Working from home expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This Controversy examines how working from home was framed and regulated pre-pandemic. We contrast this with the changes made to Australia's industrial award system during the pandemic to increase flexibilities around working from home, in response to a collective need for a responsive safety net. We argue that the conception and regulation of working from home is shifting from an individual flexibility, to a ‘collective flexibility’ available to a wide array of workers, collectively negotiated and governed by increased regulation. While industrial instruments were varied to accommodate public health requirements and the need of organisations and employees to work from home, these shifts were temporary. We argue that working from home provisions should rightly be regulated as a collective entitlement. We therefore consider possible ways forward in regulating this form of working, drawing from international developments. We raise these issues to extend debates around how working from home can be regulated to benefit employers and employees as we move towards COVID-normal.

在 COVID-19 大流行期间，在家工作迅速扩大。这场争论探讨了大流行前在家工作的框架和监管方式。我们将此与大流行期间澳大利亚工业奖励制度的变化进行对比，以增加在家工作的灵活性，以响应对响应安全网的集体需求。我们认为，在家工作的概念和监管正在从个人的灵活性转变为广泛的工人可以使用的“集体灵活性”，并通过加强监管进行集体协商和管理。虽然工业仪器多种多样，以适应公共卫生要求以及组织和员工在家工作的需要，但这些转变是暂时的。我们认为，在家工作的规定应该被正确地作为一种集体权利加以规范。因此，我们借鉴国际发展，考虑在规范这种工作形式方面可能采取的方法。我们提出这些问题是为了扩大关于如何在我们迈向 COVID-normal 时如何规范在家工作以使雇主和雇员受益的辩论。