Remote work is no longer just a policy debate for HR teams and line managers. In 2026, it is becoming a legal and political issue again, with governments testing how far they should go in protecting work from home arrangements. Victoria, Australia is preparing to give eligible employees a legal right to work from home two days a week, while Ireland is moving to strengthen a code that currently supports only a right to request remote work.
Imagine doing great work from anywhere and still growing your career. Browse Remotly’s fresh remote roles and let your next adventure begin.
For employers, that matters well beyond compliance. Remote work rules now shape access to talent, employer reputation, retention, and how credible a company sounds when it says it offers “flexibility”. The companies that still treat hybrid work as a vague cultural preference may discover that lawmakers, candidates, and competitors have all moved on.
Key points
- Victoria says eligible employees will have a legal right to work from home two days a week from 1 September 2026.
- The change is set to be written into Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act, making it the first Australian jurisdiction to legislate work from home rights in this way.
- Small workplaces in Victoria, defined as those with fewer than 15 employees, will have a delayed start date of 1 July 2027.
- Ireland already gives employees a right to request remote work, but not a direct right to work remotely.
- RTÉ reported on 5 March 2026 that Ireland’s code of practice is set to be strengthened as part of a government review.
Victoria is moving from flexibility policy to legal entitlement
Victoria’s proposed approach is simple enough to travel far beyond Australia: if a person can reasonably do their job from home, they should have a legal right to do so for two days a week. Premier Jacinta Allan said the law will take effect on 1 September 2026, and the Victorian government says it will introduce legislation in July to enshrine the right in the Equal Opportunity Act.
That is a significant shift. Plenty of employers talk about hybrid work as a business choice. Victoria is treating it more like a workplace protection. The government argues the policy helps families, saves time and money, and supports labour force participation, especially for parents. Reuters, via syndicated reporting, also noted that the measure would apply regardless of workplace size, with delayed implementation only for the smallest employers.
The pushback has been immediate. Business groups quoted by The Straits Times argued that a one-size-fits-all mandate could hurt productivity and deter investment. That tension is familiar in almost every remote work debate: one side treats flexibility as modern infrastructure for work, the other treats it as a constraint on managerial discretion.
Ireland shows the limits of a softer model
Ireland has already built a formal framework around remote work, but it is a much narrower one. Since 6 March 2024, employees have had a statutory right to request remote working arrangements under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, supported by a Workplace Relations Commission code of practice. The legislation sets out how requests should be made and considered, but it does not create a direct right to work remotely.
That distinction matters. A right to request can improve process, documentation, and fairness. It does not necessarily change outcomes. The Irish government opened a public consultation in late 2025 to review how the law is operating in practice, and RTÉ reported this week that the code of practice will be strengthened as part of that review.
The review did not emerge in a vacuum. Government materials around the consultation explicitly note that the current framework provides a right to request, not a right to remote work. RTÉ also reported in November 2025 that since the right took effect in March 2024, the Workplace Relations Commission had received 60 complaints, with 36 closed at that point. That is not evidence that the system has failed, but it does suggest that process-heavy rights still generate friction, disputes, and unmet expectations.
The bigger story is about talent markets, not only law
Taken together, Victoria and Ireland point to a broader shift. Governments are no longer asking only whether remote work is possible. They are asking how much protection workers should have when employers try to narrow or withdraw it.
For employers, this is not just a legal story. It is a market signal. When one jurisdiction moves toward guaranteed work from home rights and another is forced to revisit a weaker framework, candidates notice. So do current employees. The gap between “remote-friendly” branding and the day-to-day reality of manager discretion becomes much harder to hide. A careers page can promise flexibility. A legal entitlement, or even a public consultation on strengthening rights, tells workers that the issue is serious enough to be regulated.
This is where employer branding gets awkward in an interesting way. For years, flexibility was marketed as a benefit, often with the same reverence once reserved for free fruit and exposed brick. That language now looks a bit thin. In parts of the market, remote work is becoming less like a perk and more like a baseline expectation, especially in roles that are digitally portable.
What this means for employers hiring remote and hybrid talent
The first implication is operational. Employers need policies that are specific, documented, and locally compliant. Vague phrases such as “hybrid by team agreement” or “flexibility where business needs allow” may have worked when the issue was mostly cultural. They are weaker when employees, regulators, or tribunals can ask how decisions are actually made. Ireland’s code already emphasises process and timelines. Victoria’s proposal raises the stakes further by moving toward a default right for eligible roles.
The second implication is reputational. If a company recruits nationally or internationally, its remote work stance now competes with law as well as with other employers. A worker comparing offers may weigh not only salary and role, but also whether their location gives them a stronger footing on flexibility. That is especially relevant for distributed hiring, relocation decisions, and cross-border talent strategies.
Imagine doing great work from anywhere and still growing your career. Browse Remotly’s fresh remote roles and let your next adventure begin.
The third implication is managerial. The more formal remote work rights become, the less sustainable it is to leave decisions entirely to individual managers without clear criteria. Uneven handling of requests creates legal risk, but it also damages trust. Employees are often less frustrated by a clear rule than by a murky exception system that seems to depend on which team lead likes office attendance best this quarter.
What this means for job seekers and remote-first companies
For job seekers, the lesson is straightforward: “remote available” and “remote protected” are not the same thing. Candidates should pay attention to local law, contract language, probation terms, and whether an employer frames work from home as a revocable convenience or an established way of working. Victoria’s plan, if enacted as announced, would offer a far stronger baseline than Ireland’s current model.
For remote-first and remote-friendly companies, this moment is also an opening. Employers that already support distributed work can use this policy shift to sharpen their positioning. Not by overselling lifestyle clichés, but by being precise: how many days are remote, which roles qualify, how decisions are reviewed, and what tools and norms make the model work in practice. Specificity is now a trust signal.
The next phase of remote work will be less romantic and more real
The post-pandemic remote work conversation is maturing. Less manifesto, more statute. Less “future of work” theatre, more practical questions about rights, fairness, evidence, and who gets to decide where work happens. Victoria’s proposal is a bold version of that shift. Ireland’s review is a quieter one, but it points in the same direction: governments are still trying to work out whether employee flexibility can be left to employer goodwill alone.
For business leaders, the safest assumption is that remote work will remain a live issue in law, politics, and hiring. The organisations that handle it well will not just comply. They will explain their model clearly, apply it consistently, and stop pretending that flexibility can be both central to the EVP and undefined in practice. That particular trick is looking increasingly dated.
FAQ
Is working from home becoming a legal right in 2026?
In some places, yes. Victoria, Australia says eligible employees will have a legal right to work from home two days a week from 1 September 2026, subject to the legislation being introduced as announced.
Does Ireland give employees a right to work remotely?
No. Ireland currently provides a right to request remote work, not a direct right to work from home. The process is governed by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and the WRC code of practice.
What is the difference between a right to request and a right to work from home?
A right to request means an employee can formally apply and the employer must follow a defined process in considering the request. A right to work from home creates a stronger default position for eligible workers, shifting the balance more clearly toward the employee.
Why does this matter for hiring?
Remote work rules affect candidate expectations, employer credibility, retention, and access to talent across regions. When flexibility is protected by law, employers can no longer rely on soft wording and uneven manager discretion without consequences.
