A Sydney-based worker sacked for secretly working from Singapore raises a question: Where exactly is “home” in work from home? Employers need to offer clarity, says Victor Seah of the Singapore University of Social Sciences.
SINGAPORE: Someone I know routinely works from hotels overseas on his work-from-home days. His employer doesn’t know.
He isn’t an exception. Many more people quietly stretch “home” closer to where they live: a cafe, a co-working space or the waiting area outside their child’s enrichment class. Overseas is the far end of the same habit.
This was what a Sydney-based currency trader did when he worked from Singapore on a work-from-home day – except that his employer found out.
His manager had asked the company’s IT team to use its “FBI skills” to check on the trader’s whereabouts. The trader’s laptop was later traced to Singapore, and he was dismissed. It was not the trader’s first time working overseas without permission, based on an Oct 7 ruling by Australia’s Fair Work Commission. He had earlier worked from Bali while telling his manager he was at home waiting for a plumber.
The commission found that the trader had deliberately concealed his location and that his employer had a valid reason to dismiss him. But because he was not given a proper chance to respond, the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The trader was awarded a little more than four weeks’ pay.
The case stirred up discussion online, with some wondering how far can employees stretch the definition of “work from home” before crossing the line?
FLEXIBILITY RUNS ON TRUST
Work from home began as a business continuity measure and became the default during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, it matters most to those juggling work and care.
In Singapore, the government has said flexible work arrangements are what caregivers find most useful. That places considerable weight on flexible work, and therefore on trust.
Our research at the Singapore University of Social Sciences with caregivers of persons with disabilities shows why. One caregiver had her flexible arrangement formally approved, yet felt resented by colleagues who still expected her previous level of commitment. She eventually left the workforce. Another, the mother of an adult son with autism, wants to return to work but doubts any employer would accept the short-notice interruptions his medical needs bring.
For both, trust from their employers and colleagues mattered more than having a formal flexible work arrangement.
WHERE CAN “HOME” BE?
Consider some familiar Singapore scenes: a parent clearing emails outside an enrichment class, a caregiver taking a call in a clinic waiting room while a loved one sees the doctor, someone working from a library, a cafe or their parents’ flat.
Most work-from-home policies never say whether these count. Many employees simply don't mention it, and many managers don't ask.
In Singapore, where the office is rarely far away, such arrangements are usually low-risk. The practical concerns are confidential calls in public, shared Wi-Fi and screens that others can see. Many of these situations also involve caregiving, precisely what flexible work is meant to support.
Working overseas without telling one’s employer is different. Beyond the dishonesty, it may expose the employer, not just the employee, to risks: licensing restrictions, as in the trader’s case, and possibly tax or immigration complications, cross-border data rules, insurance that may not apply abroad and time-zone mismatches.
Crucially, every hidden overseas work-from-home day makes employers more cautious with caregivers whose needs are real.
SHOULD EMPLOYERS SPELL OUT WHAT WFH MEANS?
The obvious response is for employers to define work-from-home policies. But rules can feel like distrust.
In a well-known 2006 experiment, economists Armin Falk and Michael Kosfeld found that most participants worked less hard once they were controlled, and described it as a signal of distrust and a limit on their autonomy.
In 2023, a review of studies, involving 94 samples and more than 23,000 workers, found no evidence that electronic monitoring improves performance. Conversely, electronic monitoring was associated with higher worker stress.
The “FBI skills” request from the trader’s manager illustrates the resulting loop: concealment invites surveillance, and surveillance signals distrust, which makes people less likely to be open.
Yet how rules are set makes a difference. The 2023 review found that more transparent, less invasive monitoring was linked to more positive attitudes. A separate UK study of knowledge professionals working remotely during the pandemic found that many accepted heavier workloads as a fair trade for the autonomy of working from home, especially where trust ran both ways.
The distinction is between clarity and control. Clarity sets out what is allowed and why. Control is about enforcement and that is where the costs to motivation tend to lie.
CLARITY WITHOUT CONTROL
Employers can provide clarity without appearing controlling in several ways.
First, they can define work from home as permission, not suspicion. For example, by allowing employees to work anywhere in Singapore as long as they can work securely and reach the office when needed.
Second, explain the limits. If overseas work is restricted, say it is because of licensing, tax, visa or data concerns, not because the company doubts its staff.
Third, make asking easier than hiding. This can involve providing a quick approval route for working overseas or workcations.
Fourth, let individual teams set the details, such as when people should be reachable while working from home.
Fifth, resist adding new employee tracking, and rely on disclosure and results.
For employees, flexibility comes with a reciprocal obligation – being upfront about where they work.
For the parent at the enrichment centre or the caregiver at the clinic, working from home, outside the home, is often what flexible work was meant to make possible. What they need from employers is not closer watching, but clarity about what “home” means.
Victor Seah is Director of Behavioural Insights Centre of Excellence at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.