Aussie workers furious as employer forces them back into the office three days a week
TheAussieCorporate page claimed Deloitte will issue a mandate for employees to return to the office three days a week.
Employees in Australia were told during Thursday afternoon briefings that they would be required back in the office, or on client sites.
'Deloitte return to office mandate has been rumoured for a little while with some more senior staff mentioning that it's coming,' the anonymous user said.
' Brisbane office doesn't have enough seating and hot desking is usually a nightmare.'
People leapt into the comments section to slam the alleged mandate, claiming a lack of space in Deloitte offices.
'Apparently we told them we wanted better collaboration, communication and engagement in staff surveys,' one apparent employee said.
'Solution? Come back to an office with insufficient desks to accommodate the policy - go figure? Not sure that is what I meant…'
Users who said they were employees questioned how everyone would fit into the offices
Another said the Sydney office 'didn't have enough seating with the full-time, work from home, 18 months ago'.
'Not sure how they're going to fit more people in with mandatory office days.'
A third succinctly said the proposal was ' ridiculous and unmonitorable with so many people at client sites'.
'Stop de loittering and get back to work. I mean the office.'
Daily Mail Australia has contacted Deloitte's Australian branch for comment.
In May, specialist recruiter and career coach Tammie Ballis warned that work-from-home options and flexible or hybrid arrangements are becoming 'less and less' in the years after the Covid pandemic.
National Australia Bank, Amazon, Dell, Tabcorp and Flight Centre are among the recent corporations to introduce a return-to-office mandates.
'You might think you've got a work-from-home job, but you might not have that next week,' Ms Ballis said.
'Employers can decide to change it, and people shouldn't just trust that the workplace is going to give them what they want.
'As long as they are within the legal rights and within the law, businesses can change their terms and conditions when it comes to your employment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I ordered an everyday item of clothing from overseas when it was seized at the Australian border... then came the $2,500 bill to get it back
An Australian business owner has lashed out after his clothing shipment was seized at the border and he was forced to pay more than $2,500 before he could get it back. Andy Lowry, who runs clothing store Pamboes, had ordered a shipment of 'blanket hoodies' from China before they were withheld by the Australian Border Force. Authorities had searched the clothing for illegal materials, however they found nothing suspicious inside of them. Mr Lowry was slugged with a $2,524 bill for airport storage fees and informed he would not be able to collect the items until he settled it. 'Apparently because I'm the importer on record, I had to pay that $2,524 bill and they pretty much told me to get stuffed,' he said. 'This is like the cost of doing business essentially.' Mr Lowry claimed the seizure put him behind schedule for marketing the new clothes. 'I can confirm that [Master Air Waybill number] is subject to border processing and we're unable to provide a timeframe as to when it may be available,' an official advised in an email. 'At this point I'm getting stressed cause they like can't give me a timeframe. I'm like how long are they going to keep it for?' Mr Lowry said. In correspondence from the ABF, Mr Lowry was told he could not collect his items until he paid to lift the storage fees. He believed it would cost a few hundred dollars. 'After I wait a week and a half, I get my storage charges and it's storage for $2,524. For what? A hoodie?' Mr Lowry said. 'Then I sort of had this huge back and forth on why I'm having to pay for this, and lo and behold, it is legal. 'The Australian Border Force can do that to any person who is importing.' Mr Lowry said to chase a reimbursement he was deferred to the Department of Home Affairs. He was told he would have to lodge an investigation and complain. Mr Lowry told Daily Mail Australia any fee 'coming out of nowhere' makes it 'tough' to do business. He said the 'seasonal' business relies on customers purchasing his products at the beginning of winter, and estimates the border mishap in June cost him dearly. Mr Lowry began selling the loungewear during the Covid pandemic before realising there was a market for 'blanket'-style clothes. 'This delay cost us two weeks in June, which would be above a six-figure loss in lost sales,' he said. 'Understandably customers do their winter shopping at the beginning of winter so they can get full use out of whatever they have bought.' When he tried to chase an investigation, Mr Lowry found there was no way around paying the fees, as the importer on record is liable for the costs. 'In the time Australian Border Force is checking your goods, your shipping company is forced to hold the goods at their warehouses until Australian Border Force is finished and storage charges are imposed,' he said. 'Some companies may be kind enough to waive these charges, but understandably they are a business too.' Mr Lowry said the costs around occupying commercial real estate are expensive as port space is in high demand. In general, importing can be 'quite difficult' he said. He added Pamboes has thankfully had few issues but acknowledged he had heard 'horror stories'. 'Border holds cost companies millions each year and it's not something you can really prepare for, it's almost a random check,' he said. 'We understand they have to keep our borders safe, but we pay taxes at the border. You would think part of those taxes we pay would cover ABF's work.' He said it hasn't put him off doing business as Pamboes moves into more fashionable blanket-wear and tries to sell off remaining stock in a winter sale.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.' PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks. He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. 'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'. 'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said. 'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
