As noted in comments this week by EWI, the publication by the Government of remote working legislation is deeply problematic. This overview by Will Goodbody of RTÉ actually hits on most of the main criticisms. Though the following is not exactly confidence inspiring:

Realistically a guaranteed right is a pipe dream, however, because many jobs simply can't be carried out remotely, and some employees can't be trusted to work productively on their own outside the workplace.

Which employees, how many, where? That's a statement begging for clarification.

Thankfully the rest of his analysis is pretty spot on. He is sceptical about how much this will help those workers seeking to work remotely:

Workers have always had a right to request remote working, but the thinking is that by giving them a legal right backed up by an appeals mechanism, employers will have fewer reasons to say no.

But:

There are 13 grounds under which an application can be rejected, including the nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done, the inability to reorganise work among existing staff, and potential negative impact on quality and on performance.

But if unhappy about the decision, an employee can appeal to the Workplace Relations Commission which can overturn it and award up to four weeks remuneration as compensation – though one wonders whether many staff would be willing to take this risk filled step.

Precious few I'd imagine, and in workplaces the ease with which workers can be isolated, and as someone who co-organised in private sector employments I saw this first hand, is far too easy.

In the SBP at the weekend Dan O'Brien was arguing that remote working was beneficial to both companies and workers. But, he argued:

What the government should not do, but what it is actively planning to do, is to lumber into an evolving world of work with new legislation giving workers statute-enshrined rights to request to work from home. Such laws as the government is drafting will add to business costs at a time when government is already imposing other costs, such as increased sick leave entitlements.

There may be a case to legislate on remote working if problems emerge, but so far they have not. For the moment, government should resist its statist instincts and let employers and workers sort this out for themselves as the new normal in the workplace emerges.

No fear there of 'statist instincts'. Again, having direct experience of this sort of context, the idea that some amicable arrangement would come to pass  where those involved 'sorted it out for themselves' is risible. It is a complete mischaracterisation of the power dynamics within workplaces.

And lo, the legislation - such as it is - follows in much the direction he is pointing to.

Anyhow, Goodbody notes:

The Tánaiste's view is that in the main, appeals won't be necessary though, as most employers will heartily embrace the concept of hybrid working.

That's likely something that the Workplace Relations Commission will be banking on, so that it doesn't become deluged with complaints from disgruntled workers, adding to its already heavy workload.

And;

The extensive list of reasons that businesses can draw on to deny their staff remote working may well prove a significant impediment to those who wish to work from home on a hybrid or permanent basis.

After all, proving remote working won't have a negative impact on quality of a business' product or service will be a tall order for workers and relatively easy for their bosses.

Thankfully the unions are already pointing to the inadequacy of this, and both Sinn Féin and Labour are asking for a right to be enshrined in law. It will be educative to see if this enthusiasm on the part of SF survives the transition to government at some point in the future. One can only hope it does.

And I can't fault Goodbody's conclusion:

Ultimately, businesses will do what's best for their bottom line though. If that means letting some staff work remotely because it helps productivity and cuts down on costs and talent churn, then that's what they'll do.

But if it means bringing employees back in-house because it makes for smoother operations and stronger culture, then the great hybrid working experiment in such organisations will prove short lived.

My read, for what it is worth? The public sector and larger businesses and corporations will align with this with relative ease. But far too many employers will push back any efforts by workers to exercise what is a most contingent right as the government positions it now.