Much of the debate around the end of WFH has centred on whether employers should *mandate* a return to the office. This strikes at the heart of tension between employer rights as business owners, and employee rights as workers.
But a new poll reveals that *78% of Australian CEOs would reward office-based employees with promotions and pay rises* as a way of encouraging staff to return to the office permanently. This effectively presents an alternate path to mandating – *an incentive-based system*.
Egalitarianism is a core value of Australian society, and many might view this as a form of discrimination. But nonetheless, employers have the right to mandate or incentivise as they see fit.
But it begs the question: If you employer was considering a new policy to end WFH, would you rather they mandate it or incentivise it?
Sources: [https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/australian-ceos-keen-to-pull-the-plug-on-working-from-home-20240918-p5kbix.html](https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/australian-ceos-keen-to-pull-the-plug-on-working-from-home-20240918-p5kbix.html)
[View Poll](https://www.reddit.com/poll/1fk6ync)
Source: Voice_Drop
14 Comments
Working from the office is stupid.
For the employee it costs hours and money, for the employer it costs 10 thousand dollars+ per employee, and employees are no more productive from office than home. Assuming some ratio of office:home days. I would straight up quit my employer if they mandated an end to wfh.
Incentives can sod off too. If an employee does their job effectively they shouldn’t be punished just because they don’t slog into the office to kiss someone’s arse.
Neither – I’ll just quit and take all my clients with me.
If you can work entirely from home, you probably can (and should) be replaced by cheaper remote workers outsourced to India/Philippines.
Australian employers have no chance in getting workers to work. I doubt RTO will have any impact on the current WFH stance that many people have. AND they are right since the Government will not allow unemployment to increase.
Australia = rope everyone in to the tax payer base with WFH. Not a single care was given to productivity or meaning.
Come into the office to work for clients that aren’t in the office (or state).
Also if you pay someone more for the same job, its illegal. Same with promotions.
I would rather prefer if they got out of the way of me doing my job.
If you want me to work in the office give me an office not a prison canteen to work in. Open plan workspaces are complete nonsense.
Give me an office to work in and I will happily work from office. You need to give me something better than I have at home. I have my kitchen, clean bathroom, espresso machine, nice chair and desk selected specifically for my comfort.
I am not asking for a large antique desk just something adjustable and preferably not placed where I have my back to passing traffic.
Make the office a nice place to work and I will work from office. Bonus points for working showers with lockers so I can ride in.
I would prefer the incentive, and because I’m not interested in a payrise or a new, different job, I’d happily stay WFH where I am now while others fight each other for scraps.
Yeah, right.
Dangling the carrot of promotion is how managers have gotten away with giving low wages for decades.
Of course they would *say* they would do it. *Saying* stuff like that is their entire job.
It also begs the question, if they are willing to give promotions to office employees that are less productive… what is the point of the office? Seems that the WFH employees are providing more productivity?
If WFH is better, firms that use it more will outcompete those who don’t; they will create more jobs, pay higher bonuses and higher wages to the benefit of WFH employees.
Or vice versa. It doesn’t matter what is mandated or not in that case, the market will determine it.
And it it might be one way for some types of business and the reverse somewhere else.
It is funny to think like this, but as we all know, when you work for an employer, the employer is making more money from you than they pay you. In effect, you are paying the company for the opportunity to work. You are paying a management fee, you could say. But you get something in return: regular work, development opportunities, the ability to specialise in one skill area as opposed to all the things you have to do when you work for yourself, sales, taxes, collecting money from clients etc. Apparently most people think this is a good tradeoff. They don’t work for themselves.
This is also includes the role of management in making arrangements of employment such as where and when you work.
If you’re not happy with the management you’re paying for, you should find new management to pay. Maybe even do it yourself.
Polls don’t pay bonuses and neither do companies once they have what they want. I’d rather adults sit down and have the relevant convos than some random deciding for all. Not all jobs are the same this is mush.
My point of the debate is this.
Housing is unaffordable near Central CBD’s. Employers want to set up their office in the middle of them.
More and more workers have to commute further and further to get to work. Many of us are doing upwards of 3+ hours a day. WFH eliminates this issue and allows people to live further away from work in an affordable area while stimulating economies in that area.
One could argue “well it will drive up property in those cheaper areas” but at the same time those people who lived in those areas can now get jobs that pay them more and it would equal things out nicely.
I work for a US company. I have 12 people in my office. None of who i communicate with. My boss is in the philippines and the rest of my team is overseas.
I have nobody to collaborate with, nobody to talk to, i sit on my own for 8 hours of the day with the minimal work we have to do. Why the fuck should i have to go into the office to do this? It’s mind numbing. I benefit NOTHING from going in. Yet our CEO wants us in 3 days a week? It’s outrageous.
Covid showed that the vast majority of white collar work does NOT need an office to function. We CAN do things remotely and it can be of a huge benefit to society. Covid also proved another thing that businesses will not move or do anything to help you unless the government makes them do it. So if they are not incentivised they will not do it out of the graciousness of their heart.
I personally think businesses need to get taxed higher if they want people in the office. We should be focussing more on remote work. Give employers tax breaks if a percentage of their work force is remote work LOCALLY (none of this off shoring BS).
I think this can absolutely work and be of a huge benefit to society but the powers that be want their commercial real estate to go up, lobby groups want their business in the CBD to continue with the foot traffic of the 9 – 5 worker. IMO its completely unsustainable.
Frankly if employers want workers in the office. They need to foot the bill of getting them in.
I’m not about to start daily 8 hour commutes, but they’re welcome to incentivise others to burn hours of days of their lives travelling.
I’d rather have my WFH privileges even if it means I don’t get considered for promotions and climb the corporate ladder.
I can’t share the instagram reel but Dell forced people back into the office 5 days a week from next year otherwise lose out on a promotion, and a good majority of people quit. Someone did the calcs based on if someone got paid $50 an hour, there’s 38,000 per year that comes out of your own pocket in terms of commuting time, prep time for meals and clothing. No company is going to give anyone a $37k raise so what’s the point in the mandate lol