WFH job ad numbers still high despite a chilling labour market

Economy / news

Even as the New Zealand labour market has ‘cooled’, Seek says the number of job ads including opportunities to work from home has climbed higher

25th Jan 24, 12:01am by Ella Somers

Source: 123rf.com

Despite businesses pushing a return to the office, new data from jobs portal Seek New Zealand shows the number of job ads allowing employees to work from home (WFH) is still almost seven times higher than before the pandemic.

In a new economic insights report, Seek’s latest statistics from December 2023 show the WFH ‘rate’ in job ads across New Zealand is sitting at 8.9%.

That's 7.6% higher than what it was in pre-pandemic February 2020 when the WFH job ad rate was at 1.3%, making it a rare addition in job ads.

“Before covid-19 hit, the WFH rate was very low in all industries, not rising above the low-single digits in any industry,” Seek senior economist Matt Cowgill says.

“Now, the story is very different.”

Cowgill says the job portal measures the WFH rate by tracking how many job ads indicate that the role can be done remotely – in relation to the total job advertisements for a specific month.

It does this by scanning for job ads that include at least one WFH-related phrase or keyword.

Seek’s latest economic insights report shows the WFH rate reached an all-time high of 10.3% in September last year.

But Cowgill says the 8.9% figure reported in December 2023 is still higher than it was in early 2022 when covid-19 restrictions were phased out.

The WFH rate has also remained steady despite job advertisements on Seek NZ falling by almost a quarter in the 12 months to December 2023.

“Over the course of 2023, the demand for workers in NZ fell, with the number of job ads on SEEK NZ down 24.5% in the year to December. The average number of applications per ad more than doubled in 2023,” Cowgill says.

“The WFH rate remains high despite the labour market balance tipping back towards a more normal balance between supply and demand.”

The white-collar phenomenon

In Seek’s latest report, the jobs with the most WFH availability were found to be in insurance and superannuation, with over a third of job ads – 33.1% – offering WFH keywords.

Information and communication technology (ICT), banking and financial services weren’t far behind with just over a quarter of jobs advertised providing WFH options at 22.8%.

Cowgill told Interest.co.nz that Seek’s Australian data also had shown the insurance and superannuation industry has the highest WFH rate in Seek job ads.

In sub-industries, the highest WFH rates were found in web development at 39.2%, insurance underwriting at 41% and outbound sales at 44%.

Despite these high numbers, Cowgill says working from home is still a “white-collar phenomenon”.

The number of WFH jobs in sectors like retail, trades, services, hospitality and tourism has barely budged from where they were pre-pandemic – around one-in-100.

Seek’s economic insights report shows Wellington and Auckland also currently lead the pack when it comes to higher numbers of WFH job ad rates.

Cowgill says it’s likely labour markets around the country and elsewhere will reach a more stable point over time – but New Zealand isn’t there yet.

“2024 may see modest declines in the WFH rate, but that’s not likely to be the end of the story.”

He told Interest.co.nz that over the course of 2024, the labour market was expected to soften further.

“The Reserve Bank forecasts that unemployment will rise from 3.9% of the labour force in the third quarter of 2023 to 5.1% in late 2024. This is higher than the 4.1% unemployment rate that the NZ economy had in late 2019, before covid-19 hit,” he says.

“As a result of this softening in the labour market, we expect there to be more competition among job seekers for vacant roles. Employers may not need to offer the same kind of perks and benefits to attract staff as was necessary in the very tight market of 2022. The WFH rate may fall a little as a result.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

33 Comments

by Dgm | 25th Jan 24, 7:23am 1706120635

Simple, companies have given up office space to save money.. so it's a win win...

by redcows1 | 25th Jan 24, 8:07am 1706123237

The last paragraph would suggest that's not the case as the writer implies the benefits are all one way and will be cut in a tightening market.

Personally it's a no brainer and all my family members look for WFH as an essential. Why go to a work place if you don't have to.

Some managers really need to get a grip, one worker I know is required to be in the office two days. They arrive to an almost empty office and work consists of video calls and computer time. All could be done from home as is the rest of the work.

by Dgm | 25th Jan 24, 8:24am 1706124269

You ignored the words 'expect' and 'may' ... probabilities!!!

by Mr Frank | 25th Jan 24, 12:00pm 1706137227

This. Companies realise the cost of rents outweigh possible lower productivity with WFH arrangements.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Jan 24, 8:02am 1706122947

Not providing WFH options makes you a very unattractive employer. We have moved the way we work forwards and we are not going back.

I am lucky to be in a place where I am employing people and it is ALWAYS one of the first asks and I am happy to say - yes we will trust you to work remotely and yes we will measure you by your outcomes.

Productivity of remote workers is not better than those at work but not worse.

by malamah | 25th Jan 24, 9:19am 1706127583

I measured my own productivity through initial phases of COVID. Here's what I found;

Initially more productive. Reduction in commute and freedom to be in the comfort of my own home and some flexibility around work times (working around kids meant some late nights).

Then transitioned to a major lag in productivity as people were not accustomed to communicating solely via IRC and VC.

After a while all the hype died down and I'd say it's fairly level in terms of productivity. Though I am now able to spend more time on other things without commute.

People skive off at home, people skive off in the office. At least at home they aren't distracting others as much.

It all comes down to trust, respect and how you measure productivity. If you want micro-management, in office. If you measure by results, then you're never going to worry about counting the minutes.

by blobbles | 25th Jan 24, 10:13am 1706130784

I think the mix of WFH 3 or 4 days a week and 1-2 days in the office is probably the best for most of us white collar workers. I find that if I am always WFH, while I am far more productive on the tools, I start to lose scope of what I am doing slightly as well as lose any connection to workmates. In saying that though, we have some 2 immuno compromised people who have stayed away for 3 years, they are our most productive workers as well. The reason is they don't have anything to do with office small talk and dramas, so just sit down and focus on their work. But it takes a lot of self discipline and even they admit to skiving off occasionally to do some gardening or housework etc... which is probably a good thing for them to take pauses and come back fresh anyway. We did have someone who wasn't quite as disciplined working fully from another city, they ended up leaving anyway, I suspect due to lack of interest in the actual work (they have now changed careers).

Personally, yesterday I completed a huge amount of work which needed to be done urgently and was shared between 3 of us. With the other 2 in the office, I ended up doing over half of it, while the other two would have been in regular chats about other stuff which mostly wouldn't have been work related but slightly altered some of our work for next week. I thought that was a good indicator of the benefits of WFH and drawbacks.

For me the biggest thing is the lack of commute. Losing 2 hours everyday to stupid commuting is utterly pointless, IF I know what work I have to accomplish for the week.

by refactornz | 25th Jan 24, 10:45am 1706132746

I think the mix of WFH 3 or 4 days a week and 1-2 days in the office is probably the best for most of us white collar workers.

I disagree with that, unless you can coordinate for the whole team to go in on the same day.

It's depressing going into a mostly empty office then spending much of the day on video calls.

by RickStrauss | 25th Jan 24, 11:22am 1706134977

In my office we aim to spend days together in the office. Time in-office seems to be best spent on actually building team relationships rather than doing productive work too because most office spaces are open plan and high interruption / distraction environments. Home can often be a better place to get the work done that requires concentration.

by JustAnOpinion | 25th Jan 24, 1:06pm 1706141208

Good point, the modern open-plan offices are noisy and distracting. For deep work it is good to have a quiet space with no distractions.

by blobbles | 25th Jan 24, 12:00pm 1706137209

Yes, I agree, having the same office days is pretty much a requirement.

by Averageman | 25th Jan 24, 8:30am 1706124606

Agree it's a path to dumping overpriced office rents to keep business being squeezed. Also a direct path to eliminating any culture and relationships between staff members.

So what to do...

by KH | 25th Jan 24, 9:13am 1706127199

Mate is job hunting. The WFH thing makes the possibilities for him NZ wide, rather than just locally. So great.

But but, many want him in the office one day a week etc. He expresses frustration on that.

by Mr Frank | 25th Jan 24, 11:59am 1706137165

Does he also want free lunches to come with the job? And a massage during work hours?

Gosh the entitlement.

by KH | 25th Jan 24, 2:36pm 1706146587

What a shitty comment Frank. The guy is looking for a job. I discussed that WFH genuinely increased his options. But not always.

Problem with that?

by FJP | 27th Jan 24, 5:30am 1706286628

C suite be any chance?

by K.W. | 25th Jan 24, 12:14pm 1706138089

If you're not important enough to be in the office, you are not important. They'll find that out when they dont get pay rises, promotions, and are first in line to be cut in a redundancy round.

by interesting1234 | 25th Jan 24, 12:38pm 1706139484

Rubbish, that is an outdated way of thinking and also industry-dependent. Many can WFH and be far more productive, contributing much more to their organisation and hence achieve bigger pay rises based on performance. While the in-person factor is still essential, there's plenty of ways to network and form beneficial business relationships with others in your organisation over calls both video and audio, as you're still dealing with people after all.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 25th Jan 24, 1:50pm 1706143859

spot on.

Smart people work hard - and as a result are trusted to wfh and are paid more. Over their lifetime these people probably 'work' way less hours *time in offices/travel time etc than lazy less-smart people.

those 'less smart' people try to work as little as possible.. and spend their whole lives in traffic and stuck in an office pretending to work. And tend to be way poorer.

Its kinda funny that in trying to be lazy people end up working more.

by K.W. | 25th Jan 24, 2:14pm 1706145259

But those who are in the office every day, interacting with their boss, and their boss's boss, will be doing it better. Career advancement is more about people skills than it is about productivity. People who have real relationships with their colleagues and upper management are going to be first in line for a management position, not the guy that nobody has seen for 3 years. You might be productive at your current job, but without the exposure to people who do different jobs in your organisation, you won't learn any new skills that will help your career progress. You'll just be stuck doing the same job for life.

And if its so easy to do your job remotely with no need for any human interaction, you will soon be replaced by someone in India on half your wage.

At the end of the day, people are at the heart of an organisation. Without any relationships being forged, you are not going to get ahead. People will soon work that out, just wait and see.

by interesting1234 | 25th Jan 24, 3:09pm 1706148540

I've worked a few years in a large organisation, been through the COVID period where everyone had to WFH on and off with lockdowns, now it's a blend permanently and everyone loves it. It allows more opportunity for mums with young kids to get a job that works around their schedules with the kids, and still command a reasonable salary, which greatly benefits many families who couldn't otherwise work without having to find the unicorn jobs of 9am-3pm hours. This can be done by so many if working from home or blended home and in the office, and is commonly built into employment contracts as the roles can be outcome-based with performance measures against company values also. What you get is also more opportunity for those in the regions and who live further away form towns and cities, to earn more and commute less, saving more money for other things like their families, or to buy a house etc. For example there are many people in my city who work remotely from the south island and commute to Wellington once per month for face to face things as needed for their work. This allows them to live outside Wellington but command a Wellington Salary. Opportunities are endless out there :-)

by K.W. | 25th Jan 24, 4:03pm 1706151812

Most of the jobs I see advertised are hybrid - 3-4 days in the office, 1-2 days at home. Which is probably fine, although I would still put money on the fact that those that turn up 4-5 days a week will be thought of more highly than those who turn up for 3. People are funny like that. The more disengaged you are from the company, the more the company will be disengaged from you. And that makes you more easily replaced, outsourced, or removed entirely.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 25th Jan 24, 3:16pm 1706148962

Depends if you enjoy the hamster wheel or not.. The 'working your way up' (via relationships and hard work) tend to be something like.. 3 years to get a degree, then 2 more for a masters, work in an office for very long hours for 5 years, get promoted to 1st tier management, then another 10 even longer hours to be a senior manager, 10 more to be a partner and then another 10 of very long hours to be seen to be working as hard as the other partners.....

FINALLY - you are rich and can retire... congratulations (in reality you just spent the best 40 years of your life in an office or travelling to work just to be able to enjoy the least productive old age period of your life and travel round the world meeting other professional retirees telling each other all your war stories about the office...

I dont think there is a'right' or 'wrong' way.. my opinion (having worked the office way and then escaped the office way) its better to get the skills and experience in a job that can be fully remote and gain EQ too, and picking skills that will pay very well.. and then work less and play more and actually enjoy the journey....

by K.W. | 25th Jan 24, 3:59pm 1706151575

Career progression is not always straight up, in many instances its across. In my case, I started working in the marketing department of a tech company, with no technical skills or qualifications at all. 10 years later I was designing and developing internet and ecommerce products. If I had spent years working from home doing marketing stuff, I would not have been exposed to all the people who I learnt things from - namely those in IT and Engineering. Over time I absorbed enough information to upskill myself to be able to do more technical roles and achieve a much higher pay grade. This would never have happened if my first role was WFH. Cross departmental networking is just as important as hierarchical networking, if you want to get a better job doing something slightly different to what you are doing now.

by dotti | 25th Jan 24, 5:47pm 1706158036

I'm not sure some people are aware of how some modern corporations operate. My company has headquarters in North America. I predominantly work in a cross functional team with team mates in NZ, Australia, North America and Portugal. I can work in the office if I want to, or I can work at home. It makes no difference either way, as any meetings are online so that my global team can attend together.

by Nzdan | 25th Jan 24, 6:19pm 1706159979

Depends on the role and business. I'm an estimator, my role is officially a Head Office function but I work from home 4 days a week and commute 1 day to a regional sales branch. I don't need to "collab" with my team mates when I'm performing take offs from a set of civil design documents, in fact I need to be left alone. I still interact with QS/Construction Managers from various contractors/territorial authorities, so there is human interaction.

Also, we have these little things called web cameras attached to our laptops. Once a week we have a meeting on this thing called Microsoft Teams, it's like being there in person but you're not.

by K.W. | 26th Jan 24, 11:18am 1706221119

Its not the same. Its like having a romantic long distance relationship and thinking its the same as living with someone in the same house. All these WFH workers with tenuous connections to their colleagues, no personal friendships with anyone at work, and no relationships with superiors, will find out the hard way that getting ahead will always be about who you know and how well you get on, not what you do or how productively you do it.

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 24, 1:15pm 1706228141

I think you're overstating massively the impact of giving your manager a high five in the flesh. In our company, we have a Head Office in Auckland with quite a heavy management structure. That has not prevented people in our regional branches being promoted at all. I was promoted into my current role from an internal sales function 4 years ago, at the time I hadn't seen my Auckland based manager for a couple of years.

Like I said, it depends on the company and is not at all like a romantic long distance relationship.

by K.W. | 26th Jan 24, 12:37pm 1706225870

Just to prove my point on remote working. 265 out of 275 employees laid off. The other 10 had probably already left the company.

https://www.polygon.com/23980876/unity-layoffs-weta-digital

"Unity Technologies is laying off 265 people — 3.8% of its 7,000 employees — as it undergoes a “company reset,” according to Reuters. All 265 laid off workers were part of Unity’s Wētā Digital division; several Wētā FX tools and 275 employees were acquired by Unity in 2021 in a $1.6 billion deal."

That's Weta Digital gone from NZ.

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 24, 1:22pm 1706228533

You've found one example of a US tech company massively scaling back. What percentage of the other 1,100 people they have laid off this year do you think worked remote?

This is Unity’s third round of layoffs in 2023; the company laid off nearly 300 people in January and around 600 in May. In total, Unity’s laid off more than 1,100 people this year, preceded by at least 200 job cuts in June 2022. Large-scale layoffs are not unique to Unity, as the industry enters a crisis created by thousands of layoffs. However, Unity has had a uniquely bad year due to a controversial new pricing model that was essentially universally condemned by the game development community. The new policy originally added additional fees each time a game is downloaded, with some restrictions due to player base size. The fees were eventually revised after widespread backlash, including a mobile game developer protest that saw companies boycotting Unity’s ad tools.

by K.W. | 29th Jan 24, 3:22pm 1706494920

Probably all of them.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/layoffs-remote-work-data-980ed59d

"New data suggests that managers tend to have an easier time showing remote workers the door.

Workers logging on from home five days a week were 35% more likely to be laid off in 2023 than their peers who put in office time, according to an analysis of two million white-collar workers conducted by employment data provider Live Data Technologies. The analysis showed 10% of fully remote workers were laid off last year, compared with 7% of those working in an office full time or on a hybrid basis.

“When a hiring manager gets news they have to cut 10% of the staff, it’s easier to put someone on the list you don’t have a close personal relationship with,” says Andy Challenger, senior vice president at Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm. Much of the disparity, he says, is that it’s simply harder to build attachments to people you don’t see face to face."

by Cheetahlegs66 | 25th Jan 24, 4:38pm 1706153899

In our healthcare industry WFH was never entertained pre-COVID. In exceptional circumstances it would be granted eg self directed learning.

Post COVID it is the industry norm and my current employer requiring us to be in the office 3 days is more of a traditionalist with the 3:2 ratio.

The nature of my job is technical and I was rarely productive after 2-3pm. With WFH I start early (pre-8am, often 7:30am) after having got a run in. Smash a few hrs, do some house work, smash an hour....take a break, knock another 1-2 hrs and get more accomplished than in a traditional office-based day. The office however is essential to discuss projects with colleagues, use printers etc.

WFH saves me commuting time, allows me to work fewer hours for the same outputs but more importantly allows me to integrate my training into my lifestyle. None of my peers would entertain working for an employer who didn't offer WFH (mid-upper mid management, mid 30s/late 50s).

by patrickb | 25th Jan 24, 9:50pm 1706172655

I hate to be pedantic but its 7.6 percentage points higher, not 7.6% higher.