Would You Take a Pay Cut to Continue to Work From Home?

I've been talking to some peers at competitors and they have mentioned they are being forced back to the office, much to their displeasure.

I was wondering if you would take a pay cut to retain the increased standard of living you experience at home, e.g. decreased transport costs, lowered risk of flu, increased social life, increased leisure time, and more.

If you would accept a pay cut, how much would be acceptable? I'll let the mods determine whether they want to create a poll.

Disclaimer/Background: I'm both a businessperson and employee. I'm technically an intrapreneur at the moment. Undoubtedly I have seen some people exploit work from home, but for others it has increased productivity. The problem I foresee in growing the business I am part of (have equity), is who to cut and whether we instead keep them on but at a reduced pay packet. Ultimately, reduced pay may lead to better outcomes for the workers as they will have less expenses, otherwise we must let people go.

Basically I want to see what the waters would be acceptable to both employee and employer. A lot of the competition are currently making decisions and it seems like they are going down the path of forcing people back to the office to try and improve productivity, but I personally believe the habits and lost productivity from those workers may not ever return. What are your opinions?

Comments

  •  

    There is no “one size fits all” answer.

    The argument that the company is saving money is pretty unlikely…unless their lease expired and they were able to downsize their office space already they likely still have this fixed cost (office leases are typically 5-10 years fixed term, the cost of Fitout is usually amortised over 10 years so most companies have not realised a financial benefit from having staff at home at least when it comes to office rent)

    To my understanding a lot of jobs will pay more in say Sydney compared to say Brisbane, based on supply/demand and cost of living factors - In this example an equivalent qualified employee earns more in Sydney but has a higher cost of living. Now let’s assume WFH became more prevalent in this employee’s industry, this could significantly increase the talent pool as people from any location could theoretically fill the role, causing an over supply of talent which would likely lead to a reduction in salary. Management would also lose the justification to pay more to attract talent to a role in a certain location based on cost of living factors as the role is now remote.

    •  

      It will be interesting the effect of remote work on wages.

      I wonder if it will have an affect on job creation also

  • +6 votes

    I guess I am one of the few who don't like WFH, as a single person and my pc is in the same room as my bed, basically, I roll out bed in the morning and switch on the pc to go to work, at the end of the day, i switch off my pc and roll back into bed again, it might sound like the dream for some, but looking at the same 4 walls 24/7 gets old really quickly, at least for me. Yeah yeah I go out and do grocery shopping and buy coffee too, but I also do that pre-COVID.

    but for those who has family and long commute will no doubt love the extra free time they have. My drive to work is 30-45mins each way so it is not totally unbearable for me.

    as far as pay cut goes, if it happens I guess I will have to suck it up, but I would probably be more motivated to change jobs (long overdue as it is, but chose to stay put until this COVID thing blows over).

    as for productivity, at least in my personal experience, some people seem to treat it as a free pass to run errands and do other stuff during the workday, whether that translates to increase or decrease in productivity, I have no idea as I am not privvy to those information/data.

    anyway, as someone has pointed out in another thread - be careful what you wish for, if your job can be done 100% from remotely, then does it really need to be done in your city/state, or even in Australia?

    • +1 vote

      Good response - I went from living like that to my own separate office and I still feel much the same about wfh.
      I feel like some people are lying to themselves that their productivity is the same or better at home because of the other assorted benefits and then there are those who are truly taking the piss with it

  • +6 votes

    You might struggle to keep your job at all if you want to work from home. Why would an employer pay you to do a job that you demonstrate can be done remotely when there are heaps of overseas people who can and will do the same job far cheaper?
    It would be highly advisable to immediately find reasons why your boss needs you to be physically present at the office, surely?
    Unless you fancy trying to match $2/hr. Dangerous times for employees once the penny drops for employers.

    •  

      This.
      Be your own boss or find out you're just a number sooner or later.

  •  

    If my work suggested this, the entire workforce would see it for what it is, baseless penny pinching.

    Don't be surprised at losing your good performers to more humane, less grinchy competitors in the 6-12m after implementing a plan like this.

  • +1 vote

    Nah, no way i'm taking a pay cut to work from home. If they don't allow me to work from home (IT) or they want to reduce my salary for it, they don't deserve my time.

  • +2 votes

    They know you (profanity) plebs aren't working from home, that's why they're getting your fat asses back into the office.

  •  

    If anything the pay should go up if WFH due to the reduced costs to the business and increased productivity, assuming the business puts the correct systems/processes/management/support etc in place.

    If it means staff will lose their job I’d happily take a pay cut for a set period of time assuming the business starts making more money by that time.

  • +2 votes

    Non-sequitur, absolutely non-sequitur.

    So a business has invested in a workspace (owned or rented) and discovers they no longer need as much or even any workspace, and you're asking on top for people to accept ANY pay cut?

    What the actual (profanity)?

    0%. If not, I'll go work at some other forward thinking company and leave you to suffer brain drain. Good day sir.

  • +2 votes

    I’d expect a pay increase to work from home, let me explain:

    I took a job specifically for the reduced travel time and facilities in the work place. If I am to setup or forgo a similar work environment while working from home; (desk,chairs, IT equip) and use my own power/internet, then I’d expect to be compensated for it.

    •  

      If I am to set up or forgo a similar work environment while working from home; (desk,chairs, IT equip)

      IT Equipment should really be provided by the business. I have done that for the business I work with, all employees have been provided with the equipment they require. Other equipment would depend on the business, but again, desk and chairs are tax deductable.

      use my own power/internet

      Fair enough, but it is tax deductable. Even if you don't WFH, internet can be deductable along with power and other house hold costs (heating etc).

  •  

    The costs of office rent is a fraction of the on costs for an employee which are typically about 20% on top of a perm equivalent salary.

    There is a portion of communication which is non verbal and non written so this can be lost and therefore the dynamic of an office environment is lost.

    I enjoyed WFH but full time it's a no from me.
    Tech companies with permant WFH policies… Look at these companies who are being needlessly celebrated like an Amazon and how they treat worked in other divisions.

    There is so much to this more than saving cents in the dollar.

  •  

    You should be paid MORE (not less) to work from home to compensate you for sacrificing part of your home as an office as well as the additional costs of providing your own internet, phone calls, stationary, electricity, heating and cleaning etc
    You are also more likely to work longer hours from home and they may not [pay you sick leave since you are already at home.

    •  

      You can (and should) claim deductions for those expenses if they're not otherwise covered by your employer - and you're right, the employer should pay to cover those costs.

      Working more from home due to the loss of work/home boundaries and the clear cut off times when those are separate places is definitely a concern.

      Not paying you sick leave would still be illegal, I don't think this will be all that much of a problem.

      For these reasons and more, I prefer to work from the office - have worked from home during the mandatory bits, but have worked from the office all the rest of the time (sometimes having the whole place to myself, which was nice).

  •  

    I would have taken a 20% cut but my employer was not entertaining any discussion from the mandatory return to office directive.

    It is a case of like it or leave (quit).

  • +6 votes

    from my experience (consultant engineering), a good percentage of my colleagues do a bare minimum next to nothing working from home - "Oooh. my VPN connection is slow so it takes 50 minutes to download a single drawing, so I have spent 8 hours so far and can't even start working…" and between the lines "but I have happily booked those 8 hours to the project". to be honest, based on their current productivity, they deserve a pay cut. I suspect they do gardening or something similar during working hours. our office now is a circus with people turning up randomly in the office for few hours and disappearing again.
    I am an employee so don't care at all but such underperformance affects the whole team, and the whole team looks miserable in the eyes of the client.

    •  

      People like that deserve a job cut.

    • +1 vote

      good, sincere workers are the same everywhere - home or in the office.
      they can work autonomously and take pride in the work they do.
      they might do school pick-ups but still have a sense of duty to their employee, and make it up.

      it's just the insincere and apathetic workers who are the scourge.
      they look for loopholes and exploit the work ethics and trust of others.

      this includes bad managers too, who don't understand their sub-ordinates,
      which creates a culture of distrust, killing any team morale and thus…more apathetic workers.

  •  

    increased standard of living you experience at home

    Wait, what?

    No, as someone that has had the freedom to work from home since 2013, I pretty much always work from the office. To be fair, that's walking distance from home, if I had to commute I might be less keen.

  •  

    Ha my work place didn't even have it as an option to take it away lol.. I was stood down during covid for 3 days a week and working the other 2 and still had to go into office for those 2 days… When June rolled around most company was in the office.. They make it known that there is no working from home and never will be… One of the reasons that I'll be handing in my resignation tomorrow… I don't advocate 100% from home for my line of work either as i manage others, but to not even offer ad hoc work from home is a bit over the top. There's pros and cons but if an employee has proven to be reliable and trustworthy through their employment… Then some flexibility should be standard, some jobs are probably fine from home (my wife is 100% work from home and does ridiculous hours)… Other jobs like mine are more suited for a day maybe 2 from home…

    •  

      some jobs are probably fine from home (my wife is 100% work from home and does ridiculous hours)

      This, I am in the same boat. I WFH full time and I do 50 hours a week most week.

  • +2 votes

    Absolutely No less pay. you are being paid to do a job.
    THe job value does not decrease because you are remote at all.
    If anything you should be paid an allowance, as this saves the business many costs, other than providing internet and office equipment which is paid for anyway at the office.

  •  

    Should it be the opposite of what you said about the pay? Business will have less cost and increased private cost in terms of electricity, internet and amenities.

    •  

      What about the cost of drastically reduced productivity? It is impossible to deny that some take advantage and do nearly nothing. By nothing, I mean, literally nothing apart from a couple of 2 line emails and muted teams meetings.

      •  

        Then that is the nature of your work and location does not matter.

      •  

        If an employee needs constant monitoring to make sure they are doing their job, then why are you still employing them?

        •  

          ^ This - you need to fire these people so that you don't introduce policies that causes your performing staff to quit. If you make a blanket statement about reduced productivity and therefore pay, don't expect your performing staff to stick around

  •  

    No. My office is two blocks away in the cbd.

  • +4 votes

    No, I wouldn't take a pay cut to work from home.

    In NOV 2019 until the start of the pandemic in VIC I was working 3 days at the office and 2 days at home. My car park was cancelled as I moved to a regional area and caught the train. My car park was a part of my contract, so I got that money in my pay which covered my Myki (which was great).

    At the start of the Pandemic, everyone worked from home. Upon further negotiation and discussions with work and a more flexible boss with systems + processes we put in during the pandemic, there are a few of us working from home full time, a few in the office spread over a few days. During the Pandemic, I was given a pay rise which was a huge surprise and I know very lucky for! So did some of the employees because we had actually done very well surprisingly with not too much loss of business.

    During the Pandemic, our NAS server connection broke at the office so I relocated it to my house to ensure that it can stay online and reduce the downtime of driving into the office, fixing it and driving back. I was able to negotiate with work that they pay for my internet connection which I got upgraded to be faster and I pay for the power required for all of the networking equipment + NAS etc saving me over $100 a month.

    So not only did I get a pay rise during COVID, I was able to get my internet connection paid for.

    In addition to that, all staff have a computer at home provided by the business and those in the office also have a computer there (unless they have a laptop, 50% desktop and 50% laptops for staff).

    This is for a business that has about 10 employees, a private office in a co-working space and pretty everything we do is online. The business saved additional money by removing 1 private office and moving into a smaller office (with more WFH full time) and saved an additional $$$ per month on office space, plus reduced the car parks required since we could share 2 car parks instead of having 5.

    The business has been very accommodating for ensuring staff have what they need both at the office now that we are back and at home. Hours are a lot more flexible across the board and many of start earlier and finish a bit earlier instead of staying back which used to happen a lot pre COVID.

    With all that being said, I am a hell of a lot more productive (along with other staff). I work around 50 hours a week without any travel and get a lot more done. Whilst I do sometimes miss the social stuff, I have calls with the team throughout the day and sometimes we talk crap. I get to spend more time with family (I have an almost 2 year old daughter), I get more down around the house since my wife doesn't WFH (she is a school teacher) and I feel better in myself without being exhausted with travel.

    I know I am lucky to get what I have. But if the boss wanted to give me a pay cut, I would be very annoyed because I work a lot more hours than I ever used too.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • -2 votes

      hope you are declaring all your work perks to the tax office.

  •  

    Lets say you are on a full time salary of 100k gross or $50 an hour.

    If the commute to work is 1 hour each way (lets say the time value is worth 2 x $50) and the costs of transportation of petrol, parking or public transport each way is $5/return $10, then its a daily cost of $110 a day or $550 a week or $28 600 a year - this cost is paid after tax

    Lets say your home electricity costs rise from working from home and you now need the fastest NBN internet plan - that may cost you an extra $2000 a year - which is now a tax deductible expense for 8 hours of the 24 hour day.

    So even a pay cut to 90-95k (5-10k cut) you end up 'better off' as you reduce expenses of transportation + your disposable time (over a 30 year career for a 1 hour one way commute, you end up spending 15 600 hours on transport = 650 days - you almost save 2 years of your life from not having a big daily commute) and you end up paying less income tax.

    • +1 vote

      That's irrelevant. Employees aren't paid based on their proximity to the office, the costs and time spent commuting are definitely unpaid. I didn't get a pay cut when I moved considerably closer to the office. I don't get paid more because I work further from the office while some people live only a few minutes from the office. When we moved office buildings they didn't work out where everyone lives and if they were getting a pay rise or pay cut depending on if their commute was increased or decreased.

      I would definitely find a new job if the company I worked for pulled that kind of bullshit, thankfully they never would though, which is one of the reasons I like working for them.

      On the other hand if companies are going to start paying people for their commute and make it a clear part of their remuneration, they can then take it away if people are working from home.

      •  

        It's truly irrelevant as anyone who was decent at a company who got hit with a cut to work from home would go to a different company to get that amount back again. Companies even considering these types of calculations really need to consider the motivations from differently performing staff and realise that this petty saving can really destroy them….

        It would also be a major downside for anyone who went out of their way to be closer to work if you averaged it and applied this sort of thinking across the board

  •  

    I would WFH full time - I would not take a pay cut

  •  

    Last job change I took a paycut and switched to a remote position with only occasional travel. But I think my overall savings has remained about the same as my expenses for work travel, clothing, take away lunches have reduced drastically.

    Not sure I'll happily be able to switch to a lower pay packet with same employer though. Will depend on the job market…

  • +3 votes

    , increased social life,

    not sure how WFH can increase my social life? it certainly didn't for me.

    That's why I mixed it up by going to the office twice a week to ensure I get that face to face interaction with colleagues / ex-colleagues / mates.

    Having said that, I think we should rethink the term WFH to now be working remotely. From various conversations with random stranger or with colleagues, I found that it appears to be acceptable for work to be conducted outside home, e.g the random stranger I met while on holiday mentioned he took his work calls while walking at the beach & enjoying the view.

    Another example was one of the executive director at my place of work, took her work calls while on snowboarding trip! When asked by other meeting attendees about the background noise, she apologised saying it was the wind as she's on the chairlift. Unconventional and probably not something to be done on a regular basis but hey, i'd love to try it one day :)

    •  

      I think increased social life if your friends are also WFM but not actually at a desk…seems less productive in nature than being in an office.

  • +1 vote

    No. I get more work done at home than I ever did in the office (no travel time, less interruptions etc) and the company can choose to use less office space if more people WFH. If anything they should be paying more.

    I understand that providing office space, a desk etc can add around 30% in costs over and above what an employer pays you in salary. A lot of that expense can go away if people WFH.

    My employer did a survey about returning to the office and the results were overwhelmingly in favour of WFH. They've left it up to individual teams and managers as to what works for them. Looks like for me this will mean going in for one day a fortnight. Happy with that.

  • +2 votes

    WFH is one step closer to uberisation of the workforce. The government is resistant to complete uberisation of the workforce because it becomes harder to tax the work force. Right now taxing lower and middle income workers is low hanging fruit for the ATO.

  • +2 votes

    The way I see it is I am paid for my work and not for my attendance.

    I should get a pay raise for WFH and saving them real estate money

  •  

    For me it makes no sense to work from office when all the work can be done from home. Will I take a pay cut for that depends on many factors but my answer is most likely to be nope. I would rather have my employer provide me all amenities and pay for office they want it like that but not going to take a pay cut. That would effectively mean me looking for another employer who gives me more pay. Prices of goods, services and land has not gone down so don't see many people taking a pay cut for anything.

  • +1 vote

    In our workplace, we are lucky enough which I wouldn't classify as progressive but we were given the option of working up to 2 days per week from home a week for non client facing staff.

    WFH suits me better, in an ideal world I'd do 3 days wfh and 2 days in office but that won't float. I'm not a socialiser.

  • +4 votes

    Those with children under school age must pay for daycare otherwise it's literally impossible to work from home. Office is still more productive.

    •  

      That all depends on how you raise your kids and if you’re prepared to work later than usual to make up for a difficult day with the kids.

      • +3 votes

        I could. But what if there is communication and correspondence that needs to be handled during business hours? Clients can't wait until you're finished babysitting and start work at 8pm.

      • +2 votes

        Comments I'd made from other threads seemed to put me in to the group of "you're the only person this is happening to", but since covid the creep of hours to be made available had increased, that increase has been pushed heavily by those in the company with children (the majority) who they're looking after during the day.

        Moving meetings to earlier and later times (from 5am till 11pm start times) which have become regular and the normal for the last nearly year now.
        Those same people are nearly impossible to contact or get a useful response from during regular working hours now.

        Unreliable parents from the workplace have (in my situation) become more unreliable and uncontactable since covid.

        • +1 vote

          The parents where I work do normal hours, occasionally they'll need to deal with child stuff, most childcare arrangements are back in place though. There was a while there when people had to have their children at home, but it wasn't very disruptive. A child might pop up in a meeting or someone needs to step away for a few minutes and the meeting continued without them. Sometimes they'd take a few hours out and get back to work after the children had gone to bed, but it was their individual work so no impact on others.

          Occasionally there was a bit of humour with a child calling out for their bottom to be wiped or they started undressing in the background while their parent was oblivious and someone would have to let them know, or their children would jump the fence and they'd have to go and chase them. Sometimes they'd get up and come out for a morning cuddle. Honestly, it made the day slightly less tedious when we were on a very stressful project in the middle of a pandemic. The parents in the team were doing an incredible amount of work to a high standard as usual.

          I think the parents are grateful to have childcare arrangements back in place though, it was more work for them. Working from home they still get to spend more time with their children though, just not juggling children and work and having to make up time later.

      •  

        Most company policies don't allow you to be the primary carer of children while at work - nor should they but this hasn't really been enforced during these difficult times. For young children that need proper supervision this is either a disaster waiting to happen or a complete lack of focus and productivity at work (where the latter is the preferable option of the two).

    • +2 votes

      as borne out by multiple studies. its sad that those in employment constantly belittle welfare recipients, whilst wanting the same pay for being less productive if working from home due to covid.

    •  

      Depends on the person. I have 1-2 little kids at home some days and can work effectively with them around. My wife can't however.

  •  

    No, I'd find work elsewhere that would accommodate.

  • +6 votes

    As a business owner, having staff work from home has decreased staff productivity significantly.

    Even with all systems in place and endless zoom meetings, you just can't get away from the fact that MOST people are never going to be as focused, working in PJ's, stuffing around with kids and dogs, watching youtube here and there, being on socials, running errands that would've normally been put off to the weekend and so forth.

    Hell even I find it a challenge working at home and its my business!

    Also being in an office surrounded by your peeirs and managers just makes things so much more efficient - and a proper culture can be built/maintained.

    The extra "expenses" it costs to have people working in an office pales in comparison to the increased productivity.

    • +2 votes

      I'm afraid that in this forum even though everything you write is entirely logical that you are in a tiny minority. Way 2 many still employed without penalty have had a great time.

    • +3 votes

      It looks like you just have the wrong kind of people working for you. Productivity in our workplace has increased significantly since we started working from home, and we intend to keep it this way. If someone won't do their job unless they're being "supervised", they probably should be asked to leave.

      The only people who are asking for working from the office to be reinstated at our place seems to be some managers, because they're probably afraid that it would become apparent that there's no need for them to "manage" anyone.

      •  

        not all businesses work in the same way or perform the same functions. what exactly is your business?

        •  

          what exactly is your business?

          Research, consulting, software development.

          I'd agree with you on the fact that the nature of business will have an impact on this. I am also curious to know what exactly do you specifically disagree with in my comment above, if any? (disregarding the fact that the nature of business will of course matter)

          •  

            @CocaKoala: Issues of control relate to dispersed working. These can be controlled via software in some very specific situations. Survey work these days is a bit of a joke though well paid.

            When workflow is not tightly controlled with checks and balances then it is only of subjective value. Many clients don't care.

            •  

              @petry: That's my point. When there's an issue of control, it becomes a matter of time before entropy takes over.

              People like that they do where I'm at, and there's hardly any need for one to control another. Things just get done as always regardless of where everyone is working from.

              •  

                @CocaKoala: 'It will be all too easy for our somewhat artificial prosperity to collapse overnight when it is realized that the use of a few exciting words like information, entropy, redundancy, do not solve all our problems.'

                shannon

                •  

                  @petry: I like sweet potato fries, if we are going to talk about things that are not relevant to this discussion.

                  • -3 votes

                    @CocaKoala: If claude shannon isn't relevant to entropy, which was your choice of relevant words to this subject, then clearly remote communication with your is near impossible. i wish your 'employees' better luck.

                    •  

                      @petry: I should have made it easier for you to understand.

                      What I meant was that your picking on just one word that I used and quoting something on that as if it somehow invalidates my core argument was a strawman, and highly irrelevant to the actual discussion.

                      My teammates seem to have good luck (I did mention our productivity has surged since we started working remotely), and thank you for the wishes anyway.

                      •  

                        @CocaKoala: Bait away - you wrote 'That's my point. When there's an issue of control, it becomes a matter of time before entropy takes over.'

                        Claude shannon's work on entropy is famous. I quoted him in response to you about getting carried way with the concept, and his desire for people to focus on scientific methods to which you replied was off topic when it wasn't - 'sweet potato fries, if we are going to talk about things that are not relevant to this discussion.'

                        Now you deny your own comment, and claim Shannon is irrelevant both to entropy and isolated working, which conceptually is incorrect.

                        •  

                          @petry: I stated that if people needed to be constantly "controlled" in order for them to do their work, it's then just a matter of time before entropy takes over (as in the team eventually gets disintegrated because they don't love what they're now doing). I am not sure how much simpler could I make this in order for you to understand it.

                          You then come around quoting on one word, as if it is somehow adding value to the core of the discussion, or as if it logically opposes the crux of my viewpoint (which is that if people need to be controlled to do their work, there are bigger problems).

                          • -1 vote

                            @CocaKoala: You play with rayguns whilst eating sweet potato fries like marvin the martian? - how entertaining and creative.

          •  

            @CocaKoala: While most good software developers won't have an issue with getting their work done from home - complex design, whiteboarding and associated discussions along with promoting and maintaining a good and cohesive team culture is much, much more difficult to achieve fully remotely.

            If you're interested there's a study using chinese data (albeit skewable metrics like commit counts etc.) that looks at wfh vs in the office that concludes it's really only the very large projects that suffer.

            I also don't know how I would create and maintain good relationships with my co-workers and network properly without working at least sometimes face-to-face; have you ever joined a new company or new team while working fully remotely?

            • +1 vote

              @sakurashu: You are making a very valid point. It helps in our case as we've been working together for at least 5 years, so perhaps that's definitely helping us.

              •  

                @CocaKoala: I moved teams 6 months ago and even though it was an internal move I'm only just now meeting some of my team who i've worked alongside for months and it is very weird. I think for day to day work you're on the money (at least for software development) but I would be worried about some of the longer-term implications of having my career entirely wfh if industries went that way

                • +1 vote

                  @sakurashu: Another valid point, but only time will tell what way we could go.

                  The flipside of it being that we are super lucky as we could continue working and putting food on the table as if nothing has happened (at least for the most part). If it were between choosing to have an earning or doing nothing because it's somewhat unusual to interface and work with people only over webex or teams, then I know everyone will pick the ability to earn.

                  The "lockdowns" had hardly any impact on us, and as I said several times, the whole thing has only helped us perform better if anything.

                  But yes, I do not claim to know what the long-term impacts will be. Happy to take things as they come though, there's still a physical office and two people from the team actually got worker permit issued even during lockdowns and went to work there, which I'm fine with. We also have one team member working from NSW as they moved there (3 years now), and another working from WA (1 year), and we haven't seen any changes that could impact the team's output. Not that 3 years is long-term, but just putting it out here.

    •  

      If it was my business, if be more concerned that has happened with the staff I have.
      If they aren't responsible or can't manage there time at home to do as they normally should, provided all equipment etc works as it should the same as being in the office. Then that be my main concern. Have I got the right people working for me..

      •  

        Lucky its not your business! Like I said, even as the business owner I notice my productivity level decreases at home. The mindset, the focus, the attitude and environment is nowhere near being in a dedicated work environment.

        And there is never going to be an employee that's going to care about their business as much as you! Assuming they will is just silly.

        I think the trend will definitely be a return to office once things go back to 'normal'. There will be some industries where WFH will be more flexible - but this will be a minority. Business owners have everything on the line. They simply will not take the risk of having a complete remote workforce to jeopardise the amount of risk, money and effort they've put in. Employees being paid a comfy salary with almost no risk are simply going to be expected to show up at a place of work, and if they don't, someone else will.

        If I had to have a completely remote workforce, I'd probably just outsource overseas for 1/4 of the cost of having local employees. Literally the same thing

        •  

          It may not work for you, but it does work for others.
          I know many where they work full time remote now. Whats best is different for different people and workplaces.

          In most cases the owner will care more, but not all. There are owners out there with multiple business etc out there who don't. There are people working for owners who rely on the income to pay there bills and feed there family so the company going ok does mean a lot to them.

          Getting back to the office will definitely be pushed no doubt, but alot of companies will offer option of WFH, be it 1 days a week or more.

    •  

      I feel like this would be the view of the majority of buisness owners, although ozbargain would have you believe otherwise.

  •  

    No way! If i am producing the same amount of work - or even more, then i woul not accept a pay cut. Pay should remain the same and shouldn't be dependant on where you are working.

  •  

    In some cases you should pay employees more for them turning their house into a workplace at their own expense. You can pay more for my increased utilities, also I can sub-lease you this room which is now a dedicated home office where before it wasn’t.
    The savings you make from tea, coffee, milk and all those other things you can hand over too. They were not part of my salary, but they were part of your expenses which you now don’t have to pay so cough up (like it is my expense to travel to work and pay for public transport).

    Seriously though comments would indicate that it really relies on the type of tasks people are doing, the culture of your workforce, and the nature of your business.

  •  

    If you are saving, parking fees, train fares, fuel and maintenance on your vehicle and travel time to and from work……Why should you not take a pay cut, or do you think it is a one way street?………In many instances workers are less productive working from home, and if you think you and your co workers are more productive, does this mean your employer can reduce staff numbers?

    • +2 votes

      People could also move closer to work and make those savings, does that mean they should take a pay cut because their costs of getting to work are reduced? I don’t see the relevance. Transport and parking to a place of employment are at the personal expense of the employe so an employer can’t just turn around and now claim that it was all part of their salary to begin with (unless of course travel time etc is specifically paid as part of their contract, in which you could argue they can no longer claim).

      •  

        moving costs a lot of money

    • +1 vote

      The company I work for has stated many times that productivity has increased across the board and they are extremely pleased. They don't fire people despite increased productivity. Instead they get ahead with the workload, SLAs are around 5-14 days so there are several extra days of work there while they reallocate people. In the past they've hired temps for busy times of year, different teams have different busy periods and this past year they managed to use existing employees from other teams to manage the extra workload, normally they wouldn't have had capacity to do so.

      They have a number of projects going that require people from various departments. Normally their positions would need to be filled while they were on the projects, but they don't need to at the moment. Three of these projects they've wanted to do for 5-10 years and will lead to significant improvements in productivity and generally making the work easier to manage. They will also make the company more competitive in the market.

      If someone leaves they don't fill the position if they no longer require it. If it's a higher level position they'll fill it from below and not replace the entry level position.

      They're not the sort of company that would ask people to take a pay cut for working from home though, which is probably one of the reasons there isn't reduced productivity. It's a good company to work for, they are good at hiring quality people, they support their staff well, they've built a great culture where people want to do their job well. Adults can get their work done without having a babysitter watching them, if you need a babysitter to watch your staff in order for them to do their job then you didn't hire adults and/or it's a shit place to work.

      •  

        Well said.

  •  

    I'm technically an intrapreneur at the moment.

    So you're unemployed? Seems like you have the time on your hands to learn to spell it correctly ;)

    • +2 votes

      So you're unemployed? Seems like you have the time on your hands to learn to spell it correctly ;)

      An entrepreneur is an unemployed person, OP is an intrapreneur so probably an employee that spends more time talking and networking rather than doing any actual work AKA the person that distracts everyone in the office thus making everyone love working from home to avoid said person

      •  

        Ahh, well now I'm feeling a bit like an idiot over here. First time I've heard the term. Thanks for clarifying lol.

  •  

    No, it works out beneficial for both the employee and employer, as long as the employees output is the same (or more)

  •  

    "Would You Take a Pay Cut to Continue to Work From Home?"

    Absolutely not. Working from home is a punishment.

    • +1 vote

      Sounds like you need a better home.

      •  

        You have no idea where I work

        • +2 votes

          I guess somewhere that is better than your house?

      •  

        This made me laugh out loud!!!

  • +1 vote

    I love work form home but if I need to take a pay cut I'll see you at the office!

  • +1 vote

    Pay rise to work from home, at least 25% increase

  •  

    As long as I get a pay rise, I will wfh or office as my employer wishes :)

  • +4 votes

    Paycut would be ridiculous for WFH. Makes zero sense.

    If anything, should increase pay.

    We still have bosses who want to make us come in for NO reason. Wacky way of thinking. They allow us 3 days at home, but the work can be done 100% from home. They allow different people to work from home at different days. So it's practically empty in the office at times. So what the hell is the point of being in the office? Those bosses are dictators! They say, ah I like talking to people face to face and catch up for coffee with friends. Errr, how can you when you put people on different days in the same team? Coffee? You guys look down at us for talking or taking a coffee break. Their agendas are purely evil. THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THE OFFICE HAHA

    Anyway, I'm work WFH all the time. And if there's a brainstorming session, or team catch-up for a meal or whatever that actually requires you to be in, NO WORRIES!!

    But the sake of having us there FOR NO REASON AT ALL is ludicrous!

    • +2 votes

      that's what you get, when bosses don't trust their workers.

      the bosses just feel good able to control someone 'under' them,
      because at their own homes, their spouses boss them around.

  •  

    Paycut? We talking reduction in responsibiities/tasks?

    • +1 vote

      Apparently people aren't productive when working from home, must be projection…

      •  

        Unfortunately sometimes it is about projection

  •  

    It all depends on how the project/work is managed by the team/company. If the project management is solid, then it doesnt matter where you are working from. And, for a smart manager, WFH scenario gives better opportunity to over utilize the resources. As a resource, you commit to what you can do - nothing more. So, end of the day, you save time and money on travel. Thats all.