Working from home is the great social experiment of our age – it’s too soon for the state to wade in | Simon Jenkins

What’s not to like about working from home? No commuting. More flexibility. Wear jeans. The boss can’t pester you. It’s a social revolution and it’s happening right now. Before Covid, 4.7% of employed Britons worked from home. Now, 40% say they work from home at least one day a week. Over much of clerical employment, the nine-to-five day has begun to vanish. Mind and body can work wherever and whenever they find themselves in harmony.

The business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, is determined to join the bandwagon, speaking positively about flexible work arrangements and against a “culture of presenteeism” in an interview last week. And the government is reportedly looking at strengthening working-from-home rights in its forthcoming employment bill. It may join a battery of other Labour curbs on employment, which could include day-one job security, a ban on zero-hours contracts, limits on probation and a ban on evening work calls.

The consequences of this revolution have been variable. For many, the shift to working from home has been positive. Almost all studies indicate that some degree of homeworking satisfies those who do it and even most of their employers. It has led to an increase in workforce wellbeing and higher productivity. For employers, office occupancy has fallen, which lowers costs. In addition, less travel means more leisure. Train journeys remain at 20% below their pre-Covid peak.

In the wider community, the new work pattern should mean families stay closer. While commercial districts may lose business, local neighbourhoods will see more of their adult residents. High streets and pubs should pick up business. Eventually, perhaps hospitals will treat more people at home and teachers will put more of their work online for at-home students.

Elsewhere, there have been other views. Some employers report a fall-off in team work, contact and creativity. Some younger employees miss office life. Business that requires contact with customers can suffer. In addition, many service jobs simply cannot be performed from home. Amazon has ordered its staff to work in the office five days a week. Meanwhile, as Fridays become virtual bank holidays, urban retail margins are suffering, and cafes and bars lie empty.

The answer to all this must be to wait and see. It could be that a major shift in the behaviour of modern economies is under way – a shift back to domesticity. It was promised by the digital revolution but not yet fully realised. Evidence suggests that new office construction is at its weakest for 15 years. There is a vacant air to the streets of London’s Canary Wharf. Palatial office blocks may simply be obsolete, perhaps to be converted into much-needed flats.

In all this, the truth is that the relationship between employer and employee must be peculiar to the nature of their output. Except in bureaucracies, to which ministers are probably more accustomed, work relationships are human. Success depends on personal trust and consensus, not just between boss and worker but between all those involved in a shared task. Regular contact is important, though how regular is clearly an open question.

What is absurd is that the government should seek to interfere in a free market before it can know the consequences. Labour laws are highly sensitive. As any tourist knows, intrusive French controls on casual employment lead to spectacular delays in getting served in many restaurants. The prospective laws on private rents may be well intentioned in abolishing no-fault evictions. But research was surely needed into controls that could yet cause a drastic collapse in the poorest end of the rental market.

Ever since the factory acts of the 19th century and the health and safety legislation of the 20th, aspects of employment have required legal oversight. They are in place to prevent discrimination and unfair dismissal. Labour’s proposals have already produced some alarmed responses. Office staff are not automatons. Human chemistry matters in most businesses, and sometimes staff prove unsuitable. Probation has to be appropriate. In some jobs, such as delivery, zero-hours contracts suit some businesses and some workers.

Employers should not need ministers and lawyers to tell them how to do their job. Their results will tell them that. In most organisations, the relationship between employer and employee is personal and consensual. It should not need the state to regulate so intimate a matter as where they choose to work.

Working from home appears to be a bold and exciting innovation. It is also a major change in social behaviour. It should be left to settle down before Whitehall marches in to manage it.