Purpose of NOM-037
Contrary to what many assume about the benefits of NOM-037, we need to analyze and understand it based on both its purpose and its actual requirements, and ask ourselves whether it truly benefits employees or instead complicates a working arrangement that emerged out of the pandemic.
When we look at the stated purpose of NOM-037, which literally aims to "establish occupational health and safety conditions at the workplaces where employees under the Telework modality carry out their activities, in order to prevent accidents and illnesses, as well as promote a safe and healthy work environment," we realize that the goal is focused on employee health and safety while working under this arrangement.
In other words, based on its stated purpose, NOM-037 isn't designed to regulate remote work from the standpoint of a healthy, fair relationship between employer and employee — one that prioritizes responsibility, time, cost, and work-life balance — but is instead focused on accident prevention and maintaining a safe, healthy environment.
However, once you dig deeper into the standard, you find provisions that seem intended to cover far more ground than that, which isn't always consistent with the stated overall objective.
Requirements and Complications
Even though the original idea might sound great on paper, we run into a set of requirements that are both very specific and confusing at the same time — rather than setting clear rules, it seems to add red tape to a process that used to be agreed on directly, in mutual trust, between employee and employer.
For example, section 5.1 of NOM-037 requires companies to keep a list of every employee working under the telework modality — a registry that collects each person's personal data, job title, the percentage of time spent working remotely versus on-site, and an endless list of the conditions under which the employee does their home office work.
But the problem with this list is that formalizing a scheme that used to stand out for its flexibility can now make it much more complicated to change — for example, if someone was left off the list, or if the percentage of time they work remotely changes.
The Mandatory Policy
On top of that, section 5.2 requires companies to draft a policy covering a series of points that are vague or open to subjective interpretation. For example, the policy must "ensure occupational health and safety conditions, with an emphasis on properly maintained electrical installations, adequate lighting, ventilation, and ergonomic conditions" — but that can be extremely subjective. What one person considers a well-lit, well-ventilated space at home isn't necessarily the same as what they're used to at the office; not everyone has windows to the outside or air extractors, and if someone is comfortable working with dim lighting, it's unclear how that would even be assessed.
Loss of Mobility
Another point covers the locations an employee proposes for doing remote work, and how these have to be fixed. Well, right there we're losing one of the biggest advantages many people used to enjoy: mobility. Being able to work from different places, or for those who like heading to a nearby coffee shop, putting on headphones and opening their laptop, will now be limited — at least on paper — since the work location has to be fixed. Sure, there may be exceptions, but in principle, that's already a catch.
The policy also has to define work schedules, formal communication channels, mechanisms to guarantee people's safety and health while working remotely, define responsibilities, establish processes for returning to the office (even temporarily), and maintain checklists to ensure compliance with the standard, among other things.
In short, a series of points that often weren't a problem before now have to be formalized, and rather than creating a sense of certainty in the workplace, this can generate a series of obstacles that lead companies to reconsider whether this way of working is really the best option.
Right to Disconnect
Okay, we know it's important to set clear ground rules, like the right to disconnect, which means employees can step away from their work communication channels once their workday is over.
But turning that into something that requires processes, procedures, and constant checks makes it feel like the whole idea starts from a place of ongoing distrust that has to be continuously monitored, instead of simply giving employees the right to speak up if they feel their off-hours are being violated.
And from my perspective, that's the real problem with this standard: the level of specificity it applies to situations that can vary enormously from case to case. That means it won't always apply the same way to everyone, and it even requires that the company's health and safety committees, or labor authorities, have some say over a private space like someone's home. It's not that they can just walk into our houses, but the fact that there's a verification mechanism meant to determine, in precise physical and ergonomic terms, how someone is working in the space they proposed, can be a very different experience depending on whether someone has room at home to set up a proper office or has to make do with a corner of the dining table that's normally used for meals. That doesn't mean the person who chose the dining table isn't comfortable there, but now the company is, in a way, obligated to guarantee ergonomics based on standards as different as everyone's home.
Granted, conditions at home aren't always ideal for being productive — sometimes there's construction going on, or family is around, or the kids won't stop pulling pranks on camera — but plenty of companies have found a middle ground for that in hybrid schemes.
In other words, if you're not comfortable working from home today, you can go into the office or head to a coworking space. But now the standard requires companies to spell out exactly when that applies and when it doesn't, and to set up a protocol and a process for a situation that used to be resolved, more often than not, with a quick message and a phone call.
Who Does It Actually Apply To?
So who does this level of legal specificity actually make sense for? For companies, as I mentioned earlier, whose business model is genuinely built around remote work. For example, companies that run phone-based sales or customer service operations, where it's now more cost-effective to guarantee the systems and conditions in employees' homes than to invest in a large operations center.
In these cases, it probably does make sense to set up formal schemes, processes, and provide employees with the technology to do their jobs. But for companies that saw remote work as a perk for employees, or as an option to fall back on when needed, they'll now have to navigate a series of bureaucratic hurdles — and in most cases, companies may either turn a blind eye to the standard or simply call everyone back to the office to avoid the hassle.
That's why some news outlets have pointed out how much this law stands to benefit office space occupancy — a real estate sector that's been hit hard since the pandemic and has struggled to recover as home office arrangements stuck around. What a coincidence, right?
I'm convinced that the idea of a standard that regulates and guarantees employee rights is a good one, and that it should set out ground rules and a level playing field for everyone. For example, NOM-035 offers some flexibility around the "how" when it comes to setting obligations.
But this time around, I don't think every provision is workable in every situation, and where it isn't, companies will end up choosing informality or a return to the office instead — on top of that, it turns compliance into a bureaucratic exercise full of requirements. Just look at the annexes of the standard to see how many requirements there are for compliance and how to prove it. Compare that to NOM-035, which addresses an issue that's historically had a much bigger impact, and you'll see just how many points have to be documented.
Conclusion
Again, I'm not criticizing the intent, but the way this standard is structured can end up being more of a deterrent than an incentive. Still, considering that today's most competitive talent demands greater flexibility and more control over what they do and where they do it, whenever the nature of the work allows for it, companies need to start figuring out how to guarantee this arrangement without so much red tape. Outsourcing the task to an external consultancy that can handle the paperwork and legal compliance is a good option, so the company can stay focused on what it does best.
The problem is that, ultimately, if we choose to eliminate remote work from our companies altogether, we'll almost certainly lose competitiveness as an employer and become less attractive to the most talented people out there.
In conclusion, if you want to comply with this standard, you'll need solid guidance to make sure your policy and processes account for every catch and condition that might apply to your company and your employees' particular situations. It's still doable — it's just that now they've made it harder, and we'll have to invest more to get there.
