The Australian state of Victoria has proposed a groundbreaking policy: a legal mandate granting employees the right to work from home at least two days a week. This initiative raises a critical question: how would such a mandate fare in the United States, or in other regions where you work and live? As an advocate for employment models that benefit both individuals and economies, I believe progress hinges on collaboration between workers and businesses. While bold mandates often face resistance, prompting a deeper question: how would U.S. employers respond to a legislated work-from-home requirement?
Victoria’s Policy and Its Context
Victoria, known for its stringent 262-day COVID-19 lockdowns and high-profile decisions like deporting Novak Djokovic from the 2022 Australian Open over his vaccination status, is no stranger to controversial policies. Its latest proposal—a legal right to remote work—has sparked debate. Supporters argue it could boost workforce participation, reduce carbon emissions, and support work-life balance, particularly for parents. However, businesses have voiced concerns, labeling it government overreach, with some threatening to relocate. This tension highlights the challenges of implementing such policies in diverse economic landscapes.
Would a Remote Work Mandate Work in the U.S.?
The U.S. operates on a culture of autonomy and decentralized governance, with employment policies often varying by state. A nationwide right to work from home seems unlikely given this framework. Most states leave remote and hybrid work arrangements to employers’ discretion. California, for instance, mandates reimbursement for certain remote work expenses but stops short of guaranteeing a right to work from home.
Research and employer sentiment indicate that many U.S. companies view remote work as a privilege, not an entitlement. Recent debates over return-to-office policies underscore this divide. For example, Amazon faced internal pushback when enforcing in-office requirements, reflecting broader tensions between employer control and employee expectations. A Forbes analysis from 2025 highlights ongoing workplace debates, noting that while some employees value flexibility, employers worry about impacts on company culture and oversight.
A Victoria-style mandate could exacerbate the U.S.’s political divide. Progressive states might embrace such a policy, aligning it with efforts to expand workplace equity or paid family leave. In contrast, states prioritizing deregulation and employer autonomy would likely reject it as government overreach, framing the debate around “freedom” versus state control. This polarization could hinder thoughtful policy development.
Lessons from Big Tech and Labor Trends
Big tech offers a clear lens into this issue. Companies like Google and Meta have tightened in-office requirements despite employee resistance, citing concerns about collaboration and productivity. A Forbes report questions the long-term efficacy of remote work in high-innovation sectors, where oversight and in-person interaction remain priorities. Meanwhile, unions in industries like telecommunications are increasingly framing remote work as a negotiable benefit alongside wages and safety, suggesting that mandates could become bargaining chips in labor agreements.
The broader U.S. labor context further complicates the issue. Right-to-work laws, state preemption of local labor protections, and declining union power have weakened collective bargaining, limiting advancements in worker flexibility. Studies also highlight proximity bias, where remote workers may face career disadvantages, such as fewer promotions, as noted in a recent Forbes article. These dynamics explain why U.S. employers resist mandates and why sweeping policy changes remain elusive.
A Path Forward
Victoria’s proposal, while bold, risks being more provocative than practical. Mandates often struggle to foster the trust and adaptability businesses require. Instead, progress lies in collaboration—where employers and employees jointly shape workplace policies. Effective solutions prioritize clear communication about the value of in-person work, honest discussions about the benefits of flexibility, and the creation of workplaces that inspire engagement. Like successful apprenticeship programs, which I’ve long championed, the best reforms are grounded in practical, mutually beneficial models.
Rather than imposing one-size-fits-all rules, employers should focus on building hybrid work policies that balance flexibility with performance. By fostering trust and prioritizing outcomes, businesses can retain talent and maintain productivity without the need for rigid mandates. This approach, rooted in dialogue and adaptability, offers a sustainable path to modernizing work for both employees and employers.