Copyright smh
Employers who are unhappy about the Fair Work Commission’s decision on working from home should consider the huge benefits to society as a whole (“Commission’s WFH ruling goes way too far”, October 23). Apart from the money saved in fares, an important consideration is environmental. The amount of carbon released into the air by cars, trucks and buses will fall, as will wear and tear on the roads, leading to less maintenance. There will be fewer accidents, which will save lives and prevent serious injury. There will be more people in the suburbs during working hours, which will boost local trade. But perhaps the most important consideration of all is the improved mental health and productivity, as workers are not wasting valuable time commuting. Employers worried about lost productivity should take into account that staff often end up working some, if not all, the time they would have spent getting to and from the office. John Rome, Mt Lawley As outlined in today’s editorial, the Fair Work Commission has gone too far with its latest ruling. Millions of workers (police, ambos, train drivers, teachers, doctors, etc) need to be at their place of work. Employers have every right to see employees “on the job”. Some flexibility can be negotiated regarding some work-at-home days for appropriate positions, but surely an employer has every right to also be treated fairly. Conditions of employment for any new position in the future should clearly state workplace expectations. Denis Suttling, Newport Beach Housing solutions I find it concerning that we’re concentrating so much of our development into these high-rise buildings (“Suburbs holding out in race to build homes”, October 23). The sliding image for Macquarie Park really shows what I mean: why are we building so tall, instead of rezoning those detached houses for medium density (townhouses, duplexes, two-story apartments)? The latter would give us more dwellings, be much easier on the eye, and more people would want to live in them. Plus, I’ve never heard of the “Opal Townhouses Crisis” or the “Mascot Low-Rise Collapse”. Theodore Brown, Wattle Grove The reports about the housing shortage continue. In all of it, there is no evidence of state or federal governments stepping in to build homes. It is always about private developers somehow being incentivised to build more houses. They won’t – they like the profits created by keeping supply restricted. Our governments refuse to accept the Economics 101 law of supply and demand. Private builders will not build new housing that meets demand for housing below the price that provides builders with reasonable profits. If we want to house people in need and reduce price pressure at the market’s entry level then, quite simply, we need governments to build housing. We are a very wealthy country. Basic housing should a given. Steven Lee, Faulconbridge
