This is already standard practice in the Commonwealth public service. And in some departments, there are security inspections of the proposed home environment as well as OH&S inspections.

lets get real in this
if your boss dont pay you enough to hire an electition
or a repair guy to fix something..thats broken...

he by paying you not enough..
for you to live more safe..must hold guilt[morally]

if he dont pay you enough to get insurance at home
that is the bosss fault

if the boss want slim fit sporty looking types
and they break a leg..TRYING TO KEEP THEIR JOB condition[requiring fitness/health]..

again its his income source...is to blame

the rich get cars..platnumb cards
THE LEAST THE POOR DESERVE..have earned..!

is the boss to help out..
with things..*his poor wage has
[if only in part]..has helped set up

If bosses are responsible for the home workplace environment, are they also responsible for the cost of alterations to suit requirements?

Wow. Times must be tough in the legal profession if they are reduced to drumming up business in this fashion. Talk about inventing a problem, that you can then help solve in exchange for $450 an hour. Plus GST.

All the faux outrage expressed in the article looks like plain common sense to me.

"If the employer is liable for any injuries at home then bosses will insist on a big say in how home work environments are set up and also what defines 'work' in the home environment."

Yes indeed. It is a very stupid employer who lets the employee make these decisions on their own.

"It would be reasonable now to expect employers to insist on workplace health and safety audits of home workplaces"

Totally reasonable.

But here comes the attempt to scare, a very typical lawyers' "gimme-your-money" tactic.

"...and we can expect some dramas if workers feel the boss is "invading' their home and stipulating where the carpets should be placed or what sort of ergonomic chair is used."

Dramas? What dramas? And why use "invading", when "inspecting" will do perfectly well? The idea is to deliver a safe workplace, not to check out the colour of your curtains.

"It would not be unreasonable for bosses to insist any home workplace have functioning smoke alarms, non-slip work surfaces, no trip hazards or stray electrical cords, proper lighting and ventilation and a suitably approved ergonomic chair."

Exactly! By George, he's got it!

"If a slip down the stairs is deemed to be work- related, would it still be regarded as such if the accident occurred outside defined working hours?"

That's presumably the sales pitch here. Call the ambulance-chasers immediately, see how much you can screw out of your employer.

I feel vaguely sick reading this fear-mongering, self-serving twaddle.

Ah Pericles, 'tis the age of fear mongering .. it's all the rage, and it's profitable, the new sales method .. works for government, well .. it might and it might not, but it definitely works for lawyers

The PM, while announcing how the climate tax is necessary because the seas will rise and there will be more droughts and cyclones unless we are taxed harshly, accuses the opposition leader of "scare campaigns"

It's for your own good .. what did she say, it's like being forced to "eat your vegetables", didn't President Bush say something like that?

I love it! Everyone is doing it.

I've had a home workplace inspection, not too much of a bother but also in my view a waste of money. I've also been part of an oncall roster that has me turning wherever I happen to be into a workplace, no workplace inspections there.

I suspect that the more likely outcome of claims such as one at the center of this will be less employers willing to support working from home where there is not a big advantage to the employer. Many employee's will miss out on opportunities to better balance work and homelife because of the kind of legal nonsence behind that claim.

It will be a lot easier for employers to decide that it's not just worth the hassle.

It is a mixed bag, an employee on their way to work or returning home would be covered for a fall which I suspect should not be covered when working from home if that working from home arangement is for the employee's benefit.

Where employee's choose to work from home to better manage their own needs the employer should not be liable for injuries resulting from the home, where employee's are required to do so then the employer should have a greater responsibility.

Working from home can be great for employers and employee's, I do a mix that let's me better manage single parenting and gives my employer a lot of flexibility about job's at odd times. In my view I often get far better concentration at home than in the open plan office. My concern is that if it all gets to hard there will be nothing in it for employers.

OUG, how much does an employer need to pay to ensure that employee's treat getting an electrician as a greater priority than other choices?

R0bert

*This is already standard practice in the Commonwealth public service*

Well it would be. They have unlimited taxpayers money to pee against
walls after all. So why should they care about doing things
efficiently?

The safety thing has me intrigued. So if little Johnny leaves
his trainset out on the floor and our worker trips over it and
falls, what will they do to ensure safety? Ban children from
the home perhaps?

robbers..quote..'"how much does an employer
need to pay..to ensure that employee's treat
getting an electrician..as a greater priority than other choices?""

im unsure what is being asked...
but will reply the vibe of the words you used

my 'firm'...supplies me my work materials
im sitting 'at home'..at my work desk..running my 'work' computa

if the power is safe
is a work condition..[due dilligence]
but if that work computer corrupts my power system
IT CANT BE ME WHO IS LIABLE*

what is the 'prior-oty'
what needs be done first
the law rukles its the requestor[he who asks]
who has liability...[as by law they 'asked',,for an advantage]

look at it this way
if im working...or between jobs of work
then work requires certainty..that what they ask will be done

to make absolute certainty
both must by law..hold that cartainty as a scared trust
[both need each other]...we can help or hinder
to keep the trust give the assurance

many will never 'get it'
but im not talking to those
wouldnt waste my breath working for a fool
who dont care about anything but themself..

if you ask me to loose weight
then if i get hurt TRYING
to do as YOU asked

liability falls upon you
who asked..this certainty
a condition/bonus/benifit/obligation..of work

Visiting a work place initially is all well and good but 24 hours later the place could easily be a dangerous mess. Especially if there are children in the home.
Should the employer inspect every day or two, to ensure the workplace has not been moved, there are no toys etc etc?
A ridiculous legal outcome that will be detrimental to all employers and employees.

gilli
yopu siound like you think the 'workplace'
is a safe place

how come so many die at work
falling off buildings
having buildings[or sadiums]..fall on them

you made it sound
its as if toys...are killing people

that a workplace is a safe place
[i recall the numbers are a worker a day dies at work

and many more die from the adverse conditions of their workplaces]
coal miners...asbestops miners...workers working with heat
workers working with polution...

workers die
workers get injured

ok no toy's in workplaces
no photo's..no luckey charms
[your workmates might eat one]

[and nothing but work in workplaces]

ps lwets get real on wage tax
wage isnt whats being taxed..income is
[income is that proffit not earned by value adding]

but hear the union silence
only the master has 'income'

OUG, I use a work supplied laptop which has an amazingly small chance of doing any harm to my home power supply. Taken to the extreme the point's you make are valid but for the bulk of people and working from home arrangements they are unlikely to be at all relevant.

There is a big difference between work from home arrangements that are at the employers request and those which are put in place primarily to help the employee. Passing responsibility back to the employer for what are my own choices or that which is out of their control just means that less employers will be willing to provide opportunity for people who could otherwise work from home to do so.

R0bert

employers most likely have insurances for their people robbert
[that is a condition of work..or a benifit
that costs them close enough[collectivly]..to pennies

to not add a real lot of cost..
compared to one person trying to wend her way through insurance fineprint

thing is all 'person's'..arnt created equally
my soliciter is nothing compared to the firms soliciter
[that even then is nothing like..the firms..firms of soliciters]