Unions have slapped down a proposal by former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett for the salaries of public sector workers who work from home to be cut.
Mr Kennett says the salary cut would reflect the costs staff are saving by working from home, such as transport costs, as well as the stress they are avoiding by not having to commute, or drive or dress for work.
“Clearly, Victoria’s financial position is such that we cannot afford to be increasing salaries, so the most appropriate method is if a person chooses to work from home, whatever the number of days a week, their salary is reduced by the reduction in costs they would have otherwise incurred,” Mr Kennett told the Herald Sun on Tuesday.
“There will be people making a decision (to work from home) because they don’t have to go through the trauma of driving to and from work, or (taking) the train or something – they save money and it saves them all that stress.”
Outdated views
CPSU national secretary Melissa Donnelly described Mr Kennett’s views as outdated.
The right to work from home was a win for workers who wanted flexibility and for employers who wanted to attract and retain staff, she said.
“Flexible work rights open the door to employment for people who have otherwise been excluded because of rigid expectations and ideas about how, when and where work should be done,” Ms Donnelly told Government News.
“The answer to some workplaces being less able to provide flexibility than others, isn’t to penalise those workers who do have flexibility.”
The ACTU said workers should be entitlemented to share productivity gains and draw a line between work and life regardless of whether they worked in the office or the home.
“Workers shouldn’t be out of pocket for the expense of working from home, with the cost of heating and electricity skyrocketing over the past 12 months,” Secretary Sally McManus said.
Social divide
Mr Kennett says cost of living increases are a key factor in encouraging some workers to stay at home, while people like nurses, teachers and emergency services workers face the same financial pressures but don’t have a WFH option.
This is creating a social divide, he argues.
“I suspect the cost of living is now a very major factor about a decision to work from home,” he told the ABC.
“There’s a whole lot of contributing factors that make it cheaper to stay at home.
“It’s understandable …. But it’s creating a divide between those people who have to go to work to deliver their service and those who now stay at home and do so … cheaply and save money.
“This is a social divide that is growing and we are going to have to work out how we are going to adjust to it.”
Mr Kennett has called for the matter to be referred to a relevant body, such as the Independent Remuneration Committee.
“I think this trend is going to increase,” he said.
“The community needs to think in advance about what might become a very unpleasant divide between those who have to pay the expense of getting to work and those who elect to stay at home.”
Comment below to have your say on this story.
If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@governmentnews.com.au.
Sign up to the Government News newsletter
Will this apply to politicians who WFH? What if they decide to go lay on a beach in Italy or Hawaii rather than sit in Parliament doing their job? Shouldn’t they wait until Parliament breaks before they do that? Teachers do. They have to wait for the school holidays before going on leave.
So will politicians have their wages reduced?
Also he states “Victoria’s financial position is such that we cannot afford to be increasing salaries..”, if that is the case, maybe politicians shouldn’t be able to access their pension until they reach 67. That may save them money (especially if the public garnish their wages for the same reasons)
If he thinks it isn’t fair perhaps he should be talking about raising wages of those who provide essential services to the public (nurses, teachers, paramedics, police etc) rather than attacking those who have flexibility in the workplace.
The salary you get is commensurate with your agreed position and work, and what is in your position description for the job you agreed to do. Living arrangements have nothing to do with wage entitlement. Employees are not responsible for fixing the Government’s budget issues.
How do they decipher between the person that lives a 5 minute leisurely walk and the one that catches a bus? Does the walker get slugged because their commute is easier? Are they also going to take into consideration things like reduced office expenses, decreased sick leave thanks to the WFH people that can still work when a little bit sick, rather than calling in sick for the full day off, if they were to come into the office? I wonder how many days politicians head into the office each week