Some employees accept up to 15% lower wages for work-from-home flexibility

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 579   +13
Staff
In context: In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the world of work has undergone a seismic shift, with remote work becoming a central point of contention between employers and employees. As we enter 2025, a new trend is emerging: workers are increasingly willing to accept lower salaries in exchange for the privilege of working from home, while some companies are reversing this strategy to entice employees back to the office.

The desire for remote work has become so strong that many job seekers are willing to make significant financial sacrifices. Some candidates are accepting 5% to 15% less pay for the opportunity to work from home, Theresa L. Fesinstine, founder of human resources advisory peoplepower.ai, told Fortune.

"There's this unspoken exchange rate between flexibility and comp, and for some candidates, it's worth a significant trade-off," said Fesinstine. This is especially true "for those who value work-life balance or are saving on commute costs."

However, this shift is not without its critics. Sara Kobilka, a communications and education consultant, warned that paying remote workers less is a "dangerous trend." While she herself took a lower-paying job to escape a toxic work environment, Kobilka argued that this should not translate into "unilaterally paying remote employees less."

Employers are finding themselves in a delicate balancing act. Almost half of managers anticipate challenges in meeting candidates' compensation expectations, according to Robert Half's 2025 US Hiring Outlook. In response, many are offering remote or hybrid work options as a negotiating tool to bridge the gap between salary expectations and actual offers.

Michael Steinitz, senior executive director of professional talent solutions at Robert Half, noted that employers who aren't providing remote work accommodations may need to find other ways to incentivize in-office work, such as negotiating additional paid time off.

Interestingly, the same Robert Half research reveals that 76% of job candidates are willing to work fully in-office in exchange for a higher salary, with the average raise requested being about 23%.

Despite the apparent willingness of some workers to accept lower pay for remote work, experts warn of potential consequences. Amy Spurling, founder and CEO of employee benefits reimbursement platform Compt, predicted a second Great Resignation in 2025. She cautioned that companies attempting to "lowball" remote workers may face a harsh reality as employees seek better opportunities.

This prediction is supported by a 2024 PwC report, which forecasts a 28% increase in the number of people planning to change jobs, compared to the 19% of people who changed jobs during the Great Resignation of 2022.

As the debate over remote work and compensation continues, it's clear that both employers and employees are navigating uncharted territory. Fesinstine argued that remote work "isn't a perk anymore, but rather a standard operating model."

The coming years will likely see continued negotiation and adjustment as companies strive to balance their operational needs with employee preferences.

"Even in a softening market, candidates are maintaining high expectations around salary and flexibility," Steinitz said. "Employers need to act quickly with competitive, well-rounded offers, and be prepared to negotiate – especially when seeking top-tier talent with specialized skills."

Masthead: BRUNO CERVERA

Permalink to story:

 
That's nothing. A company I was working with in 2023 mandated those who worked from home had to work a longer day for the same pay.

The directors reasoning behind this was you're no longer spending time commuting, so that time could be spent doing extra hours for no extra pay (as the role was salaried).

That was in effect a pay cut. Close to 40% of the staff (including me) handed in resignations.
 
And the absolute pathetic laziness sets in..... Never leave your home, get paid less.
 
15% loss?, Is it even a loss? Considering some people spend almost 2 hours driving or using other means to get to the office, it actually might be -10% lost or even more.
No, I am fairly sure plenty of peopel especiallu those working in major cities gained a so much that this has become their main requirement for a job
 
That's nothing. A company I was working with in 2023 mandated those who worked from home had to work a longer day for the same pay ... That was in effect a pay cut.
It was no such thing. You received the exact same pay -- and anyone who claims that working for home doesn't translate to more free time is being disingenuous.

Close to 40% of the staff (including me) handed in resignations.
Grand how the free market works, isn't it? You moved on, and they hired new staff temperamentally better suited to the position.
 
You should get paid a drastically reduced price to work from home. Not only do you save at least a good 10+ hours a week of not having to get ready and drive to work, but your productivity (disagree all you want, but those that work at home have a redonkulously lower productivity than those onsite) goes into the near toilet.
 
... but your productivity (disagree all you want, but those that work at home have a redonkulously lower productivity than those onsite) goes into the near toilet.
The reality here is actually more interesting. Highly-motivated employees in positions requiring a certain degree of creativity or intellectual reasoning generally see a performance boost when working from home, while most others see a decline. But you're right about one thing: everyone claims to be more productive when working from home.
 
Oh noes, people who are well off are giving up a bit of money? and they get to be comfy in their houses while doing so?

the horror, the horror!
 
It was no such thing. You received the exact same pay -- and anyone who claims that working for home doesn't translate to more free time is being disingenuous.


Grand how the free market works, isn't it? You moved on, and they hired new staff temperamentally better suited to the position.
Yeah, disagree on your take completely. If I’m contracted for 40 hours a week for a fixed annual salary, I do not expect to be told it’s now 48 hours a week for the same pay unless I go into the office.

It went from being a job that paid poorly anyway to a regular 48 hour working week being 2p an hour above legal minimum wage.

I’ll not name the company, but they’re advertising locally for jobs near permanently. Speaks volumes in my book, as new hires aren’t sticking neither. Colour me surprised.
 
Some weird takes here.

I've only very briefly done remote work and I definitely wasn't any less productive. In fact being able to use my own dual wqhd monitor setup and mouse/keyboard made me more productive. The office approach of everyone gets the same setup was far worse for my workflow.

So the employer gets to save on office space, electricity, doesn't have to sponsor any commute schemes and wants to pay less or expects more hours. What kind of triple dipping nonsense is this.
Unless they paid you for the time commuting they're not owed more work hours. If they wanted more hours they can pay for them.

If certain people are actually less productive at home (factually, not just a gut feeling), inform them they need to step up and if they don't fire them. Same treatment you'd get if you were to go in.

Most takes against remote working always seem to be from those who can't. For a car mechanic it isn't an option but for programmers or help desk personnel it's perfectly viable. The employee wins some time they don't need to spend on commuting. The employer wins in not having to rent massive office spaces and a cafeteria, if done properly it's a win-win situation. It's just not viable for all roles.
 
Depends on how far you need to commute to work and how you commute to work. You'd have to do the math to see if it's beneficial to work from home over going in.

I drive around 9k miles a year in my car. My work is 10.5 miles from me, so 21 miles round trip. 5 days a week, minus 4 weeks (or 20 days for PTO/sick time) means 48 weeks. Now take out all the holidays and that's 9-10 days, so we'll call it 10. That leaves me with 46 work weeks x 5 = 230 days a year I drive to and from work.

230 x 21 = 4,830 miles I put on my car. We'll round it up to 5000 because I do have to leave work roughly 10 days a year to get kids and run them to the orthodontic appointments.

Now over the past 6-8 months gas has been right around $3 a gallon.
Full fill up for my car is usually around 12 gallons (plus or minus).
I usually get around 300 miles out of that 12 gallon fill up, so 300/12 = 25 miles per gallon on average.

5000 miles of driving to and from work / 25 = 200 gallons of gas.
200 x $3 = $600 for my driving needs to and from work.
This is also about 2 oil changes worth - roughly $75. I maybe would save around $700 a year if I worked from home.

If I were only making $15 an hour, a 15% loss = $12.75
At $15 an hour = $31,200
At $12.75 an hour = $26,520
Loss of $4680 - 700 for my gas/oil savings means I would lose out on almost $4k a year for a 15% wage loss.

If I were making $25 an hour, a 15% loss = $21.25
At $25 an hour = $52,000
At $21.25 an hour = $44,200
Loss of $7800 - 700 for my gas/oil savings means I would lose out on almost $7k a year for a 15% wage loss.

If I were making $35 and hour, 15% loss = $29.75
At $35 an hour = $72,800
$29.75 an hour = $61,880
Loss of $10,920 - 700 for my gas/oil savings means I would lose out on almost $10k a year for a 15% wage loss.

One last thing to consider for me is my drive time to and from work every day is about 13 minutes one way, so roughly 26 minutes. 46 work weeks x 26 = 1196 minutes or 19.93 hours.

Is that 15% wage loss worth about a day's amount of time for me plus the thousands of dollars I'll no longer be making? No, at least not for me.
 
Last edited:
It was no such thing. You received the exact same pay -- and anyone who claims that working for home doesn't translate to more free time is being disingenuous.


Grand how the free market works, isn't it? You moved on, and they hired new staff temperamentally better suited to the position.

You are completely missing the point
 
You should get paid a drastically reduced price to work from home. Not only do you save at least a good 10+ hours a week of not having to get ready and drive to work, but your productivity (disagree all you want, but those that work at home have a redonkulously lower productivity than those onsite) goes into the near toilet.

If you are going to make ridiculous claims like this, provide and substantiate that with factual evidence. Otherwise your opinion is just that, not valid.
 
The reality here is actually more interesting. Highly-motivated employees in positions requiring a certain degree of creativity or intellectual reasoning generally see a performance boost when working from home, while most others see a decline. But you're right about one thing: everyone claims to be more productive when working from home.

Again you are missing the point. People who work from home imo are smarter than your average worker. They have an understanding that their life does not revolve around a 9 to 5 job that can axe them at any moment. At least if they are working from home, their stress levels are significantly reduced and they can take care of their PERSONAL issues without having to use up hard earned PTO. From a mental perspective, I guarantee you that this employee who has much more autonomy is more productive considering they are not burned/stressed out as oppose to those who have to commute and be stuck in a office.

It's not always about money, but people are wising up to prioritize their physical and mental health over killing themselves to help that company bottom line. Health over wealth including both mental and physical. You are out of touch
 
Some weird takes here.

I've only very briefly done remote work and I definitely wasn't any less productive. In fact being able to use my own dual wqhd monitor setup and mouse/keyboard made me more productive. The office approach of everyone gets the same setup was far worse for my workflow.

So the employer gets to save on office space, electricity, doesn't have to sponsor any commute schemes and wants to pay less or expects more hours. What kind of triple dipping nonsense is this.
Unless they paid you for the time commuting they're not owed more work hours. If they wanted more hours they can pay for them.

If certain people are actually less productive at home (factually, not just a gut feeling), inform them they need to step up and if they don't fire them. Same treatment you'd get if you were to go in.

Most takes against remote working always seem to be from those who can't. For a car mechanic it isn't an option but for programmers or help desk personnel it's perfectly viable. The employee wins some time they don't need to spend on commuting. The employer wins in not having to rent massive office spaces and a cafeteria, if done properly it's a win-win situation. It's just not viable for all roles.
Exactly! There are some bitter people in these comment sections who are quite frankly hating because they cannot do remote work. I don't know of one remote worker that will complain about their predicament. Why would you NOT want to work from home if it's a choice? It's a win-win situation. Definitely some weird people in this comment section
 
The problem with these younger people, they equate their employer's with Burger King, and that you can have it your way. It usually doesn't work out that way in the real world.
 
That's nothing. A company I was working with in 2023 mandated those who worked from home had to work a longer day for the same pay.

The directors reasoning behind this was you're no longer spending time commuting, so that time could be spent doing extra hours for no extra pay (as the role was salaried).

That was in effect a pay cut. Close to 40% of the staff (including me) handed in resignations.

Bullshit. In most states that's flat out illegal and subject to class action lawsuit
 
Yeah, disagree on your take completely. If I’m contracted for 40 hours a week for a fixed annual salary, I do not expect to be told it’s now 48 hours a week for the same pay unless I go into the office.
Oops! Firstly, I seriously doubt your salaried contract specifies exactly a 40-hour week. Furthermore, any professional with the intelligence God gave a rabbit would rather spend the hours they spend stuck in traffic instead performing some useful, intellectual function.

Regardless if before you were spending 48 hours a week on work-related tasks and you're now spending the same, you're not out a single moment of free time.

People who work from home imo are smarter than your average worker. They have an understanding that their life does not revolve around a 9 to 5 job that can axe them at any moment. ... if they are working from home [they] can take care of their PERSONAL issues without having to use up hard earned PTO.
And I bet you not only work from home, but consider yourself much smarter than the average bear, eh? But working from home does not change the fact that your employer can "axe you at a moment's notice". And you are baldly admitting you're exploiting your situation by using work hours to "take care of personal issues". Is that fair to your employer?
 
Bullshit. In most states that's flat out illegal and subject to class action lawsuit
I live in England, work culture and workers rights have slowly eroded over many years here.

In the US, it’s obviously different there. Don’t call me out on BS tho without evidence. You’ll find if you ever worked here MANY companies build into contracts mandatory (and unpaid) flex up to 48 hours a week to “suit the needs of the business as required”. A term I hate as it is exploited to the max by a lot of large companies to get some free time out of you. Many comply through threat of loosing their job in the end.

The 48 hour cap comes from the UK working time directive too, but you can opt out and do more, but many employers use that directive to stay legal. As long as the extra hours DONT go below the actual minimum wage hourly over a 26 period they’re fully legal.

It’s crap and exploited as a way to get extra free labour from your workforce basically.
 
No commute to work, if you have kids, no daycare or after school daycare etc.
Depending on the job/wage, might be a better idea.
 
I used to drive over 3 hours a day back and forth to work (65 miles one way). I would arrive early to beat traffic in the morning, being the first to arrive at the office and worked 9 hours a day. It was effectively a 60 hour work week for 40 hours a week pay (~$500 a month in gas and 30,000+ miles a year). Taking a 15% pay cut would be an easy decision. Gain 4 hours a day of my life back and 500 a month in gas plus not having to replace a car every 3 years and get lower car insurance (you pay more based on the miles)... no brainer.
 
Oops! Firstly, I seriously doubt your salaried contract specifies exactly a 40-hour week. Furthermore, any professional with the intelligence God gave a rabbit would rather spend the hours they spend stuck in traffic instead performing some useful, intellectual function.

Regardless if before you were spending 48 hours a week on work-related tasks and you're now spending the same, you're not out a single moment of free time.


And I bet you not only work from home, but consider yourself much smarter than the average bear, eh? But working from home does not change the fact that your employer can "axe you at a moment's notice". And you are baldly admitting you're exploiting your situation by using work hours to "take care of personal issues". Is that fair to your employer?

First off, I would advise you to not make assumptions. You do not know me nor do you know my current situation. Second, I feel like you are coming off bitter and a hater. Yes, I do feel like I am smarter than the average bear otherwise I would be an office trading even more of my valuable time for money. Wanting to work in an office is a choice in 2025. Not a wise choice, but it's a choice. Smart people understand the value of time and if they can get back hours in their day from working from home, then working from home is a win-win. No commuting, no small talk, and no office politics.

Now to fact check you, my job hired me as a fully remote employee. I make well over 6 figures and the culture at my job encourages me to take care of personal issues. Why? because I do not work in a toxic environment and I developed a trusting relationship with my boss based of the quality of my output. It's really not rocket science lol
 
There are some bitter people in these comment sections who are quite frankly hating because they cannot do remote work. I would advise you to not make assumptions. You do not know me nor do you know my current situation. Second, I feel like you are coming off bitter and a hater. Yes, I do feel like I am smarter than the average bear ...But
Yet by your own admission my assumptions about you turned out correct, while yours are wildly off base. I worked remotely for nearly 40 years, starting when high-speed access to my home cost $5000/month, not $50. But unlike yourself, I never considered it a moral entitlement.

That aside, you just don't get the point. You say "working an office is a choice. Not a wise choice, but a choice." It's a choice your employer dictates. You either accept it, or find a new position, or -- best of all -- convince your employer you're more valuable at home than you are in the office. Maybe you actually are more productive at home. But most job roles and/or personality types will be less productive. Nearly everyone claims they're getting more done at home. But it's your employer's perception that counts. Not yours.
 
Back