Commentary: Why work from home doesn’t mean work from anywhere

A Sydney-based worker sacked for secretly working from Singapore raises a question: Where exactly is “home” in work from home? Employers need to offer clarity, says Victor Seah of the Singapore University of Social Sciences.

A woman working with a laptop in the airport. (Photo: iStock/Julia Rios Gomez)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: Someone I know routinely works from hotels overseas on his work-from-home days. His employer doesn’t know.

He isn’t an exception. Many more people quietly stretch “home” closer to where they live: a cafe, a co-working space or the waiting area outside their child’s enrichment class. Overseas is the far end of the same habit.

This was what a Sydney-based currency trader did when he worked from Singapore on a work-from-home day – except that his employer found out.

His manager had asked the company’s IT team to use its “FBI skills” to check on the trader’s whereabouts. The trader’s laptop was later traced to Singapore, and he was dismissed. It was not the trader’s first time working overseas without permission, based on an Oct 7 ruling by Australia’s Fair Work Commission. He had earlier worked from Bali while telling his manager he was at home waiting for a plumber.

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less The commission found that the trader had deliberately concealed his location and that his employer had a valid reason to dismiss him. But because he was not given a proper chance to respond, the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The trader was awarded a little more than four weeks’ pay. The case stirred up discussion online, with some wondering how far can employees stretch the definition of “work from home” before crossing the line?

The commission found that the trader had deliberately concealed his location and that his employer had a valid reason to dismiss him. But because he was not given a proper chance to respond, the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The trader was awarded a little more than four weeks’ pay.

The case stirred up discussion online, with some wondering how far can employees stretch the definition of “work from home” before crossing the line?

FLEXIBILITY RUNS ON TRUST

Work from home began as a business continuity measure and became the default during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, it matters most to those juggling work and care.

In Singapore, the government has said flexible work arrangements are what caregivers find most useful. That places considerable weight on flexible work, and therefore on trust.

Our research at the Singapore University of Social Sciences with caregivers of persons with disabilities shows why. One caregiver had her flexible arrangement formally approved, yet felt resented by colleagues who still expected her previous level of commitment. She eventually left the workforce. Another, the mother of an adult son with autism, wants to return to work but doubts any employer would accept the short-notice interruptions his medical needs bring.

For both, trust from their employers and colleagues mattered more than having a formal flexible work arrangement.

WHERE CAN “HOME” BE?

Consider some familiar Singapore scenes: a parent clearing emails outside an enrichment class, a caregiver taking a call in a clinic waiting room while a loved one sees the doctor, someone working from a library, a cafe or their parents’ flat.

Most work-from-home policies never say whether these count. Many employees simply don't mention it, and many managers don't ask.

In Singapore, where the office is rarely far away, such arrangements are usually low-risk. The practical concerns are confidential calls in public, shared Wi-Fi and screens that others can see. Many of these situations also involve caregiving, precisely what flexible work is meant to support.

Working overseas without telling one’s employer is different. Beyond the dishonesty, it may expose the employer, not just the employee, to risks: licensing restrictions, as in the trader’s case, and possibly tax or immigration complications, cross-border data rules, insurance that may not apply abroad and time-zone mismatches.

Crucially, every hidden overseas work-from-home day makes employers more cautious with caregivers whose needs are real.

SHOULD EMPLOYERS SPELL OUT WHAT WFH MEANS?

The obvious response is for employers to define work-from-home policies. But rules can feel like distrust.

In a well-known 2006 experiment, economists Armin Falk and Michael Kosfeld found that most participants worked less hard once they were controlled, and described it as a signal of distrust and a limit on their autonomy.

In 2023, a review of studies, involving 94 samples and more than 23,000 workers, found no evidence that electronic monitoring improves performance. Conversely, electronic monitoring was associated with higher worker stress.

The “FBI skills” request from the trader’s manager illustrates the resulting loop: concealment invites surveillance, and surveillance signals distrust, which makes people less likely to be open.

Yet how rules are set makes a difference. The 2023 review found that more transparent, less invasive monitoring was linked to more positive attitudes. A separate UK study of knowledge professionals working remotely during the pandemic found that many accepted heavier workloads as a fair trade for the autonomy of working from home, especially where trust ran both ways.

The distinction is between clarity and control. Clarity sets out what is allowed and why. Control is about enforcement and that is where the costs to motivation tend to lie.

CLARITY WITHOUT CONTROL

Employers can provide clarity without appearing controlling in several ways.

First, they can define work from home as permission, not suspicion. For example, by allowing employees to work anywhere in Singapore as long as they can work securely and reach the office when needed.

Second, explain the limits. If overseas work is restricted, say it is because of licensing, tax, visa or data concerns, not because the company doubts its staff.

Third, make asking easier than hiding. This can involve providing a quick approval route for working overseas or workcations.

Fourth, let individual teams set the details, such as when people should be reachable while working from home.

Fifth, resist adding new employee tracking, and rely on disclosure and results.

For employees, flexibility comes with a reciprocal obligation – being upfront about where they work.

For the parent at the enrichment centre or the caregiver at the clinic, working from home, outside the home, is often what flexible work was meant to make possible. What they need from employers is not closer watching, but clarity about what “home” means.

Victor Seah is Director of Behavioural Insights Centre of Excellence at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

一名在悉尼工作的员工因秘密在新加坡工作而被解雇，这引发了一个问题：在家办公的“家”究竟在哪里？新加坡社会科学大学的维克多·谢表示，雇主需要对此做出明确的解释。

一位女士在机场使用笔记本电脑工作。（图片：iStock/Julia Rios Gomez）

这段音频是由人工智能工具生成的。

新加坡：我认识的一个人经常在居家办公日到海外酒店工作。他的雇主对此毫不知情。

他并非个例。许多人悄然将“家”的范围扩大到离家更近的地方：咖啡馆、联合办公空间，或是孩子课外辅导班外的等候区。而海外则是这种习惯的极致体现。

这就是一位悉尼的货币交易员在新加坡居家办公时所做的事情——只不过他的雇主发现了。

他的经理要求公司IT团队动用“FBI技能”来追踪这名交易员的行踪。后来，这名交易员的笔记本电脑被追踪到位于新加坡，他随后被解雇。根据澳大利亚公平工作委员会10月7日的裁决，这并非该交易员首次未经许可在海外工作。此前，他曾谎称自己在家等水管工，却在巴厘岛工作。

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小谜题，脑力挑战 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少 委员会认定该交易员故意隐瞒了自己的位置，并且其雇主有正当理由解雇他。但由于他没有得到适当的回应机会，因此解雇程序不公平。该交易员获得了略多于四周的工资。此案在网上引发了讨论，一些人质疑员工在多大程度上可以滥用“在家办公”的定义，才不会越界？

委员会认定该交易员故意隐瞒了自己的位置，其雇主有正当理由将其解雇。但由于他没有得到充分的申辩机会，因此解雇程序不公。该交易员最终获得了略高于四周工资的赔偿。

该案例在网上引发了讨论，一些人想知道员工在多大程度上可以放宽“在家工作”的定义而不至于越界？

灵活性源于信任

居家办公最初是作为一项业务连续性措施而推出的，并在新冠疫情期间成为常态。如今，它对那些需要兼顾工作和家庭的人来说尤为重要。

新加坡政府曾表示，灵活的工作安排对照顾者来说最为实用。这凸显了灵活工作的重要性，也因此强调了信任的重要性。

我们在新加坡社会科学大学对残障人士照护者进行的研究表明了其中的原因。一位照护者的灵活工作安排已获正式批准，但她仍然感到同事们心生不满，因为他们期望她像以前一样尽职尽责。最终，她离开了职场。另一位照护者是一位成年自闭症儿子的母亲，她想重返工作岗位，但她怀疑是否有雇主会接受因儿子就医而导致的临时工作中断。

对他们两人而言，来自雇主和同事的信任比拥有正式的灵活工作安排更重要。

家在哪里？

想想新加坡的一些常见场景：一位家长在课外辅导班外查看电子邮件，一位照护者在诊所候诊室接听电话，而她的亲人正在看医生，还有人在图书馆、咖啡馆或父母的公寓里工作。

大多数居家办公政策从未明确说明这些情况是否算在内。许多员工干脆不提，许多经理也不问。

在新加坡，办公室通常离家很近，因此这类安排风险较低。实际需要关注的问题包括在公共场合进行私密通话、共享Wi-Fi以及屏幕会被他人看到。此外，许多此类情况还涉及照护工作，而这正是灵活办公制度旨在支持的内容。

瞒着雇主在海外工作则另当别论。除了不诚实之外，这不仅会给雇员带来风险，也可能使雇主面临风险：例如，像这位贸易商的情况一样，可能面临许可限制；还可能涉及税务或移民问题、跨境数据规则、可能在国外不适用的保险以及时区不匹配等。

至关重要的是，每隐藏一天海外居家办公，都会让雇主对真正需要照顾的照护者更加谨慎。

雇主是否应该明确说明居家办公的含义？

最直接的解决办法是雇主制定居家办公政策。但规则可能会让人感到不信任。

在 2006 年一项著名的实验中，经济学家 Armin Falk 和 Michael Kosfeld 发现，大多数参与者一旦受到控制，工作努力程度就会降低，他们将此描述为不信任的信号和对其自主性的限制。

2023年一项包含94个样本和超过23000名员工的研究综述发现，没有证据表明电子监控能够提高绩效。相反，电子监控与更高的员工压力相关。

交易员经理提出的“FBI技能”请求说明了由此产生的循环：隐瞒会招致监视，而监视会发出不信任的信号，这会使人们更不愿意坦诚相待。

然而，规则的制定方式至关重要。2023年的一项评估发现，更透明、更少侵入性的监控与更积极的态度相关。另一项针对疫情期间远程办公的知识型专业人士的英国研究发现，许多人认为，为了在家工作的自主性，承担更重的工作量是合理的，尤其是在双方互信的情况下。

区别在于明确性和控制。明确性阐明了哪些行为是被允许的以及为什么允许。控制则关乎强制执行，而这往往会降低员工的积极性。

清晰却无控制

雇主可以通过多种方式在不显得控制欲强的情况下提供清晰的指示。

首先，他们可以将居家办公定义为一种许可，而非怀疑。例如，允许员工在新加坡境内任何地方工作，只要他们能够安全地工作并在需要时到达办公室即可。

其次，要解释清楚限制条件。如果限制海外工作，要说明是出于许可、税务、签证或数据方面的考虑，而不是因为公司对员工能力有所怀疑。

第三，让申请变得更容易，而不是藏着掖着。这可以包括为海外工作或工作假期提供快速审批途径。

第四，让各个团队自行设定细节，例如在家办公时何时可以联系到员工。

第五，不要增加新的员工跟踪措施，而要依靠信息披露和结果。

对于员工而言，灵活的工作安排也伴随着相应的义务——坦诚地说明自己的工作地点。

对于在儿童保育中心工作的家长或在诊所工作的护理人员来说，在家办公，而不是在家以外的地方工作，往往正是灵活办公制度的初衷。他们需要的不是雇主更严密的监督，而是明确“家”的定义。

Victor Seah 是新加坡社会科学大学行为洞察卓越中心主任。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。