‘Bloody ridiculous’: Aussies fire up at controversial work from home suggestion

Workers have fired up at a controversial suggestion on how to change remote work in Australia – but not everyone is against the “ridiculous” idea.

Should you get paid less simply because you work from home?

While many may think the answer is obvious – particularly in our post-Covid world where remote and hybrid work has become the norm for many industries – the question has turned out to be a surprisingly contentious one.

In a recent survey, news.com.au asked Aussies whether they thought those who work from home should be paid less than in-office workers doing the same role.

While the majority of the more than 13,200 respondents were against the idea, a surprising amount thought the suggestion was reasonable.

Just over 60 per cent of respondents believed that pay should be based on the work and performance of the employee, not the location where the work is being done.

However, 37 per cent, or around 4900 people, thought the idea of paying remote workers less was a good one and that people should be rewarded for going into the office.

The question was also posed on news.com.au’s Facebook page, with a significant amount of commenters explaining why they thought those who go into the office deserve higher salaries than their work from home counterparts.

An increasing number of employers have been pushing staff to return to the office. Picture: iStock

Many argued that those who work from home don’t incur as many costs as those travelling into the office and, therefore, office staff should be compensated accordingly.

“WFH should be paid less in my opinion as workers that have to go to the workplace pay for fuel, clothing that otherwise wouldn’t be needed working from home,” one social media user said.

“Those at home could potentially get their washing done or other house duties that the workplace would never know. Just my opinion.”

“Yes they should be paid less. WFH you don’t have costs like you do WFO,” another wrote.

One commenter claimed remote workers were “essentially earning more money” already due to not having to shoulder the extra cost of travelling to the office.

According to another respondent, an extra $100 a day for on-site workers would be reasonable.

Another claimed that remote workers should only be able to be paid as contractors.

“The reality is these people want to work from home so they can dodge off here and there to deal with their daily lives,” they claimed.

The person added that while they didn’t have any “problem” with people who want to work from home, they should be contracted so they only get paid if there is work to do, and if there is no specific piece of work that needs to be done, then they don’t get paid.

Someone else said that paying on-site workers more money was only reasonable as they “take on that bit extra” by just being in the office.

“They are on the ground dealing with whatever comes their way. Meanwhile, those who stay at home get to do washing and other household chores, be home for maintenance people, have pets to keep them calm, get up and have a feed when they want, maybe even catch up with someone for a coffee,” they wrote.

A surprising number of Aussie’s think people should be taking a pay cut if they work from home. Picture: iStock

Multiple other people questioned why people were still working from home, claiming there is not longer a “need for it” as Covid lockdowns are long gone.

These comments were in stark contrast from those on the other side of the debate, who argued people who worked remotely have less distractions and are therefore able to do more work in a day, compared to those in the office.

“My partner WFH and finds he can knock out his work far more efficiently without distraction and has the bonus of not feeling rushed and stressed to get to the office,” one person said.

“When he does go in he always comes home feeling like it was an utter waste of a work day and barely gets 1/2 of what he could have achieved.”

One wrote: “You’re paid for the work you do, which is the same as when you’re in the office. Being at a specific location shouldn’t determine how much you’re paid. That’s bloody ridiculous.”

Even in-office workers chimed in, with one person saying that, while they choose to go into the office every day, they understand their remote workers add just as much value to the team.

Another commenter warned that if an employer was to start paying their WFH staff less for doing the same job as those in the office, then they would start seeing productivity decrease significantly to match the lower salary.

“Basically you are asking here is should businesses pay more for the privilege of being able to directly monitor their workers output,” they wrote.

“Historically this has resulted in a disgruntled workforce and people quitting managers they dislike breathing down their neck in order to justify their presence.”

Others even suggested that, if anything, people who worked from home should be “paid more”, pointing out that having people work remotely means they can spend less on rent as not as much office space is needed, long with reducing other expenses incurred by have people on site.

The working from home salary debate has divided Aussies.

While many Aussies may find the idea of reducing someone’s pay purely because they don’t go into the office “ridiculous”, it is clear there is a growing sentiment that in-office workers should be rewarded for making the effort to be on-site.

Recent research found that more than one-third of large Australian employers are planning to reduce the pay of staff who continue to work from home in the next three to five years.

The Future of Work Report 2023, published in October 2023 by law firm Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), found 37 per cent of employers surveyed have plans to “differentiate” pay between remote and in-office staff.

The report surveyed 500 senior managers at companies with more than 1000 employees around the world, including 100 respondents in Australia.

Thirty-eight per cent of managers said they would expect working remotely will become a privilege earned through trust and seniority as companies explore “options for influencing staff’s working preferences through more formal incentivisation”.

Aussie workers have also been warned that the time of employees having a lot of the bargaining power is coming to an end, with workplaces already starting to see a big shift in favour of employers.

The 2024 Employment and Salary Trends Report from people2people Recruitment found the worsening cost-of-living crisis and a growing fear of job cuts is behind the power shift, with workers now looking to retain their jobs rather than risk trying to find new work.

More than 70 per cent of employees surveyed revealed they were hesitant to seek new roles due to global economic uncertainty, with 64 per cent expressing heightened financial concerns compared to 2023.

Craig Sneesby, managing director of u&u Recruitment Partners, said that, due to this power shift, employers are going to be able to make more demands that staff may have previously pushed back on, including scaling back remote work and bringing employees back into the office.

He also warned that in-office workers may have a leg up when it comes to be considered for promotions and pay rises.

“If there are two deserving employees who are producing similar results fighting for one promotion then managers are naturally going to side with the person who is contributing more to their organisation from a holistic standpoint,” Mr Sneesby said.