A decision last week about work-from-home accommodations(便利安排；通融) carries implications far beyond(影响远超) the modern workplace and into the realm of(……的领域) a refreshingly material understanding of existential(存在主义的；关乎存在的) limitation.
上周一项关于居家办公便利安排的裁决，其影响远远超出了现代职场，进入了一个令人耳目一新的、从物质层面理解存在局限的领域。
It was only in July that Australia’s Fair Work Commission(公平工作委员会) rejected the request from a full-time council employee, Steven Polak, to reduce his days in the office from two a week to one. Polak argued that as he was over 55 and experiencing a work-related fatigue his obliged commute was exacerbating.(波拉克辩称，由于他年过55岁且正经历与工作相关的疲劳，被迫通勤正在加剧这种疲劳。)
就在今年7月，澳大利亚公平工作委员会驳回了一名全职市政雇员史蒂文·波拉克的请求，他要求将每周到办公室的天数从两天减少到一天。波拉克辩称，他年过55岁，正经历与工作相关的疲劳，而被迫通勤正在加剧这种疲劳。
Fair Work sided with(站在……一边；支持) his employer, accepting the council’s argument that substantial turnover(人员流动率；营业额) in his team and a dearth(缺乏；稀少) of long-serving employees were reasonable business grounds(合理的商业理由) to oblige the continued maximisation of Polak’s in-person presence(亲自到场).
公平工作委员会站在了雇主一边，接受了市政厅的论点：其团队人员流动率高、长期任职员工稀缺，这些是要求波拉克继续最大限度到岗的合理商业理由。