George Lawlor urges enforceable right to remote work
George Lawlor addressed a debate advocating a bill to give workers an enforceable right to remote and flexible working where reasonably practicable. He argued the measure would improve work-life balance and access to employment while containing explicit safeguards for employers, and he criticised the government for delay and employer vetoes.
Main proposal
The speaker set out a bill that would give workers an immediate and enforceable right to work remotely where their role allows. The proposal aims to end the broad ability of employers to refuse flexible and remote working arrangements and to shift decisions away from habit or a fixation on physical visibility toward productivity.
Employer safeguards
The bill includes specific grounds on which an employer may refuse a request - where the arrangement is not reasonably practicable, where the nature of the work does not permit remote location work, or where reorganisation is not feasible. Refusal is also permitted if the arrangement would likely harm product or service quality, compromise confidentiality or data protection, create health and safety risks, or conflict with existing collective agreements, or if the proposed workspace lacks adequate infrastructure such as internet connectivity.
Expected social and environmental impacts
The speech argued the legislation would expand participation in employment for people with disabilities and for those facing childcare barriers. It would reduce commuting, lower traffic congestion and carbon emissions, and could rebalance population densities by reducing pressure to live in major cities, thereby improving quality of life and dignity at work.
State practice and criticism
The speaker criticised the government for having "stitched delay and employer vetoes into law" and for vetoing an earlier bill on joint labour committees. He cited Enterprise Ireland as an example of a state body reportedly requiring staff to return three to four days a week, saying such practice normalises a backward step, undermines climate and transport goals, and gives cover to the private sector. He urged the Oireachtas and government to lead on the issue rather than retreat to an outdated model built around control.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
This government has driven hesitation, has stitched delay and employer vetoes into law. Only a few months ago they vetoed our bill to stop employers holding a veto over joint labour committees. They endeavour to leave workers with the illusion of flexibility but none of the protections of a just society. The result is a system that talks about modern work while quietly forcing people back into habits that no longer make sense. This bill would facilitate the enjoyment by employees of an appropriate work-life balance with due regard to the rights of employers to manage an effective and efficient workforce. This bill would promote access to employment particularly for persons who face particular difficulties in taking up employment such as people with disabilities or people who often find childcare difficult and expensive. It would result in a reduction in traffic congestion and in carbon emissions arising from the number of employees commuting between home and their workplaces. It would result in a rebalancing of the population densities as people would not be forced to reside in the major cities enduring extortionate rent and property prices. But mainly this bill is about seriously improving the work-life balance of workers where it is reasonably practicable. And that's the key here. This bill also enshrines safeguards for employers. No employer should be forced into an agreement that jeopardises their business, their business's confidentiality or already agreed practices. For this reason the bill contains the following. An employer may refuse a request if the arrangement is not reasonably practicable. They may refuse if the nature of the employee's work does not permit that it be done at a remote location. They may refuse if it is not reasonably practicable for the employer to reorganise the work done by his or her employees to facilitate remote working. They may refuse if the proposed arrangement is reasonably likely to adversely affect the quality of the employer's product or service or the quality of the work of the employee or indeed the workspace at the proposed work location is not a suitable workspace for the employee to work in. This may be as a result of the need to protect business confidentiality or intellectual property and to comply with enactments relating to data protection or indeed that the health and safety of the employee at work is not protected or poor internet connectivity and other infrastructure resources at the proposed remote location are not sufficient. Or indeed the proposed arrangement conflicts with the provisions of the proposed arrangement conflicts with the provisions of already applicable collective agreements. These are serious safeguards to allow employers the peace of mind when hiring new staff or engaging with current employees. This legislation would give workers an immediate and enforceable right to work remotely where their role allows and it would end the sweeping right employers currently enjoy to refuse flexible and remote working arrangements. This legislation is about dignity at work, quality of life and whether Ireland is serious about building a labour market or retreating to an outdated model built around control rather than productivity. In the past, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil legislated for the employer's right to say no. As long as the paperwork is in order, the refusal stands, no matter how arbitrary or outdated the reasoning. That is not balance, it is a blank check to employers. It is important to say also that this is not about forcing remote work into roles where it does not fit. It is about ending refusals based on habit, suspicion or a fixation with visibility rather than productivity. Indeed, for many, this will be the difference between being able to work or not at all. And as a government and an Oireachtas, we must lead on this. Take Enterprise Ireland, for example. This state agency is reportedly requiring staff to return to the office three to four days a week, despite the fact that the headquarters is in East Point Business Park in Dublin, which is extremely difficult to access by public transport. The predictable result is more people forced into cars, adding to congestion and emissions. And this directly undermines our stated climate and transport goals. When state bodies behave like this, they normalise going backwards and they give cover or indeed absolute encouragement to the private sector to do the same. This legislation offers a clear alternative. It would expand participation, support regional communities and give people back hours of their lives currently wasted in traffic. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market. Go to market.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
