*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]