>On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’. I feel it prioritises sound bites over strategy and is entirely lacking in innovation or ambition.
This is an outright lie right at the top. That’s not what the bill being proposed is. That’s the law that her own party brought in 2023. The bill being discussed is providing a list of reasons why an employer can refuse a request to remote work rather than just allowing them to give any old reason under the sun.
Specialist-Flow3015 on
>After seven years working on remote employment in Ireland
Sounds to me like Fine Gael are more than happy with the status quo of remote working in Ireland, if they’ve been “working on remote employment” for over one full term of government and haven’t brought a word of new legislation.
But sure, attack the opposition for a lack of “innovation and ambition” when they’re the ones actually bringing things to the Dail to improve people’s lives.
Playful-Parsnip-3104 on
The legislation as proposed is something out of cloud cuckoo land. We are a small country with an economy far too small to wield laws like this without them backfiring badly. A great deal of our employment relies on multinationals who will find it far easier to move jobs and offices elsewhere than we will to find other jobs once they’re gone. We simply do not have the leverage and this will be a disaster for many. Instead of winning them the ability to work remotely, it will lose them their jobs altogether.
Equivalent_Bet856 on
>On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’.
This is literally the legislation that Fine Gael introduced in 2023/2024…
Elbon on
Too many want the right to remote work to be a right to rock up to their boss and flip them off as you tell them you’re going remote
IdealSelf2021 on
Very confusing article. She offers up two completely opposite explanations of what the bill is and actually argues that they’re both wrong. While also seemingly saying that the existing legislation isnt good legislation and the state should have expectations of employers to accommodate remote work where possible but then arguing that this is counter productive to efforts to increase remote jobs because some companies with remote first policies exist independently of legislation.
She hasnt a clue what she’s even arguing by the sounds of it.
> On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’.
> This Bill, being debated this week, promises something that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, a ‘right to remote work’, as opposed to a ‘right to request remote work’. For those committed to the growth of remote work, I believe it misses the point. Focusing on the ‘Right to Remote’ risks sending us down an expensive detour.
> Good legislation should set out a process and the expectation that, where remote work can be accommodated for employees, the State expects an employer to do so
dropthecoin on
I just read the bill. Maybe someone can explain it in more detail but for me the big standout is that the employer can refuse remote work if **”the nature of the employee’s work does not permit that it be done at a remote location”**
In other words if an employer refuses, you’re back to the appeals process in the existing right to request remote work law.
Mayath on
Emer Currie pretending again that she’s in the opposition and not in the party that’s in government? Shocking!!!
stevewithcats on
So we don’t have the right to it , but we have the right to ask??
9 commenti
>On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’. I feel it prioritises sound bites over strategy and is entirely lacking in innovation or ambition.
This is an outright lie right at the top. That’s not what the bill being proposed is. That’s the law that her own party brought in 2023. The bill being discussed is providing a list of reasons why an employer can refuse a request to remote work rather than just allowing them to give any old reason under the sun.
>After seven years working on remote employment in Ireland
Sounds to me like Fine Gael are more than happy with the status quo of remote working in Ireland, if they’ve been “working on remote employment” for over one full term of government and haven’t brought a word of new legislation.
But sure, attack the opposition for a lack of “innovation and ambition” when they’re the ones actually bringing things to the Dail to improve people’s lives.
The legislation as proposed is something out of cloud cuckoo land. We are a small country with an economy far too small to wield laws like this without them backfiring badly. A great deal of our employment relies on multinationals who will find it far easier to move jobs and offices elsewhere than we will to find other jobs once they’re gone. We simply do not have the leverage and this will be a disaster for many. Instead of winning them the ability to work remotely, it will lose them their jobs altogether.
>On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’.
This is literally the legislation that Fine Gael introduced in 2023/2024…
Too many want the right to remote work to be a right to rock up to their boss and flip them off as you tell them you’re going remote
Very confusing article. She offers up two completely opposite explanations of what the bill is and actually argues that they’re both wrong. While also seemingly saying that the existing legislation isnt good legislation and the state should have expectations of employers to accommodate remote work where possible but then arguing that this is counter productive to efforts to increase remote jobs because some companies with remote first policies exist independently of legislation.
She hasnt a clue what she’s even arguing by the sounds of it.
> On paper, the Bill might sound attractive, but in reality, rather than offering a ‘right to remote work’, it is more of a ’right to request remote work’.
> This Bill, being debated this week, promises something that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, a ‘right to remote work’, as opposed to a ‘right to request remote work’. For those committed to the growth of remote work, I believe it misses the point. Focusing on the ‘Right to Remote’ risks sending us down an expensive detour.
> Good legislation should set out a process and the expectation that, where remote work can be accommodated for employees, the State expects an employer to do so
I just read the bill. Maybe someone can explain it in more detail but for me the big standout is that the employer can refuse remote work if **”the nature of the employee’s work does not permit that it be done at a remote location”**
In other words if an employer refuses, you’re back to the appeals process in the existing right to request remote work law.
Emer Currie pretending again that she’s in the opposition and not in the party that’s in government? Shocking!!!
So we don’t have the right to it , but we have the right to ask??
So nothing has changed. ?