Honestly we surely need to discuss WFH in laws terms, in the sense of "I worker provide a room, empty, accessible for inspection, the company provide furniture etc, I'm responsible to keep it safe and closed etc" or "I, worker, provide a room, well equipped, and the company pay me a fee for my work and room usage".<p>But that's not a thing to be discussed in court. It's a thing to be publicly discussed in political terms to arrive at a CLEAR and defined norm for WFH. In some country such norms already exists but are a bit old, meant for another tech era, in some others do not exists at all.<p>For instance in Italy there are two norms, the ancient clear but hard, a new one opaque and obscene. The first is for "teleworking", it MANDATE an empty room, inspectable by a public body responsible for safety at work, locked, furnished by the company, with dedicated services provided by the company etc. The second is "smart working" witch essentially state that workers and companies agree a kind of place-less, by-target works no one surveil, the company just provide a craptop and a crapphone and all are f** and happy. Clearly both norms are not good at all.<p>For instance we need to separate time-defined jobs (like call centers, banking, ...) to <i>potentially</i> async ones (like development) and so regulate them accordingly. We need to define "a home workspace" but without exaggerations like the Italian "telelavoro" laws etc. To do so <i>discussing</i> is mandatory, and courts are not a good place to discuss and negotiate...