As businesses continue navigating the shifting landscape of work models in Australia, the debate about returning to the office versus working from home (WFH) remains at the forefront. Many companies face a dilemma: how can they bring employees back to the office full-time, especially when remote work has proven effective for many workers? One possible solution may be to offer a higher pay to encourage a return to full-time site work.
This article will explore the need for potential salary increases, discuss the pros and cons of working on-site versus working from home, and examine the arguments made by Robert Half Australia’s recent survey on the topic.
Debate on Returning to Full-Time On-Site Work
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a global shift towards working from home, with Australian businesses and employees quickly adapting to remote work setups. In many industries, this shift became not just a temporary solution but a long-term strategy. Productivity didn’t necessarily drop as expected; in some cases, it even improved. Employees enjoyed the flexibility of not commuting, improved work-life balance, and the ability to work in an environment of their choosing.
However, as Australia has transitioned out of pandemic-related restrictions, many companies have started issuing site-recall orders to bring staff back to the office full-time, such as betting company Tabcorp and ecommerce behemoth Amazon (permanently starting January 2025, per CEO Andy Jassy’s memo). Even the NSW government pulled that trigger two months ago.
Despite this, not all employees are keen to give up the benefits of remote work, which has sparked a new debate: what incentives would make a return to full-time on-site work more attractive?
Can Higher Salaries Bring Teams Back?
One argument for bringing employees back to the office is that certain industries require the structure and collaboration that only on-site work can provide. In sectors like finance, healthcare, and engineering, the physical presence of teams can be essential to ensuring smooth operations, quick decision-making, and hands-on management. However, many workers are now used to the freedom and flexibility that WFH provides, making it difficult for businesses to convince them to return to the office.
Offering higher salary levels is one strategy that companies may consider to incentivise a return to full-time site work. After all, if employees are asked to give up the conveniences of WFH, they may need more compensation to make the sacrifice worthwhile. Such an option may lead to businesses acknowledging the costs employees incur with full-time site work, such as commuting expenses, child-care arrangements, and even the loss of personal time. Additionally, a higher salary could signal to employees that the company values their presence and recognises the contribution of being on-site.
The Robert Half Survey
The Australian arm of recruitment firm Robert Half weighed in on the site-recall discussion and whether offering higher pay works to get the people back on site.
The findings revealed that 44 per cent of workers were open to full-time work provided there was a higher salary premium attached. When asked by how much their salary premium should be, 18 per cent of respondents said they were happy being offered up to ten per cent more while 16 per cent would bite offers of between 11 to 20 per cent. Nine per cent of respondents want at least 20 per cent more wages.
Meanwhile, 17 per cent of employees said they do not need a salary premium to come back on-site, and 15 per cent are not willing to return even with a salary premium offer.
WFH vs. On-Site: Balancing Productivity and Collaboration
The WFH versus full on-site productivity debate is complex. On one hand, many studies have shown that employees working from home can maintain or even increase productivity. Without the distractions of the office, lengthy meetings, and daily commutes, workers have more time to focus on their tasks and may feel more autonomous in managing their work.
Some managers, meanwhile, believe that on-site work allows for better collaboration, spontaneous problem-solving, and innovation. In creative industries or roles that require hands-on teamwork, being physically present may facilitate quicker decision-making and reinforce team dynamics. Additionally, there are concerns that remote work can lead to isolation and disengagement over time, particularly for employees who thrive in social or team-oriented environments.
Balancing Flexibility and In-Person Work
For businesses considering how to bring workers back on-site, it may not be as simple as offering higher salaries. Many employees are not just motivated by money; they are also seeking a balance between work and life. In fact, the flexibility that WFH provides has become one of the most valued benefits for Australian employees.
Instead of focusing solely on salary increases, companies may want to explore hybrid models that combine both on-site and remote work. This approach offers a compromise: employees would benefit from the flexibility of WFH while also maintaining an in-person presence in the office for key meetings, collaboration sessions, or high-priority tasks.
Employers could also introduce other perks, such as subsidised transport or meal allowances, to offset the costs associated with commuting or working on-site. Offering higher salary levels along with additional benefits might make the transition back to the office more attractive to employees who are hesitant about giving up remote work.
Workplace flexibility issues may also play a role in whether a person joins or leaves a company. The Robert Half survey found that for applicants who were finally sent a job offer, 39 per cent of them will not accept it if the company was not flexible about their work location and 33 per cent will turn it down over flexibility of hours. Another 21 per cent will pass on the job offer if they do not have hybrid work options.
All three factors played heavily in staff resignations – 39 per cent over work location, 34 per cent due to lack of shift time flexibility and 19 per cent over lack of hybrid work options. This may even dovetail into the immediate fallout of Mr Jassy’s recall orders at Amazon – a separate study by professional social network Blind of 2,585 Amazon staff found 73 per cent ready to find new employment.
Australia’s Evolving Workplace
As the WFH versus full on-site productivity debate continues, Australian businesses will need to navigate a new landscape where employees have more options and expectations than ever before. While offering higher salaries might help convince some workers to return to the office full-time, it may not be the only solution. Companies will need to listen to their employees, consider their individual needs, and weigh the benefits of flexible work models.
The future of work in Australia will likely involve a mix of on-site, remote, and hybrid models, depending on the nature of the industry and the preferences of the workforce. Whether through increased pay, additional perks, or more flexible working arrangements, businesses will need to find creative ways to ensure that employees remain motivated, productive, and engaged—regardless of where they work.
Conclusion
As the Australian workforce adapts to the post-pandemic environment, the issue of how to encourage employees to return to full-time on-site work has become a pressing concern. While higher salary levels may offer an incentive, it is clear that the debate between WFH and full on-site work goes beyond just pay. Businesses must carefully consider their approach, balancing the need for physical presence with the growing demand for flexibility.
DISCLAIMER: This article is for informational purposes only and is the opinion of the author. 2 Ezi is not affiliated with any industry research portal mentioned and neither recommends or disparages WFH as a business practice.
