IN the age of data saturation, survey results have become the political and corporate weapon of choice. With the right framing, a handful of percentages can be spun to suggest overwhelming public support, deep dissatisfaction, or urgent demand—often regardless of the bigger picture.
Numbers, after all, carry an aura of objectivity. But when stripped from context, they can be used to prove almost anything, turning statistics into a tool of persuasion rather than illumination.
Take for example the Victorian Government lauding the results of its consultation on legislating the right to work from home as “record-breaking.”
Certainly, 36,770 survey responses look impressive at first glance. But set against the scale of Victoria’s workforce – more than 3.6 million people currently employed – the picture shifts dramatically. The survey represents barely one per cent of all employed Victorians.
Within that slice, the strongest finding was that 74 per cent of respondents, 25,724 people, said working from home was “extremely” important. But again, compared to the state’s total workforce, that equates to less than one per cent of all Victorian employees. It’s hard to argue this constitutes a sweeping mandate.
Consider also the productivity claims. Just under 28,700 participants said they were more productive at home. That’s less than 0.8 per cent of employed Victorians. By contrast, hundreds of thousands of workers in health, education, construction, logistics and hospitality cannot work remotely at all. Their voices, and the operational realities of their industries, are not captured in the figures being promoted.
The data around commuting costs and time is similar. Over 13,000 respondents reported a one-way trip of more than an hour. That is 0.3 per cent of the Victorian workforce. More than 9,200 said commuting costs $25 to $49 a week, again, just 0.25 per cent of all employees. Significant for those individuals, yes, but statistically modest when scaled against millions.
The survey also found that the most common arrangement desired was two days of remote work, with 10,207 respondents favouring this option. In proportional terms, that’s less than a third of one per cent of Victoria’s workforce.
None of this is to say working from home isn’t valuable or worth protecting. But the government’s framing of this survey risks overstating its reach.
A policy justified on the basis of fewer than one in 100 workers risks appearing disconnected from the broader employment landscape.
If the right to work from home is to be legislated, it needs to be backed by data that genuinely represents the millions of Victorians across every industry – not just a vocal fraction.
But then that’s just my opinion.
