If you’re working from home today, you’re saving money and stress on commuting. So why not take a pay cut to help compensate those who have no choice but to go to a place of work?
That’s loosely the proposal put forward by former premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, who believes pay cuts are the way to promote productivity and address what he sees as a growing social divide between those who can and can’t work from home.
His proposal comes a day or so late for those working in the Commonwealth public service, which announced on Tuesday it had removed caps on work-from-home (WFH) days for workers, in a union bargaining agreement that will also see a more significant bias for approving WFH requests and appealing any refusals.
It may also come too late for private sector employers, given the significance of this Australian public sector (APS) win — covering more than 170,000 employees, and following the former Coalition Government’s push to get employees back to the office. The APS will provide a powerful example to other employers, especially as more in the corporate sector CEOs have been talking up the need to establish more limits on WFH provision. The APS will now highlight to Australian workers what they should be able to expect in terms of WFH options.
A little background, Kennett served as premier of Victoria from 1992 to 1999. He has four children with his wife Felicity Kellar, married in 1972.
Kennett’s suggestion came in a piece he wrote for the Herald Sun, with plans and details he later defended with other media outlets. He wrote that the “appropriate method” given “Victoria’s financial position” should be that if a person chooses to work from home, whatever the number of days a week, they should then have a pay reduction according to the costs they would have otherwise incurred if they went to the office.
He noted the benefits these WFH employees are afforded, including that they get to avoid the “trauma” of driving to and from work or taking the train or some other form of public transport, as well as the money and stress that they save.
In return? Kennett proposed that the government increase wages for those in the public sector who cannot work from home, such as nurses and teachers.
To be fair to Kennett, paying frontline services staff more is definitely a good idea. Possibly his best. He later told ABC Melbourne that the rising “cost of living” is creating a growing divide between those who have to go to work because they are frontline services workers and those who don’t need to go to a place of work, because they can do the work from home.
“The community needs to think in advance of what might become a very unpleasant divide in those who have to go to a place of work, and those who decide to work from home,” he said.
But penalising others who work from home due to them “saving money and stress” reflects a man who likely hasn’t seen just what WFH options can do for opening more opportunities for a more diverse and broader range of employees, particularly to give access to those with a disability, thow living outside of major metropolitan areas, and especially for women who continue to take on the bulk of the caring responsibilities and unpaid work at home.
Kennett makes good points about a “growing social divide” and the need to financially compensate those who have no choice but to go to a place of work, but blanket rules make no sense. Especially as he seems to believe working from home is always a matter of choice.
Working from home is not always a matter of choice, as Kennett continually suggested. Rather, it’s often a necessity, with changes in how we work lowering barriers and enabling people to pursue key opportunities for the first time.
Meanwhile, there are already penalties applied for those working from home, and not just in the further unpaid work many inevitably take on. There are enough disadvantages already for those working from home when it comes to promotions and other opportunities, when they are up against other colleagues who are putting in the direct face-to-face time.
Kennett – who made it clear during a radio interview yesterday that he was driving to an office – seems to believe it’s all about choice, perhaps because personally he has that choice himself and in the past, his own responsibilities at home were mitigated by having support and resources readily available.
Needless to say – and despite Kennett’s push to pay those on the frontlines more (as long as those working from home can pay for it, through pay cuts) ACTU Secretary Sally McManus slammed Kennett’s proposal, stating that cutting worker pay is often the “one answer” Liberals have for addressing challenges. “It wouldn’t matter the problem; it’s always the same solution – cut workers’ pay,” she said. “There is one exception to this rule, and that’s when it comes to their own pay and the pay of CEOs. This pay should always go up,” she said.
The Victorian Andrews Government has also responded to Kennett’s proposing, saying it does “not take advice” from the former premier. Backbencher Ben Carroll said that with women’s workforce participation a 63% barrier that hasn’t previously been broken, “there are different elements that need to be considered”. He added that no “blanket rule” could be applied to any job sector.
Indeed, applying blanket rules for any employers – but especially for the public sector – would be a huge mistake. The new world working order carries challenges and can have drawbacks for many people, including mental health challenges and difficulties accessing direct mentors and support, but Australians do want to work from home, if they can.
Data from SEEK showed that “work from home” was the most popular search term for job seekers at the end of 2022 – highlighting that if you want to attract the best talent and meet the productivity that Kennett wants to see more of, then providing opportunities to WFH where staff can do so will continue to be necessary.
The discussion on working from home has intensified over the past week.
Just as several CEOs of large employers are calling for staff to return to the office, those working in the public sector look set to have more certainty about their future work-from-home options.
The Commonwealth Public Services’ 174,000 workers across 103 agencies now have more right to flexibility and working from home, following negotiations with the Community and Public Sector Union.
The move marks a significant win for flexibility and following the previous Morrison government pushing to limit work from options across the public sector, and comes as Public Sevice Minister and Minister for Women Katy Gallagher has been pushing for flexibility across the public sector, noting that it can support those with caring responsibilities and get more women into the workforce.
In what’s been described as “enforceable flexible work rights”, APS employees will now have no caps imposed on the number of days they can work from home in a week and will also receive a bias towards agencies approving flexibility requests, and more rules for agencies to push to reach agreements on work from home requests. The union also successfully negotiated enterprise agreements to acknowledge the benefits of flexible work in facilitating the capabilities of the APS, and support more jobs to be undertaken from a wider range of locations across the country.
National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union Melissa Donnelly said that the enforceable flexible work rights will support a broader range of individuals considering APS employment – and/or returning to the service if they have previously left due to inflexible work practices.
“The traditional approach to APS work has hindered the attraction and retention of staff across the Service,” she said.
“Flexibility in how, when and where public sector work is done will see the APS become increasingly diverse, adaptable and accessible.”
Donnelly also noted that this puts the APS on track to be a “leader in workplace flexibility,” which sees it taking meaningful steps towards becoming a “model employer”. From here, they will be pushing the APSC to improve pay and pay equity proposals, noting that initial proposals have failed to meet the union’s expectations.
“The CPSU has been pleased to see the APSC unafraid to make bold progress and hopes they see the value in continuing to do so.”
“We will be continuing to push the APSC for significantly improved pay and pay equity proposals after initial proposals failed to meet expectations.”
This article was first published by Women’s Agenda.
Angela Priestley is the publisher and founding editor of Women’s Agenda. She’s an author, journalist and passionate advocate for workplace gender equality and diversity. Her first book is Women Who Seize the Moment.
