By Tracy Cabrera
MANILA — With the sharp rise in global petroleum prices driven by tensions in the Middle East, governments and businesses have been prompted to rethink energy consumption while maintaining productivity and a sound economic atmosphere.
Here in the Philippines, the public sector has responded to this in several ways, among them temporary four-day workweek arrangements that aim to reduce commuting and energy use.
However, the main legal tool for achieving similar savings is the Telecommuting Act of 2018 (Republic Act 11165), which, while progressive when enacted, currently shows economic pressures weakening its design and implementation.
So, with the weakening strategy obviously needing to be addressed, the law must then be strengthened in order for telecommuting to become meaningful, conserving energy and promoting productivity.
One critical concern that needs to be looked into is the law’s voluntary nature. It allows employers to offer telecommuting or remote work programs on mutually agreed terms, and yet its adoption is left to managerial discretion.
In actual practice, many companies simply choose not to implement remote work even when technology makes it feasible, and this results in the strategy being considered only as an option rather than a policy instrument that can drive systemic change.
And now that we are at a time that triggers uncertainty because of rising fuel prices and growing concern for energy conservation, the permissive framework of a work-from-work strategy has become inadequate.
A stronger approach would establish a presumption in favor of telecommuting for jobs that can reasonably be performed remotely, requiring employers who decline to provide a reasonable justification.
Another weakness is the lack of clear and uniform eligibility standards. The law allows employers to determine eligibility through their own telecommuting programs, but this leads to uneven implementation across industries. Some firms even limit telecommuting to managerial staff only, while others exclude departments even when the work can be done remotely.
Under the 2022 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), examples of functions that are listed as suitable for telecommuting include research, marketing, finance, administrative work, and information technology. However, these functions remain illustrative rather than mandatory, and as a result, access often depends more on company policy than on the nature of the job.
Thus, in order to promote wider consistency, baseline eligibility standards have to be established even as the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) has been authorized to issue sector-specific guidelines to ensure equity and reliability.
A third concern has also been felt, involving the allocation of remote work costs, which, based on the Revised IRR, clarifies that facilities, equipment, and supplies necessary for telecommuting are ordinary business costs of the employer. Even then, it was added that the rules remain unclear on recurring expenses such as internet connectivity, electricity, and workspace maintenance.
It was noted that these costs often fall on employees unless addressed in telecommuting agreements, and without clearer cost-sharing mechanisms, telecommuting risks becoming a cost-transfer arrangement from employer to worker. Still, on the positive outlook, legislative reforms could require employers to provide a modest telecommuting allowance or equipment subsidy.
It was also cited that legal parameters do not fully address the growing problem of digital overwork. While the law recognizes compensable working hours, there are no provisions to safeguard the constant connectivity expectations that often accompany remote work. In this case, telecommuting employees may end up responding to emails and messages beyond regular working hours.
In several countries, “right to disconnect” policies have already been adopted to address this issue.
ia/xf
