a close eye on performance, and supports more face-to-face collaboration. It also makes better use of often very expensive real estate.

Amazon recently ordered all of its staff back into the office five days a week. Other surveys suggest many employers are planning a crackdown this year.

City planners and businesses have also lamented the impact of remote and flexible working on restaurants, dry cleaners and coffee shops that rely on trade from commuters.

What might be lost?

Some employees may actually welcome the return to the office, particularly those who prefer more social interaction and want to make themselves more visible.

Visibility is often linked with more promotion and career development opportunities.

Others will find the change jarring, and may lose a range of benefits they’ve grown used to.

A 2023 report by policy think tank EconPol Europe found working from home had become most prevalent in English-speaking countries.

It suggested strong support, saying, “The majority of workers highly value the opportunity to work from home for a portion of their work week, with some placing significant importance on it.”

Many also wanted to work more days from home than their employers were willing to allow.

A recent analysis by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) found that working from home had significantly increased workforce participation for two key groups: working mums and people with a disability or health condition.

Many employees now prioritize flexible work arrangements, and some are willing to sacrifice part of their salary for the privilege.

Work-from-home arrangements also offer individuals living in remote communities access to employment. That benefit goes two ways, allowing employers to tap into a bigger talent pool.

Will Australia follow?

Trump’s executive order could have big, immediate impacts on federal workers in the US, but it’s unclear whether there’ll be domino effects here. It would be unwise for the Australian government or major employers to adopt a blanket approach.

Indeed, some multinational US firms with offices in Australia may get caught up in Trump’s return-to-office movement.

In the short term, this forced change is unlikely to make its way to Australia. While social trends do travel between regions, each country has its own employment laws, customs and trends.

Researchers have shown it can be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to transfer human resource practices between countries and across cultures.

Australia’s geography may be a factor on remote work’s side. A complete ban would immediately have a negative impact on employment opportunities for talented workers in the regions.

The key message for Australian employers and policy-makers is that the benefits of remote work aren’t just for employees.

It can enhance an organization’s performance, widening the talent pool to include not only those who live far away from the office, but also talented workers who may otherwise be excluded.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.