{"id":8672,"date":"2026-04-20T07:36:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T05:36:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/?post_type=agora_article&p=8672"},"modified":"2026-04-20T15:19:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T13:19:03","slug":"workplace-vs-worksphere","status":"publish","type":"agora_article","link":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/","title":{"rendered":"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/i><\/div>
Previous<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/i><\/div>
Previous<\/span><\/div><\/div>
Next<\/span><\/div>
<\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Next<\/span><\/div>
<\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
Agora #96<\/span><\/div>
6 - 11<\/span><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.<\/span><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>\n
<\/div>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Union Syndicale often supports cases that highlight the shift from traditional to contemporary workspaces. One case, described below with duly respect to anonomity, is one our Union supports legally. This is a topic we can no longer ignore.<\/p>\n

My analysis examines the realities faced by workers without claiming to be entirely impartial or to cover every possible approach. It focuses on the psychosocial risks associated with the deterritorialisation of work and on the potential role of trade unions, whilst acknowledging that remote working and the worksphere can also offer opportunities in terms of flexibility and autonomy.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

The story of PJ and the EIT<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

In spring 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping across Europe, PJ was working at the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Her job was officially based in Budapest, where she usually lived, while her family lived in Cologne with her partner and two children. Before the health crisis, she maintained a fragile balance by joining her family in Germany every weekend while working in Hungary. This arrangement, although challenging, was sustainable and in line with her statutory obligations. PJ’s experience in the face of the pandemic crisis illustrates the central issue of this chapter: analysing how the organization of work, historically based on territorial anchoring and physical presence, is being challenged by the widespread adoption of teleworking and the need to balance professional and family life, thus laying the groundwork for examining the structural tensions between territorial labor law and new forms of professional mobility at the European level[1]<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The widespread adoption of remote working is changing the game. Although accelerated digitalisation in EU institutions allows for remote working, the EIT’s internal rules are becoming stricter. Teleworking from abroad is becoming the exception, with physical presence remaining the norm, even during the pandemic. However, quarantines, cancelled flights, and restrictions make it virtually impossible for PJ to return to Hungary regularly. She therefore requests temporary authorisation to telework from Cologne until the health measures stabilise.<\/p>\n

The EIT twice refused this request, offering brief justifications that were not well supported by the service’s actual needs. The family and psychological difficulties faced by PJ\u2014being away from her children, increased exposure to health risks, and travel fatigue\u2014were not really taken into consideration. With the support of the Union Syndicale, PJ brought the case before the EU Court, which was then faced with the question of whether, in the exceptional context of the health crisis, the Administration could maintain a strict requirement for physical presence even though the material conditions of work had changed profoundly.<\/p>\n

The Court notes that the decision of the Director of the EIT lacks justification, that PJ’s situation raises an \u201cunprecedented and delicate\u201d question regarding the interpretation of the residence requirement for staff of European institutions, and that the impact on his family life constitutes serious and irreparable harm. It therefore orders the suspension of the EIT’s decision and authorises teleworking from the place where his family is located.<\/p>\n

The case of PJ v. EIT highlights a structural tension that currently exists across all legal systems and organizations: on the one hand, labor law historically structured around the concept of place\u2014whether place of assignment, mandatory residence, tax residence, or place of work\u2014and, on the other hand, a contemporary reality where work tends to be organized in a distributed, flexible, and transnational manner.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

[1]<\/span><\/a> Remote workers and their right to disconnect: regulating telework in the EU<\/a> – EURES. 2022. \u2013 Access 02\/03\/2026<\/span><\/sub><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Enter the worksphere<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

This case illustrates the change we need to understand. We need to shift our perspective and rely on a different theoretical framework: the worksphere<\/em><\/strong>. In their study, Workplace Reloaded. Ensuring Well-Being in the Modern \u2018Worksphere\u2019<\/em><\/strong>, presented at the 6th annual ETUI conference on \u2018The Future of Work\u2019, L. Ratti, A. Kornadt, N. Potocka-Sionek, and C. V\u00f6gele introduce the concept of the worksphere. The worksphere refers to the entire environment in which work occurs, encompassing all settings\u2014physical, digital, and cross-border\u2014where professional activities and interactions happen. In the worksphere, technological, organisational, and social transformations have broken the spatial anchorage of work, which was once centred on a single place\u2014the workplace\u2014a place of production, supervision, and sociability. Professional identity is no longer understood as dependent on a fixed workspace, but is integrated into an ecosystem of private, digital and cross-border locations. This model gives way to a dispersed, fluid, and distributed professional sphere, where the boundaries between private and professional space become porous. This theory reveals a structural shift: work is deterritorialized, while legal regulation remains tied to the geographical location of the service.<\/p>\n

Thus, the PJ case eloquently reveals both the limitations of a right linked to territoriality and the relevance of mobilising the worksphere as a theoretical framework for rethinking the norms of residence, presence, and work organisation in light of the real dynamics of contemporary work.<\/p>\n

According to the analytical framework presented to us by Luca RATTI, associate professor of comparative European labour law at the University of Luxembourg, the worksphere is defined by three characteristics: it is spread out, fluid, and distributed. Here, ‘worksphere’ refers to the environment or context in which work takes place, encompassing its organisation, boundaries, and interactions.<\/p>\n

Spread-out<\/strong><\/em>: work is no longer localised in a single physical space (the office, factory, administration), but is spread across a multitude of physical or digital locations. The home becomes a workplace. Transportation, third places, and digital platforms can serve as locations for professional activity. The boundaries between personal, family, and professional spaces overlap, sometimes to the point of becoming indistinguishable.<\/p>\n

Fluid<\/strong><\/em>: the worksphere has no stable form. It evolves according to organisational needs, personal constraints, and health, economic, or technological contexts. This fluidity is reflected in constantly changing workplaces, flexible schedules, multiple modes of presence (synchronous, asynchronous, hybrid), and the ability to quickly switch between personal and professional roles. It also implies a porosity of time: work, rest, family, and mobility are no longer compartmentalised. Work permeates everyday life, making the work sphere a shifting environment, more of a dynamic than a space.<\/p>\n

Distributed<\/strong><\/em>: the worksphere is no longer centred on a single location or a single organisational entity. It is located wherever professional activity can be carried out. This means that work extends geographically (transnational scales, remote working, dispersed teams), structurally (multiple platforms, digital devices, organisational networks), and functionally (work distributed across multiple environments, tools, and media). From this perspective, the unity of the workplace is disappearing in favour of an ecosystem of interconnected spaces, which in EU institutions and organisations are often cross-border.<\/p>\n

The contribution of Ratti and his co-authors thus provides a relevant conceptual framework for analysing how legal regulation, still focused on geographical location, now confronts the reality of digitised and distributed work.<\/p>\n

This pressure, at the heart of contemporary work’s evolution, raises questions about the relevance of traditional legal concepts such as the workplace, residence, physical presence, and place of recruitment. These concepts now need to be adapted to an economy in which production occurs within a broader sphere of activity, encompassing professional, personal, and family dimensions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

Trade union issues and courses of action<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

The Worksphere requires trade unions to radically redefine their priorities to focus on preventing and managing psychosocial risks (PSRs).<\/p>\n

The deterritorialization of work is undermining traditional collective reference points: it is extending activity into private spaces, multiplying time frames, increasing the porosity between personal and professional life, and exposing workers to new forms of mental strain: isolation, organisational precariousness, and hyper-availability. In this context, unions must develop tools to map this dispersion and its effects. They need to assess the impact of forced mobility, the contradictory demands of hybrid work, the risks of self-monitoring associated with intensive teleworking, and family tensions due to the inability to disconnect. They must also strengthen their intervention in the digital sphere (surveillance, cognitive load, attention fragmentation) and adapt social dialogue related to the prevention of psychosocial risks by integrating emotional management, mental health, geographical stability, and the prevention of isolation.<\/p>\n

To facilitate the transition from theory to practice, unions can take several concrete actions. Set up joint working groups that bring together employee representatives, experts, and volunteers to map the specific needs of distributed work. Conduct surveys among workers to identify risk situations and priority expectations. Test or pilot anonymous reporting tools to quickly detect problematic situations. Organise workshops to exchange on practices for preventing psychosocial risks related to teleworking and managing complex family situations. Ask employers to open negotiations dedicated to defining protocols for disconnection and geographical stability. These initial measures would already provide an operational basis for strengthening worker protection and anchoring the new realities of the worksphere within collective mechanisms.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

The stakes are twofold: on the one hand, ensuring effective protection for workers in an environment where risks are evolving, spreading, and becoming more complex; and on the other hand, rethinking collective standards such as the right to disconnect, guarantees against forced mobility, and the regulation of transnational teleworking. The aim is to ensure that the structural flexibility of the worksphere does not increase workers’ vulnerability. In this context, trade unions play a central role in negotiating prevention frameworks adapted to a world of work that is now constantly evolving.<\/p>\n

From a legal standpoint, these initiatives often encounter significant obstacles. Statutory texts, internal regulations, or case law may oppose the relaxation of territorial rules, citing residency requirements, tax constraints, or the interests of the service. Employers may also justify their position by citing the need for administrative harmonisation or concerns related to data security and remote team management. Conversely, some departments within EU agencies hide behind the authority of the European Commission, while claiming prerogatives of autonomy in HR matters.<\/p>\n

In this context, union representatives must anticipate the scope for negotiation, prepare for sustained discussions with management, mobilise arguments based on organisational feasibility, and, if necessary, seek independent legal expertise to support their demands. At the same time, the impact of rigid statutory frameworks on the mental health and psychosocial well-being of the employees concerned should not be underestimated. The inability to adapt the workplace to their reality can increase stress, foster a sense of injustice, cause fatigue due to forced travel, and, in some cases, exacerbate social isolation. These difficulties demonstrate that legal resistance and psychosocial risks feed on each other, underscoring the need for coordinated responses among legal teams and prevention stakeholders.[1]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

[1]<\/span><\/a> ERB, Louis-Alexandre. “Les risques psychosociaux associ\u00e9s au d\u00e9veloppement du t\u00e9l\u00e9travail<\/a>.” DARES (2025). In French – access\u00a0 02\/03\/2026<\/sub><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

<\/div>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

Operational tools<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

To make prevention effective, it appears necessary for unions to deploy a coherent set of tools, prioritising their implementation by urgency and potential impact to optimise resource allocation. For example, establishing anonymous reporting mechanisms and developing disconnection protocols are priorities, as they enable rapid detection of critical situations and provide immediate protection for mental health.<\/p>\n

Mobility mapping and \u201cnew generation\u201d psychosocial risk assessments are also major levers for targeting union action where the risks are most pronounced. (\u201cMapping of union positions on mental health at work\u201d 2023) In some administrations, bodies already exist and only need to be strengthened:<\/p>\n

Anonymous reporting mechanisms<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Secure channels dedicated to hybrid work challenges: digital overload, prolonged isolation, scheduling conflicts, family tensions related to inability to disconnect, and transnational constraints.<\/p>\n

Mapping of mobility trajectories<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Collection and analysis of business travel (weekly, cross-border, subject to health or logistical uncertainties) in order to assess its impact on fatigue, stress, and life time, and to objectively assess requests for geographical stability.<\/p>\n

\u201cNew generation\u201d psychosocial risk assessments<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Integration of variables specific to the worksphere: digital coordination load (serial meetings, multitooling), attentional fragmentation, permanent availability (instant messaging, time zones), relational isolation.<\/p>\n

Ergonomic audits of home<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Voluntary and confidential assessment of the physical conditions for teleworking (dedicated space, noise, equipment, security), with recommendations and co-financed corrective measures (equipment, soundproofing, chairs, screens).<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Disconnection protocols and digital silence hours.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

These digital silence hours have been shown to have beneficial effects on health: a 2022 study conducted at the University of Bielefeld, for example, found a significant reduction in cortisol levels among teleworkers who benefited from a strict digital break protocol, reflecting better stress management and increased protection of mental well-being. By explicitly linking the rule to observed health benefits, unions facilitate managerial buy-in and strengthen the legitimacy of disconnection protocols.<\/p>\n

Definition of enforceable non-solicitation periods, for example, a protected slot from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during which no work-related solicitations (emails, messages, calls) are tolerated, except in cases of explicit emergency. Limitations of notifications, automatic technical settings (statuses, delayed sending), and workload indicators are shared in the CPPT\/Joint Committee.<\/p>\n

Digital risk prevention workshops<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Training on email management, preventing hyper-connectivity, attention strategies (batching, meeting quotas, optional cameras, maximum durations), and digital hygiene.<\/p>\n

Support dedicated to complex family situations<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Support units (lawyers, psychologists, HR) for cases of cross-border custody, dependent relatives, or multiple residences, with procedures for exemptions from attendance rules.<\/p>\n

Hybrid committees to monitor remote working<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Joint bodies (occupational physician, HSE, lawyer, psychologist, elected representatives) are responsible for continuously monitoring the effects of geographical dispersion, detecting emerging risks, and proposing immediate adjustments (pilot projects, quarterly reviews).<\/p>\n

These mechanisms, which combine listening, assessment, and negotiation, often make invisible risks visible and enable the adaptation of prevention measures to the changing realities of the workplace. For example, an anonymous reporting system enables isolated employees to quickly report psychosocial difficulties arising from intensive telework. This approach may lead the employer to adapt the organisation of work or offer appropriate psychological support.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

<\/div>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The PJ v. EIT case is a concrete illustration of a structural transformation: the gradual disappearance of the traditional workplace in favour of a dispersed, fluid, and distributed worksphere. This case highlights the limitations of norms based on territoriality and underscores the need to rethink legal categories such as workplace, residence, and presence in light of delocalized and connected work. The theory developed by L. Ratti and his co-authors provides a solid conceptual framework for understanding the real ecosystem of work and deducing new normative requirements. For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees. In this way, they become actors in a comprehensive prevention strategy, capable of taking into account the trajectories, temporalities, and vulnerabilities of work that no longer has a fixed anchor. Only then can the flexibility of the worksphere be accompanied by effective guarantees in terms of protection, dignity, and health at work.<\/p>\n

Faced with these urgent challenges, it is time to take concrete action. All employee representatives and union representatives should initiate dialogue within their institutions. They should put these issues on the agenda or, on a trial basis, launch one of the tools presented here. Every action, no matter how small, contributes to building collective responses and to ensuring that workplace changes are not made at the expense of workers or without their input.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

EMMANUEL WIETZEL<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
About the author<\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

An experienced trainer for trade unions (CGT, ETUI, EPSU, USF, FERPA, Eurocadres), Emmanuel Wietzel has been supporting social movement actors in analysing European issues for many years. As an advisor on trade union issues, he brings his expertise to bear on collective strategies to address changes in the world of work. He is currently focusing his attention on the impact of AI on work. He is also working on the renewed role of trade unionism. This dual experience, both practical and analytical, informs his contribution to debates on the future of work and collective representation in Europe.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false},"agora_edition":[137],"class_list":["post-8672","agora_article","type-agora_article","status-publish","hentry","agora_edition-agora-96"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Union Syndicale\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-20T13:19:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/agora_article\\\/workplace-vs-worksphere\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/agora_article\\\/workplace-vs-worksphere\\\/\",\"name\":\"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-20T05:36:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-20T13:19:03+00:00\",\"description\":\"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/agora_article\\\/workplace-vs-worksphere\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/agora_article\\\/workplace-vs-worksphere\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/agora_article\\\/workplace-vs-worksphere\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Union Syndicale\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/unionsyndicale.eu\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale","description":"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale","og_description":"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.","og_url":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/","og_site_name":"Union Syndicale","article_modified_time":"2026-04-20T13:19:03+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/","url":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/","name":"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE - Union Syndicale","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-20T05:36:38+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-20T13:19:03+00:00","description":"For trade unions, the task is both to design tools adapted to the risks associated with mobility and to renegotiate collective guarantees.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/workplace-vs-worksphere\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"WORKPLACE vs WORKSPHERE"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/","name":"Union Syndicale","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/agora_article\/8672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/agora_article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/agora_article"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"agora_edition","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/agora_edition?post=8672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}