Out of Office: what happens when WFH becomes a legal right?
While employers across the world double down on office attendance, Victoria State in Australia is making flexible working a legal right. But what happens to the office when hybrid work is protected by law?
As employers across the world establish their return-to-office policies, the prevailing direction of travel appears to be focusing on an office-first culture. Four- and five-day mandates are becoming increasingly common, particularly among large corporates who are seeking to rebuild attendance and office culture.
Australia, however, is choosing to zig while much of the world zags. From September 2026, the state of Victoria will give eligible employees a legal right to work from home for at least two days a week, creating one of the most progressive hybrid working policies anywhere in the world. At a moment when many organisations are moving back towards the office, Australia is moving decisively placing its stake in the hybrid camp.
The driving forces
The Victoria government has stated that this new law is simply formalising an existing hybrid reality. Over a third of workers already work from home regularly in Victoria. But this law is going a step further by making work from home a protected human right, and not just an employee benefit.
The government has also argued that the law will make it easier for certain groups to stay active in the labour market, including parents and carers. Time and money saved in commuting and daily costs will make work more accessible for employees across the state.
But the new legislation is not being well received by all. A clear dividing line is being drawn between the government and business groups. Organisations are now arguing that this law reduces employer flexibility, and it may even effect productivity. In other words, they aren’t happy that the power is legally being taken out of their hands and placed directly into the employees.
In good company
While the state of Victoria is a clear outlier by guaranteeing a minimum of days working from home per week, other countries have also made strong statements in their flexible work policies.
Most governments across the world have established ‘right to request’ policies that empower employees to request flexible working arrangements from their employer. Countries such as the UK, Netherlands and general EU regulations state that employees have a legal right to request flexible working arrangements and, by law, employees must consider these requests and provide a reasonable business justification for refusal.
Other countries have tried to establish clearer boundaries between work and life for employees. Argentina, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Belgium, to name a few, have put in place the ‘right to disconnect’ laws which state that employees can ignore work messages outside of working hours without repercussion.
There is also a notable silence from the United States. Despite many American organisations continuing to offer hybrid working, there has been little appetite to formalise flexible work in law. Instead, the US is increasingly defined by corporate mandates and employer discretion. That divergence raises an interesting question around whether countries that establish laws on flexibility will create a different type of office market and workplace culture to those that do not.
Understanding the impact
The true impact of these laws is still being written. Five years on from the pandemic, hybrid work has already begun to reshape the office market in ways that few anticipated. Across many cities, organisations have reduced the size of their portfolios, giving up secondary space and consolidating into fewer, higher-quality offices. At the same time, demand has intensified for premium real estate with more organisations looking for well-connected buildings, better amenities and offices that offer something employees cannot easily replicate at home.
Flexible working laws may not signal the end of the office, but they may just accelerate its reinvention. If employees are guaranteed more time at home, the office has to work harder to justify the commute. It becomes less about rows of desks and more about collaboration, culture, mentoring and experiences.
The coming years will reveal whether these laws lead to stronger participation and more inclusive labour markets, or whether they create new tensions between employers, employees and the cities built around office work.
For now, however, it remains clear that the future of the office will not simply be determined by policy or by place, but by how successfully organisations make the office worth returning to.
