Working from home post-ECQ

It’s hard to believe how much has changed in the past few weeks due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the declaration of the enhanced community quarantine in Luzon, and similar measures in other regions nationwide. It’s clear at this point that even after the lifting of quarantine regulations, many of these changes will persist. In some cases this will be as necessary precautions, and in others this will be because dealing with the pandemic will have shown us the viability of alternative ways of getting things done. This is particularly clear in the realm of work. Specifically, the viability of telecommuting or working outside the office.

Work being done outside the walls of the office is not new. According to the 2018 recent IWG Flexible Working Survey it is estimated that at least 70 percent of employees in the world was found to have been working somewhere outside the office at least one day per week. Many of these were informal arrangements, and even while recent years have seen the adoption of laws and regulations covering work from home or telecommuting – including our Republic Act No. 11165, or the “Telecommuting Act” – the scope of the programs envisioned pales against the scale of current work from home arrangements, as well as what may be put into place in the future.

According to the Telecommuting Act, telecommuting “refers to a work from an alternative workplace with the use of telecommunications and/or computer technologies.” This doesn’t have to be from home, or even from the same country, which makes telecommuting flexible and potentially complicated. 

The advantages of telecommuting and flexible work arrangements have been well documented in recent years. A recent poll conducted for Reuters News reveals a majority belief that that telecommuters are more productive (and take fewer sick leaves), have less stress, and are better able to achieve a balance between work and family. Because of the social pressure on women regarding family matters, the latter is also likely to result in keeping more women in the workforce as opposed to forcing them to choose between careers and family. In the Philippine context, avoiding the horrors of daily commutes and traffic cannot be understated as a benefit – personally, for the environment and the economy. Moreover, as the current pandemic has proven, businesses which are capable of being run remotely will be far less susceptible to disruptions that prevent employees from travelling to offices.

There are, however, numerous potential pitfalls as well. While those who work from home have more opportunities to spend time with their families, when one’s home is also one’s office it can be hard to unplug from work and that can result in more tensions with the family. Conversely, when one cannot escape domestic responsibilities it may be difficult to find focus for work. It can also result in feelings of isolation as one loses the contact and casual conversation that is common in a shared workspace. Virtual conversations, while certainly convenient, may not have the same social or emotional effect as one that occurs face to face. 

Another major concern is information security. Employees that work from home will inevitably be handling data that are covered by regulatory laws, from trade secrets to personal and private information. They will need to be thoroughly educated on how to secure the information they access, not only against mistakes or negligence, but also against intentional and malicious intruders. The rise in telecommuting work has already provided more opportunities for cyber criminals who are on the look out for cracks in less secure home networks. 

Other unresolved issues also complicate the implementation of telecommuting arrangements. There are other attendant costs for a successful telecommuting arrangement: a fast and stable Internet connection, a computer that is able to access and interface with office servers remotely, network security for the computer and connection. Not all employees will have access to these and the question of who will bear the costs still needs to be determined. 

It should be apparent now that telecommuting is a complex arrangement that requires planning and consistent policy, as well as an earned trust between employer and employee. The role of the government should be twofold: to provide safeguards to ensure that a telecommuting employee has substantially similar rights and benefits to that of their office working peers; and to create a regulatory framework that facilitates telecommuting arrangements and makes clear the relationship and obligations of all parties involved.

Our current Telecommuting Act is focused on the first role of government, the bulk of the law being aimed at ensuring fair and equal treatment of the telecommuting employee with regard to pay, rest, standards, development and rights to associate. However, if telecommuting is going to become a more common feature in the workforce as we move forward from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that more must be done to strengthen and deepen the legal framework of telecommuting arrangements. 

I believe that any future legislation on telecommuting would benefit from considering the following:

* A scope that would cover both voluntary telecommuting, and emergency or mandatory telecommuting such as what we are currently experiencing (the Telecommuting Act covers only voluntary telecommuting arrangements);

* A clarification of what costs the employer would be required to reimburse in order for the employee to securely and consistently telecommute;

* Provisions that take inspiration from the telecommuting laws of other nations where telecommuting is more common. One example is Finland which just this year put into effect a law called the “New Working Hours Act” which provides for a flexible working hours system (where  the employee is free to choose the time and location for at least half of the working hours required) and a working hour reserve system (where  employees can save up and combine working hours, free time and monetary benefits converted into free time). Not all such policies may be immediately applicable to the Philippine situation, but there is much we can learn from them.

Not every job can be worked remotely. We’ve seen how some jobs that are essential to the community require a physical presence even during a pandemic. Still, for jobs that can be worked remotely, there are many distinct advantages, and in a future where diseases like COVID-19 exist and in metropolitans where pollution and traffic are of increasing concern, better government support of telecommuting arrangements would do us all a great service.