I suggest that the state starts to promote homeworking more actively in the form of subsidies, incentives and the like. This is because employers can save money on travel costs for employees, electricity, heating, snacks, and research also shows that people who work from home have significantly reduced stress, pressure and increased efficiency. Employees can spread their working time as they wish, which takes a lot of pressure off parents with young children and people caring for an elderly relative, for example. People who work from home are also much less likely to need sick leave: take for example an allergist, an asmatics or a person with glaucoma - all of them have a minimum of 2-3 specialist appointments a year; since specialists in hospitals do not work afternoons, the employee is forced to take sick leave. If the employer allows flexible working hours this is of course not a problem, but unfortunately many employers are very inflexible about this. That is why home working is also one of the means of saving money in the health coffers.
I believe that many jobs are not suitable for this form of work; however, there are also many jobs that would be more efficient if employees worked from home. Take, for example, a commercial person who writes quotations for hardware - the market: the whole world. This commercialist benefits greatly from working from home because he schedules his working hours according to the time of the client: for example, if he has a client in Brazil, he will work in the afternoon; if he has a client in Russia, he will get up a little earlier. Unfortunately, employers here behave as if they own their employees and think that they are more efficient if they have a superior breathing down their neck. Moreover, most of them are completely open to innovation of any kind, so the state has to 'force' or 'entice' them to think differently.