The debate over working from home versus mandatory on-site work has become increasingly prominent, especially as various governments and organisations across Australia navigate the shifting landscape of post-pandemic work arrangements. In New South Wales (NSW), the push to bring all employees back to the office has sparked considerable debate, while Victoria continues to offer flexible WFH solutions.
This article explores the current recall situation in NSW, the pushback against full on-site mandates, and compares the approaches taken by different states.
NSW’s Full Office Recall
In recent months, NSW government agencies have been implementing policies to recall public employees to their physical workplaces, after a circular in 2019 allowed WFH moves. The boom finally fell on 5 August 2024, when NSW Premier Chris Minns declared in an all-government memo that all state employees must report to their offices going forward, effective 6 August.
While the NSW public sector was mandated to be onsite, the government stated there may be some flexibility in terms of compressed hours or job share arrangements. Some employees on hybrid work must formally state a case for having their existing work arrangements remain in place, subject to approval from their Department’s chief people officer.
This shift is driven by several factors, including the desire to boost productivity, foster team collaboration, and enhance workplace culture. Proponents argue that in-person interactions are crucial for maintaining effective communication and strengthening organisational bonds, which can be challenging to achieve remotely.
Issues with office space vacancies in the Sydney CBD – with an overall rate at 11.6 per cent – also nudged the government to implement the recall. Katie Stevenson, executive director of the Property Council of Australia’s NSW branch, said in an ABC interview that the Council lobbied with the state to activate the recall. She cited a high 19.5 per cent office vacancy rate in Parramatta, where many NSW government agencies hold court – when that rate stood at 3.2 per cent pre-pandemic. The problem with filling up office space may have been a factor in Mitsubishi Estate Asia deciding to sell its 30 per cent share in the Salesforce Tower at 180 George St.
However, the push for mandatory on-site work has faced significant opposition. Many employees and organisations argue that the benefits of remote work—such as increased flexibility, reduced commuting time, and improved work-life balance—should not be disregarded. Critics of the full recall policy assert that the productivity gains seen during the remote work period should not be overlooked and that a return to the office might undermine the progress made in terms of employee satisfaction and work efficiency.
Opposition to a Full Recall
Criticism appeared almost as soon as Mr Minns finished the announcement, with some concerns emerging.
Employee Wellbeing
The shift to remote work during the pandemic allowed many employees to achieve a better work-life balance. The return to mandatory on-site work could disrupt this balance, leading to increased stress and decreased job satisfaction. The Public Service Association of NSW reported there will be problems trying to bring together all employees when there’s not enough secured office space for them.
Productivity and Efficiency
Some studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that remote work can lead to higher productivity levels. Employees have reported fewer distractions and the ability to tailor their work environment to their preferences, which can contribute to more efficient work.
Cost Implications
Commuting to and from the office incurs additional costs for employees, including travel expenses and time spent in transit. For many, these costs are a significant burden, especially when the benefits of working on-site are perceived as minimal. The travel is even worse when some NSW public servants are not even in NSW – an unnamed NSW government official revealed for example, to the Daily Mail Australia, that he had a remote employee based out in Noosa, QLD.
The NSW Treasury also shared their concerns on a whole-of-government site recall. In a joint report by Treasury’s NSW Productivity Commission and the NSW Innovation and Productivity Council, the office stated that when NSW’s lockdown protocol was relaxed in 2021, WFH solutions helped increase employee engagement while minimising staff turnover. The productivity boost from this was tallied at $6 billion a year.
Environmental Impact
Reducing the number of commutes contributes to a decrease in carbon emissions, aligning with broader environmental goals. The move back to full on-site work might counteract these environmental benefits.
Flexibility and Inclusivity
Remote work has opened opportunities for employees who may face challenges with traditional office environments, such as those with disabilities or caring responsibilities. A rigid return to on-site work could limit these opportunities.
Victoria Promotes WFH
In contrast to the NSW government’s approach, Victoria has been more accommodating in offering flexible work-from-home solutions, and the state administration is looking at the situation up north with strong interest. A notice from Premier Jacinta Allan said NSW public servants who have done well with WFH are welcome to turn over a new leaf in Victoria, as there are no plans to “roll back” the current flexible work arrangements they have.
Victoria’s approach reflects an understanding of the evolving nature of work and the benefits of flexibility. By providing employees with the option to work from home, the state acknowledges the positive aspects of remote work and seeks to balance them with the benefits of in-person collaboration.
However, Minns is not taking Ms Allan’s invite lying down, stating that given how residents of Melbourne were tightened up during the COVID19 lockdowns, they needed a release such as going out to work in a comfortable office. The Melbourne city government and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) also favoured NSW’s site-recall order. In discussions with the Herald Sun, VCCI CEO Paul Guerra said returning to office was a chance for better productivity, as pedestrian sensors near Victorian government offices recorded almost scarce foot traffic for most of the first half of 2024.
On-Site vs. WFH
The debate between on-site and remote work is not unique to NSW and Victoria; it is a national conversation with varying perspectives across different states and territories. The following are some key points of comparison.
Productivity
While some states push for a return to physical workplaces, others highlight the productivity gains achieved through remote work. This discrepancy underscores the need for tailored approaches that consider the specific needs and circumstances of different organisations and employees.
Employee Preferences
Employee preferences play a significant role in shaping work policies. States that offer flexibility often see higher employee satisfaction and retention rates, suggesting that accommodating employee needs can be advantageous for both employers and workers.
Public Sector vs. Private Sector
The approach to remote work can differ between the public and private sectors. Public sector organisations, such as those in NSW, may face different pressures and considerations compared to private sector companies, which may have more flexibility in implementing hybrid models.
Impact on Urban Centres
The shift to remote work has impacted urban centres, with fewer people commuting and spending time in city areas. States that emphasise on-site work may see a return to bustling urban environments, while those embracing remote work may continue to experience reduced congestion and changes in local economies.
Navigating the Future of Work
As the debate continues, organisations and governments must navigate the complex landscape of work arrangements. The key to successful policy implementation lies in finding a balance that addresses the needs of both employers and employees. Hybrid work models, which combine the best of both on-site and remote work, may offer a viable solution for many.
Organisations should consider conducting regular surveys and assessments to gauge employee preferences and productivity levels, ensuring that their work policies remain relevant and effective. Additionally, clear communication and support mechanisms can help ease the transition, whether it’s back to the office or maintaining a remote work arrangement.
Conclusion
Given the working climate in the “new normal,” it can be seen as a serious policy challenge when it comes to a full office recall against retaining the status quo in WFH arrangements. While NSW is pushing for a full recall of public employees to on-site work, Victoria continues to offer flexible WFH options, reflecting a broader recognition of the benefits of remote work. As Australia navigates this evolving landscape, it is crucial to balance productivity, employee wellbeing, and organisational needs to create effective and sustainable work policies.
DISCLAIMER: This article is for informational purposes only and is the opinion of the author. The data presented is based on the most accurate information at time of writing. 2 Ezi is not affiliated with the NSW and Victoria governments.
