Changing patterns of work

The public health measures implemented to contain the spread of COVID-19 (such as widespread social distancing, national lockdowns, and activity/business-related restrictions) had a considerable impact on the working arrangements of many Australians. Many of these changes to working arrangements that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic show no signs of reverting to pre-pandemic levels. This page examines changes in working patterns in Australia, including working from home, internal migration, and job mobility.

Data are drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) as well as other sources as described in the Data sources used on this page box below.

Working from home

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced several changes to working arrangements, many of which are still in place and will likely remain into the future in some capacity; working from home is one example.

Prior to the pandemic (before 1 March 2020), 13% of people aged 18 and over with a job reported working from home all or most days according to the ABS Household Impacts of COVID-19 Survey. Following the lockdowns and restrictions in the early months of the pandemic to contain the spread of COVID-19, the proportion working from home all or most days more than doubled to around 26–31% between September 2020 and February 2021. It then declined to around 22–23% in April–May 2021, presumably reflecting fewer lockdowns in place around the country at this time, before increasing again to 30% by April 2022 – over twice as high as prior to the pandemic.

Results from this survey also highlighted that the proportion of people working from home at least one day per week also increased in the 2 years to April 2022, from 24% before 1 March 2020, increasing to 39–41% from September 2020 to February 2021, and dropping slightly to 36% in April and May 2021. By April 2022, 46% of people had worked from home at least once per week (in the last 4 weeks), the highest level recorded since the pandemic began in March 2020 (ABS 2021a; ABS 2022a).

The sustained increase in working from home suggests there may not be a return to pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, the results from the TTPN survey from July 2022 suggest that 88% of Australian workers would like to work from home at least partially, and 60% would prefer a hybrid work arrangement with days in both the office and at home (Melbourne Institute Applied Economic and Social Research 2022a). Many workers under the age of 54 have reported that they would leave their job or seek alternative employment if they were not able to access flexible work options (Ruppanner et al. 2023).

It is worth noting that some population groups in particular, such as caregivers or people living with chronic illnesses, may stand to benefit from more flexible work arrangements (Ruppanner et al. 2023).

Labour productivity

Working from home may affect productivity (that is, the measure of output per unit of labour) of employees in different ways. For example, it may have hindered productivity due to the physical distance between colleagues and challenges in collaborating and exchanging information. On the other hand, many employees have an improved work-life balance due to the elimination of their daily commute and being better rested for work as a result (Productivity Commission 2021).

Most people in paid employment who had increased the amount of time they spent working from home at the start of the pandemic reported little change in productivity. According to self-reported data from HILDA, almost 3 in 5 (58%) respondents indicated that productivity was the same or better following an increase in hours worked from home – 24% reported positive impacts, 33% no change in productivity, and 42% reported negative impacts. It is worth noting that this reporting is from the earlier months of the pandemic (in 2020), when many employees were forced to work from home at short notice, potentially with inadequate workstations, and with many families required to supervise children undertaking remote learning (Melbourne Institute Applied Economic and Social Research 2022b). It is also important to note that productivity as it is reported in HILDA is self-reported, and not an objective or economy-wide measure; employers may have a different view than those reported by individual employees in the survey.

This finding that working from home has a minimal impact on productivity is consistent with other studies. One such study conducted a randomised control trial to investigate the effects of hybrid work arrangements on the attrition, job satisfaction and productivity of both managerial and non-managerial knowledge workers. This study found that – despite a drop in productivity being one of the more commonly touted criticisms of working from home – there was no evidence to suggest a substantial positive or negative impact of hybrid working on productivity (Bloom et al. 2023).

Job satisfaction

In terms of job satisfaction, there are advantages and disadvantages in working from home. It may provide employees with a greater sense of autonomy and control. On the other hand, if employees are excessively monitored it may decrease organisational attachment (Productivity Commission 2021). This relationship may depend to some extent on the amount of time spent working from home (or away from the office) (Allen et al. 2015).

Research from the Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research found a positive association between working from home and job satisfaction for women, but not for men (Laß et al. 2023). This analysis used a linear fixed effects model to examine job satisfaction of people employed in both 2019 and 2021 (but who only worked from home in 2021) and controls for the characteristics of workers – including, for example, age, partnership status, employment type, supervisory responsibilities, employer size and industry. Mothers who worked at home for 3 days per week and in the workplace for 2 days had a 12% increase in average job satisfaction. This may be related to increased opportunities to undertake both work and family responsibilities (Laß et al. 2023).

Technology enabling working from home

The increase in regularly working from home in a job or business relied on employers making the most out of available technologies, such as digital collaboration tools and cloud-based project planning tools (National Skills Commission 2021).

The National Skills Commission’s Recruitment Experiences and Outlook survey of around 2,000 employers between 16 November 2020 and 5 February 2021 collected information on the impact of COVID-19 on businesses, including the implementation of automation and new technologies. This survey found that 33% of employers had implemented automation or new technology during the pandemic, which was a major factor enabling remote work (National Skills Commission 2021).

Internal migration

The option to work from home can shift how people make decisions about the physical location of their home and workplace. For example, with employees working from home, the distance, time, and cost of a commute may no longer feature so heavily when deciding where to work or live (Doling and Arundel 2020). This may create opportunities for people to move further away from central business districts.

While Australian capital cities have had net losses from internal migration since 2001, this was accelerated at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. From June 2002 to June 2019, the net loss in the population of all Australian capital cities ranged from 2,400 to 8,600 people each quarter. In March 2020, this rose to a net loss of 10,100.

By March 2021 (the latest available data), the net loss for capital cities from internal migration had increased slightly again to 11,800 (Figure 1). Over this quarter, Brisbane gained the most people (3,300), while Melbourne and Sydney lost the most people (8,300 and 8,200, respectively) (ABS 2021b). This steep decline was the result of both fewer arrivals in capital cities from, and an increased number of departures to, non-capital city areas.

Figure 1: Net internal migration in Australian capital cities, 2002–2021

Notes

1. ‘Combined’ is the net internal migration across all Greater capital cities. 
2. Net internal migration is the number of arrivals minus the number of departures and can be either positive or negative. 
3. The figure presents data from the June quarter in each corresponding year.

Source: ABS 2021b Table 1.

Job mobility

The pandemic has had a large impact on the job mobility of many Australians. Job mobility on this page refers to employed people who have changed jobs, left jobs or lost their jobs in the 12 previous months.

Changing jobs

The proportion of employed people who change employer or business in the previous 12 months has been gradually declining since the 1990’s – from 20% of employed people in the 12 months to February 1989, to 8.5% by February 2019, declining further to 7.5% by February 2021. By February 2022 this had increased to the highest level in a decade (9.5%; Figure 2), which equates to 1.3 million people changing jobs in the 12 months to February 2022. This was around 215,600 more people than in the 12 months to February 2020. Between February 2022 and February 2023 the proportion of employed people who changed jobs remained steady at 9.5%.

This increase in job mobility since February 2021 may be due to workers following up on plans to change jobs following a pause during the pandemic, or taking advantage of the strong labour market (Black and Chow 2022).

Figure 2: Persons who changed jobs or left or lost a job in the 12 months to February of each year 1976–2023

Note: The figure presents the number of people who changed jobs in the 12 months to February of each year as a proportion of all employed people, and the number of people who left or lost jobs in the 12 months to February each year as a proportion of the population aged 15 and over.

Sources: ABS 2018: Table 17, 2023: Table 1.

Leaving or losing jobs

In the early months of the pandemic (the 12 months to February 2021), employees were less likely to leave their jobs, and slightly more likely to lose their jobs, as compared with the previous year.

In the 12 months to February 2021, there was a decline in the number of employees leaving their jobs (from 1.3 million in 2019–20 to 1.1 million in 2020–21; Figure 2). This period covers the early months of the pandemic, during which time many employees were reluctant to change jobs due to economic uncertainty, fewer advertised roles, and the JobKeeper program introduced in March 2020 which assisted people in maintaining employment with their current employer (Black and Chow 2022).

Over the same period, there was a slight increase in the number of people who lost their jobs, from 667,600 in 2019–20 to 715,700 in 2020–21 (or from 3.3% to 3.5% of the population aged 15 and over; Figure 2). Over half (55%) of these job losses were due to people being retrenched (the termination of an employee when their position is no longer required). It is likely that the number of people recorded as losing their jobs would have been substantially higher without the introduction of the JobKeeper payment (see ‘Chapter 4 The impacts of COVID-19 on employment and income support in Australia’ in Australia’s welfare 2021: data insights for further details).

In the 12 months to February 2022, however, these patterns had reversed with an increasing number of people leaving jobs and a decreasing number of people losing their jobs, as compared with the previous year – 7.7% of the population aged 15 and over left their jobs in 2021–22, which is the highest since 2011–12 (7.5%), and 2.4 percentage points higher than the previous year (5.3%). The most common reason for people leaving their jobs was to get a better job or just wanting a change – 53% of all people who left their jobs, compared with 39–47% each year since 2015.

In the 12 months to February 2022, 2.5% of the population aged 15 and over lost their jobs, compared with 3.5% in 2020–21. Of all the job losses, 38% were due to people being retrenched. While retrenchment rates increased at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (from 1.1% to 4.4% between February and May 2020 quarters), retrenchment rates remained lower than previous recessions (AIHW 2021). For example, during the recessions of the early 1990s, the annual retrenchment rate reached 7.2% in 1991.

In the year to February 2023, the proportion of the population aged 15 and over who left their jobs continued to grow to 8.4%, while the proportion who lost their jobs remained steady at 2.5%.

Where do I go for more information?

For more information on changing patterns of work, see:

• University of Melbourne HILDA Survey publications
• Jobs and Skills Australia Recruitment Experiences and Outlook Survey.