It seems EXTREMELY common sense to me that this should have already been implemented in AU, 100%.
Take the load off of our dwindling fuel reserves. I already see small fuel shops out of fuel!
Why has this not happened already???
Why Hasn't Work From Home Been Mandated during The Fuel Shortage?
Geekomatic on 06/04/2026 - 20:03
Last edited 06/04/2026 - 20:15 by 1 other user
Last edited 06/04/2026 - 20:15 by 1 other user
Comments
Why Hasn't Work From Home Been Mandated?
Because the last thing this govt, or anyone else for that matter, wants is yet another frigging mandate. We’re all sick of that.
Public transport is free for April in the 2 biggest states at least. That will take some pressure off fuel demand.
Also, many of us will be using unleaded petrol and what is more critical is diesel fuel which is what farming, mining and transportation uses
Public transport is free for April in the 2 biggest states at least.
Public transport is not free in NSW (the biggest state by population).
Nor in WA (the biggest state by land area).
It is free in WA…
on Sundays.
Oh my bad. I thought it was
Bad move by nsw government
Not much pressure taken off fuel demand because public transport doesnt work well for most because of where we live and work.
In my town there are 3 buses a day going to the neighbouring town(15 minutes away) where i work if i used the first bus i would be 3 hours late for work, second about 6 hours late and third about a hour after i finished work.
I caught up with a friend recently who works in Melbourne the public transport it just doesnt work for him because public transport just dont go anywhere near where he works.
The train station is just a 10 minute walk from where he lives(Great) then after the train trip he has to wait 20 minutes for the bus(okay) once he get to his destination he has to then walk 5 kilometres its about a 45minute walk for him as he has a stuffed knee.
Now when your doing a 10-12 hour shift and just want to get home to his young family his wife then has to take that extra load on and he just wants to get home to help her.
Most people live in cities in any part of the world. Any reduction in fuel use in cities means more fuel available everywhere else.
All fair, my "mandate" description. Shouldn't have said it like that.
I actually meant that it should be implemented where obviously it would help the number of cars needing our limited fuel. How's that?
Mandate, is a term I use because I KNOW that even when it makes sense to let workers WFH, we still have a LOT of managers who insist otherwise (especially those who love to manipulate employees like chess pieces). If you never experienced this, pat your back.
However you term it, to reduce fuel usage and to stop stations running dry, I stand behind this idea. Open to any & all finesses, but you can't please everyone.
It seems EXTREMELY common sense to me that this should have already been implemented in AU, 100%.
because the property moguls specifically lobby politicians to NOT do this. It's literally the reason why we have return to office. They didn't even try to hide it, thanks Minns.
I reckon 'advising' those who can work from home to do so could be the simplest and first solution to conserve fuel right now. Frugally using fuel is a non-debatable, top requirement for the country at the moment. There should be no ifs or buts about it.
What fuel shortage?
It will arrive here, literally, sometime around 15 April
We don't have a fuel shortage. Fuel has gone up in price, yes, and in places where they have few overheads (rural/regional places) people have re-enacted the TP Wars of 2020 and taken all that they had stored there - but that is not at all what a fuel shortage looks like. We're still very much within the realm of market forces self-balancing - people who can't or don't want to afford $3+ a litre will take public transport, carpool, buy an EV, bike, walk, WFH, etc. Some will be royally screwed and end up out of work, which sucks, but a lesson not to make your work dependent on your ability to maintain a car.
If we were actually in a fuel shortage, the government (and various companies with major interests) would set up a gatekeeping program on who could get fuel. And random office workers would be at the bottom of that list.
There is no shortage.
Albanese says we have more than usual. No need to worry.
Whoever can afford it can buy as much as they wish.
There is not a fuel supply problem.
There is a fuel distribution problem.
We also have Wayne Kerr fuel hoarders and panic buyers.We also have Wayne Kerr fuel hoarders and panic buyers.
Ordinary Australians don't have an endless supply of jerry cans, buckets and empty cofee jars to keep filling up with petrol.
So are you talking about big business, namely mining and logistics companies?
Both. I was in Costco yesterday and they had whole pallets of jerry cans for sale. I was reading recently that some farmers who can get fuel are hoarding it.
I was reading recently that some farmers who can get fuel are hoarding it.
Good on them. They should.
In a game where the bigger players are hoarding diesel and causing supply disruptions especially in rural areas the only rational response as a farmer is to try to do the same as much as feasible.
Govern me harder daddy government … for I am too dumb to moderate my own fuel usage knowing there is a shortage and it's expensive :/
Please Daddy Government, Please mandate a lock down, it worked soooooo well last time :P
The next lock down / mandate will hand One Nation the win nationally - and that's the last thing the scared uni-party will allow !!!
To be fair, there is a huge amount of idiocy in Australia. Think of the average person, and then realize that 50% of people are stupider than that.
Government actually does have to introduce these laws because people are stupid. You think people would wear seatbelts if they weren't mandated? Child car seats? Nah mate, she'll be right. Ah (profanity) I killed my entire family including my child. Trying to raise prices on cigarettes to phase them out (because people love smoking) etc. etc.
So many things they "over-parent you with" that you'd gladly go and accidentally kill yourself/others over later because you're a big boy adult and know better.
Sometimes government oversteps, but in the majority of cases it is beneficial and is helping people. Just because you don't like it because you want to do stupid shit doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
In this case WFH is a pretty obvious benefit to most people. Doesn't have to be strongly enforced but the problem is businesses not people. Unless it's mandated many businesses will force people in because they don't give a crap about their employees. So it would be beneficial to people as they have a solid reason to WFH as opposed to having their micromanger force them in so they can monitor them at all times.
Government actually does have to introduce these laws because people are stupid. You think people would wear seatbelts if they weren't mandated? Child car seats? Nah mate, she'll be right.
Govt had to make laws to tell people to feed their kids, don't beat them too much, but if you do, get medical assistance.
Then they needed more laws to tell people not to rape these children or their pets.
We live with people who need these laws and the fact that the laws were even created must give an indication of how many of them there are. Doubtful they'd create legislation for one or two cases or on the off chance it might happen.
you mean hand victory to that dumb arse party that wants us in the Iran War and has been calling for fuel and travel restrictions and rationing? Sadly the general public probably is dumb enough to support what they claim to not want.
yeah no, the red lunatic thinks we should be actively involved in the fight. She is little more than a MAGA sycophant.
Your dummy neighbour might be hoarding dangerous amounts of flammable goods next to your fence. One will probably go "wooo yo fireworks", and the other will sht themself.
Most people stocking up were just filling up their cars earlier than usual instead of waiting till it was a low tank they were topping up.
The vast majority of people only have a 5 or 10 liter fuel can at home for their mowers etc.
The system just couldnt cope with that in reality small to each individual stock up.
99.99% of people dont have places to store extra fuel
My neighbor has a landcruiser with dual tanks and a jerry can on the back.
I've been living in constant fear for the last few years due to the knowledge he regularly parks ~150L of fuel in his garage right next to mine! Flammable fuel!
That's actually much safer than someone with an i30 full of Unleaded you know. Unless this LC you speak of is an old Petrol one.
@SoulButter: Even if it were a diesel, that's one of only two main components in ANFO, an explosive used by terrorists.
q.e.d. my neighbour is (probably) 50% terrorist.
Is there a different type of petroleum based fuel? Lol.
How is 150l anymore risky than a stand tank of 80? Seriously, this keeps you constant fear? You do know how combustion works in real life yeah? Not like you see in action movies.
So the government (profanity) up by not having a proper reserve of fuel like they're meant to and then punishes businesses by mandating how they should run their businesses
Why rely on government to make logical decisions for the betterment of our nation, it should be up to YOUR EMPLOYER, YOUR WORK to determine if working from home during this oil crisis is beneficial for staff and the organisation as a whole.
Wake up people.
Username checks out.
it should be up to YOUR EMPLOYER, YOUR WORK to determine if working from home …………. is beneficial for staff
Yeah right, because employers always prioritise their staff needs highly. /s
They don't have to prioritise their staff needs, they have to prioritise what's best for the business, whilst aligning with fair work and other employment laws. Why should businesses not prioritise their interests when they take all the risk with capital.
Exactly, the responsibility should fall on the business not government to dictate work from home.
If you're not happy with your workplace go find a workplace that makes you happy.They prioritise what's best for the business, whilst being made to comply with fair work and other employment laws.
Sounds like you still trust the safe and effective government.
Still to see one station close from fuel shortage around South East Queensland.
Australia gets it's oil/fuel from Asian supplies.
If we had a PM with balls would tell the As Australian people the truth, that's why he claims to help by cutting tax by half, really. So the corporate companies rip us off and the PM sleeps at the wheel again.There won’t be a mandate from the government because it’s too heavy handed. They’ve learned from Covid that even when it’s a life or death situation, people do not like to be told what to do.
There won’t be a mandate from the government because it’s too heavy handed. They’ve learned from Covid that even when it’s a life or death situation, people do not like to be told what to do.
Just extending this line of thinking, I was kind of eavesdropping on a discussion today and the gist of it went something like:
TLDR
- it's more involved than simple geography (as in where the employee actually does the work)
- insurance, (including worker's comp), taxation and legal issues that currently have no legal framework or precedent
- short term WFH very difficult to wind back
- lessons learned from COVID
- infrastructure does not exist for long term WFH, particularly on a widespread scale—-/—-
When WFH was implemented during COVID, this created (among other things)
Discontent and inequity btwn employees
- a lot of divide among the workers (those that could vs those that couldn't) including instant cost savings for those workers that could which others could never have anticipated when choosing their careers or jobs when WFH wasn't as widespread or prevalent.
Employer Discontent
- a lot of divide among the employers for all sorts of reasons. Sure, some were unfounded (maybe through misunderstanding), but others were quite valid.
Supply of equipment
- created a situation about who should pay for what in the WFH environment when infrastructure, equipment and supplies could previously be obtained cheaper (buy in bulk vs individual supply and where one thing may have previously serviced multiple people, but now one was required for each workplace etc
Taxation, Accounting & Legal
- the above point trickled down into who got to claim which tax deduction and when (and the subsequent management and application of it) particularly as employer was likely still having to provide it if any business premises continued to exist
- dedicated office space required or ok to share everything payed for or subsidised or tax deductible in a communal space or access available to non employees
- that also lead to increased accounting costs for both employer and employee to make sure each was claiming what they were entitled to, but also so they weren't claiming things they weren't supposed to which can lead to audits, repayable debts, fines and maybe worse in extreme cases.
Something about increased legal costs as well.
Insurance including worker's comp, personal injury, premises (business & house), equipment, contents, public liability…
- a big one was INSURANCE. Both worker's comp and public liability. We simply don't have any kind of framework for the former and the latter would incur massive oversight.
- then, does work cover apply if it was something in the environment over which an employer had no control:
- House burned down (example) because of something supplied by employer or bought for work purposes - who bears the liability for that?
- if that work related fire (for example) injured others in the household or vicinity at the time who had nothing to do with the employer, who held liability for that?
- a whole bunch of those types of considerations around where employers liabilities ended and where the home owners started and more importantly, did insurance products exist to support these
a lot of that would have no precedent, so would need to be determined on a case by case basis - who bears the legal costs for that?
if an injury (or death) occurred for example faulty wiring in house or non working fire alarms, no fire escape etc - caused by a fire that had nothing to do with employer other than it happened whilst employee was working, who bears the liability for that?
damage to equipment provided by employer or subject to tax deductions - who is liable for that?
who needs what insurance product/policy and does one actually even exist?
who is required to even pay for the various products?
how does an employer ensure safe work spaces and equipment in these environments?
at least in an employer controlled environment, they are compelled to comply with many safety standards (from fire alarm checks, exit procedures, fire equipment/blankets/extinguishers to slip trip and fall hazards, idk, bunch of stuff even down to an expectation that shoes be worn (if you drop your coffee cup and break it at home, then walk on it with bare feet - is this a work injury covered by worker's comp?
large penalties and fines for an employer who doesn't comply, but how to pass that through to an environment over which the employer has no control?
There were probably more, may remember later…
Anyway, with all that in mind, ever since, Govt and Employers have faced strong opposition to returning things to previous conditions.
For all of these reasons, the govt doesn't want to issue a temporary mandate again only to have to unwind it again and
They can't yet move forward with any long term requirements until they sort out those other taxation and insurance situations (and others) and implement rules, laws and systems to manage them as well.
On insurance… I might be simplifying things, but surely when it's a choice taken up by the employee to WFH (i.e. allowed by company, not forced to fully WFH as office still available) then the employee cannot claim incidents at home against employer?
Hey, thanks for taking the time to read all that…
I would expect that and it makes sense, but too simplistic solution apparently.
The question to consider was do the insurance products exist to support the worker and making claims against insurance for work related situations?
Otherwise, you have created a class of vulnerable people who may have liability but no means to buffer themselves from any costs.
The bigger concern is for the employee.
Who pays for it if employee can't? Govt? Bankrupt?
This stuff gets complicated and the second an uninsured employee faces financial hardship, the poor me current affair scenarios will explode putting pressure on somebody to "think of the worker".
If an insurance product isn't available, govt can't force an insurance provider to create one.
Not mandated because its not at that level of seriousness. Panic induced in vulnerable folk by the usual story of LNP seeing an issue of national concern an opportunity to sow division instead of showing leadership and the national (as distict from National's) interest.
Guessing the strategists involved expect that the cost of fuel will drive conservation strategies like WFH anyway.
If things get worse I'm sure that a WFH recommendation will turn up.
You sound Labor aligned blaming Liberals when the uniparty are the problem right now. Nationals support fuel transparency, as do the Teals, Labor and Liberal do not. One Nation, Teals, Greens support the 25% gas tax, Labor and Liberal do not. What do Labor and Liberal both support? Fuel excise.
Albo and Wong started the division the second they both applauded the US for unprovoked attacks on Iran and said that Australia supports them. No, we don't.
Not in the interest of business.
This would negatively impact CBD cafes, restaurants etc
it's hardly a fuel shortage when all the tanks at the port are completely full of fuel and there is at least 6 ships sitting out in the ocean right now full of fuel that cant dock as there is nowhere for the fuel to go. The majors aren't releasing their excess requirements onto the wholesale market for the independents like previous, they are the ones manufacturing this whole "shortage" scenario. Oil prices is only one component of the current pricing bananas we see right now. The rest is the Big 4 being greedy, especially when the independents can't undercut them and keep the prices at a reasonable level by having their supply choked.
there's no shortage here YET because we are still using the fuel from before we helped attack Iran. however, that fuel will soon run out, and nobody knows the future. in fact, the strait closed completely last night.
Here's another fact - total oil production for 2026 was predicted to be just under 109mbpd. The loss to the market due to the crisis in the SOH is around 11-12mbpd ATM. So around a 10% reduction. That's not a great situation but hardly a disaster. There has been bigger disruptions in the past and we got through. The reporting on this crisis, that it's the worst shortage ever is pathetic, sensationalist and dangerous.
Working from home should be optional and not forced. Everyone's circumstances are different.
You know one of the reasons for why they make voting compulsory?
It's not really about forcing everybody to vote, it's really about protecting the rights of the people who want to vote but may otherwise be prevented from doing so.
Then we also go the extra mile to make sure everyone does get to vote examples people in nursing homes or hospitals, they still get to vote when it would just be easier to not be worried about working out a way to let them.
Examples:
Boss: we are too busy, we need you to stay at work, you will just have to miss voting this time, maybe next time.
Random person from OzBargain the other day: "everybody needs to boycott voting to protest against the quality of our candidates…
"I'm not voting because I want to, I'm voting because I have to"
- those who want to vote, have a legal reason for doing so and can do it without repercussions
- those who don't want to vote can just leave the ballot blank and nobody needs to know.Same principle applies to anything we make optional.
Now translate that logic to working from home. WFH should be compulsory because otherwise some people might be prevented from doing so?
Sure, when all jobs can be done WFH so that everybody who wants to do it, can, then that logic would apply.
But your proposition is flawed and/or not comparable because most people would be able to access voting whether that be by turning up to the polls, postal votes, early voting or taking the polling booths to them. Very few people would be excluded from being able to vote if they wanted to.
At this point in time, not a lot of fire fighters or hotel or hospital workers who can work from home.
Teachers could be doable, but where are the students?
I can't believe that somebody needed to explain that to you.
@Muppet Detector: No, that didn't need explaining. I was just finding out if you understood all of that.
Given all of that, I don't quite understand the reason for your monologue about compulsory voting in response to a comment stating that "Working from home should be optional and not forced. Everyone's circumstances are different."
Was it just a roundabout way of agreeing?
@tenpercent: Ummm, it was an example of when making something compulsory can work and why it is done/when it may be appropriate, to provide a comparison to WFH, demonstrating why WFH couldn't be made compulsory.
Yes please, all stay at home so i can jet off to work. Thanks.
Why pay an australian to work from home for $40+ an hour when you can pay someone from the 3rd world to do it for 20 cents.
You probably meant $20 instead of 20c. The wages difference isn't 200 times for a like-to-like talent and quality, no matter which country you consider.
like for like quality… haha
Why pay an Australia to work in an office for $40+ an hour and also paying $500 per sqm of office space for them too? Along with coffee, bathrooms, security, all of which costs more in Australia than India.
If the only reason you have a job is due to your ability to occupy a chair in the same office as management, I wouldn't expect your job to last very long.
because we built our whole aus society around commuting long distances by car
People were telling me to take public transport.
Imagine walking around with all my packout, ladders and full Aircon system on the train…Didn't Albo tell the entire nation that everything is ok, there's no shortage and she'll be right?
I trust the gubment, they told me to get vaccinated to help the bell curve thing
I can walk to work
Plagiarising a comment that I believe @tenpercent raised recently with regards to involuntary lockdown during Covid and a probable increase in cases of domestic abuse,
Could it be possible that compulsory WFH mandates may contribute to opportunities for increased domestic violence episodes to occur to any persons under coercive control of their partners?
Did you see how much is a shitshow it caused last time? Even if it was a necessary practical move, I don’t believe there is any willpower to implement it at all.
most people in cities commute either with publc transport or via non-fossil fuel vehicles (bike, e-scooters, e-skateboards) so this is quite pointless and only going to hurt economy due to reduced productivity (which is already pretty low), so go away please.
I guess if your job can be done WFH, your job isn’t really that important or essential and can be outsourced to AI.
Please make it legal so we can replace them with cheaper AI and lower costs for everybody else.
If you are in a job that can be done from home, AI can/will replace you
Oh, good lord folks…Obviously this will NEVER apply to EVERYONE. Does it have to apply to everyone to be valid?
Case in point: my son lives 90kms from his shared office space in Perth. He's a full-stack software dev for a global company. There's no way all employees could EVER get together anyway and the company is 100% web-based. Perth show-ups are all day meetings that "could" easily via video (as was during Covid). It's nonsense we're not already implementing this wherever it can be utilized.
Now, imagine he has a V8-whatever. Should he work from home or take the fuel for no reason, when it's unnecessary?
And it doesn't have to be a mandate, simply a choice.
And it doesn't have to be a mandate, simply a choice.
I don't think anyone has an issue with a WFH choice - in fact, that probably should be the optimal government position, which is that employers should relax "office attendance" requirements, so that employees can choose to WFH if they would like to.
The question you asked, however, is "Why Hasn't Work From Home Been Mandated during The Fuel Shortage?", i.e. a mandate, and now you're saying that it doesn't have to be a mandate?
Perhaps it’s something he should discuss with his employer rather than requiring a blanket mandate. I know not all employers will be willing to accommodate but they’d also be the ones to find loopholes and wiggle out of mandates where possible anyway
And it doesn't have to be a mandate, simply a choice.
This changes the whole question. Pretty much it would be a suggestion by the government, in which case has already been covered in the prime minister’s address to the nation a few days ago.
During covid i consistently had 35% higher productivity higher than other staff and on top of that i saved then fuel costs of approximately $80 dollars a week.
So my immediate bosses kept me at home for another 5 months longer than everyone else.I did come into the office regularly though.
But because of questions from other bosses who were getting complaints from those that had to work from the office i had to return to the office.
The local government department i am now in has a $1,100,000 a year fuel bill we have already gone to the bosses a couple weeks ago with schedule changes and some work from home position that showed a potential fuel saving of 17% that we felt easily achievable.
We also gave them a couple of harder options if fuel supply got worse.
Basically no real response this is local government they dont make long term plans they will wait till it hits the wall before action happens.
Now, imagine he has a V8-whatever. Should he work from home or take the fuel for no reason, when it's unnecessary?
Geek jr needs a different car.
Why Hasn't Work From Home Been Mandated during The Fuel Shortage?
And it doesn't have to be a mandate, simply a choice.
And you think everyone else is the problem.
Tell your kid to grow a pair and talk to his boss, then either find a new job or buy a house that isn't in the middle of nowhere. It sounds a clear case of you wanting someone to make your kid's life easier because he won't do it himself. The choices are already there, he made most of them. If he's dumb enough to buy a V8 as well you should think about disowning him.
Imagine being stuck inside all day working from home. Not being able to leave the house, socialise, have a life. I'm sure Victorians would know how awful that was.
If you look at how they voted afterward, it seems they loved being governed as hard as possible.
Yes jv is particularly vocal about it.
Imagine being stuck inside all day working from home. Not being able to leave the house, socialise, have a life.
FWIW just want to remind people that wfh actually keeps many disabled people, parents and carers in employment, who otherwise may not be able to work (or work as many hours). For many, wfh actually means they get to leave the house, socialise and have a life on their own terms, outside of work, rather than using all their time and energy out of the house just for work.
https://www.ceda.com.au/news-and-resources/media-releases/ec…
Yes it should be a choice. Not forced.
My neighbour who worked on rural roads thought it was fantastic.
The reduced traffic flows meant they felt safer with less stress and some smaller jobs were able to be completed considerably quicker.
Hence why I believe it should be optional and not mandatory.
I saw him. He and his mate were shovelling bitumen into potholes on the highway, no signs, no reduced speed limits. (They were in the other lane. I wondered what I would do if a car approached in his lane - they'd spray bitumen on my car!)
I came back a couple of days later and they were still there - I'm sure refilling the same holes. I changes lanes to avoid the bitumen, so he didn't stop working.
The only way that guy is going to survive is if we get cars off rural roads.
(Usually they close the highway and only allow one lane to travel at a time. I wonder if they genuinely did this at a time when they figured they'd be no one of the road. It was a national highway!)
Explain.
If you put those 4 letters together, they spell the word scam. Hope that explains it for you.
Or if you read it backwards and take notice of the capitals, maybe it's code for Big Macs.
Explain what the scam is.
@tenpercent: Oh, I don't know about that part, but I have a bridge for sale. If you put a deposit down on it, I can explain how scams work ;)
@TheBird: Hehe, I haven't filled in the ownership transfer papers for you for when I sold you that bridge… but thanks for the payment. Already cleared and redistributed.
@TheBird: An entire franchise.
Did you see the catalogues that shows all the other things apart from bridges that I sell?
Dif books for variety of subject matter.
Two weeks to stop the spread..