Should workers who don't come into the office have their pay cut?

Times

3 days ago

The UK was named the working-from-home capital of Europe last week, with university graduates revealed to work 1.8 days a week from home on average.
We're nearly world-beaters too, with only employees in Canada found in the office less, averaging 1.9 days at home. Worldwide, the average is 1.3 days, according to the Global Survey of Working Arrangements, a poll of 16,000 full-time university-educated workers across 40 countries.
However, the winds could be changing, with companies such as HSBC threatening to cut pay packages if workers don't come into the office more. But are they right to do this?
Oliver Chapman, the chief executive of OCI, a supply chain company
As a company, we pride ourselves on transparency, performance and long-term value.
That's why I believe it's time we address the widening gap between in-office and remote work and change the pay structures that have failed to adapt.
I'm not here to say remote work doesn't have its place. It does. During the pandemic, it kept businesses alive and people safe. But we are no longer in crisis mode. What we face now is a choice between what's convenient and what drives collaboration, innovation and growth.
When employees choose to work remotely full-time, often from locations with a significantly lower cost of living, they are making a lifestyle decision.
That decision has real economic implications. Yet in many cases, their salaries remain tied to cities they've left behind, often London, where pay reflects not just talent but living expenses, access and availability.
If you're living in Cornwall instead of Canary Wharf, but drawing the same salary, we have to ask: is that fair to the company or to colleagues showing up in person every day?
In-office work brings tangible benefits. It facilitates mentorship, spontaneous problem-solving and stronger team dynamics. It builds culture.
These aren't just perks — they drive productivity. The people commuting daily, navigating the rising costs of transport, lunch and childcare, are investing in the business in ways remote workers simply are not.
Compensation must reflect contribution — real, measurable, and holistic.
If a role no longer requires city-based presence, great, we're flexible. But flexibility works both ways. Geographic-based pay is not about punishment. It's about equity. If you choose not to be where the work most needs you, that should be factored into how you're compensated.
Some will call this regressive. I call it responsible. Businesses need to adapt to a post-pandemic reality, yes, that's true, but that means balancing flexibility with fairness, and performance with presence.
Remote work isn't going away, nor should it. But it should evolve. And part of that evolution includes acknowledging that when you change where and how you work, it might also change what you're paid.
That's not exploitation. That's economics.
• Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts
Gemma Dale, a former HR director and senior lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University
No, workers who don't return to the office shouldn't have their pay cut. Firstly, there are the legal issues.
Any unilateral pay cut to a contractual salary is likely to result in a wave of claims from workers for unlawful deductions from wages, or breach of contract.But potential legal issues aside, it is still a very bad idea.
Organisations need productive, engaged, healthy employees. Remote and hybrid work can help to deliver this. We learnt during the pandemic that a great deal of work can be successfully undertaken remotely.
Employees want to retain that flexibility — and who can blame them?
Remote work is good for wellbeing, work-life balance and inclusion, helps people manage caring and domestic responsibilities, provides them with time for family, friends and exercise, and saves money.
In contrast, commuting can be expensive, stressful and, if you add in public transport, unreliable.
When you get there, many offices aren't conducive to deep work, and, spoiler alert, watercooler conversations don't magically spark innovation.
There is a growing body of evidence, which the debate too often ignores, that shows that workers are just as productive working at home than they are in the office. In fact, it has been found that people work harder and longer from home.
• Bosses shouldn't discipline staff for working from home, judge rules
Forcing people back to the office unnecessarily, even without a pay cut, runs the risks of talent attrition, disengagement and difficulties attracting the best people.
Cutting workers' pay if they don't fulfil an attendance requirement, especially if they are performing well, is the very opposite of trust and motivation. It's also poor people management. Good managers focus on outputs and outcomes, not performative presence.
People are paid a salary to undertake a role; what should matter most is how they do it and what they contribute. Cutting pay for employees working remotely conflates presence with performance. It's about lack of trust.
Underneath lies an assumption that if people work from home they might skive or spend all day watching Homes Under the Hammer.
There is no need to penalise people for wanting to work in a way that is practical, suits their family and supports their wellbeing.
Flexible work is now an employee expectation, not a nice to have. The office still has a place, but when we empower people to choose how they work, everyone wins.