When did getting to work become such a costly exercise?

The cost of going to work has become a much bigger part of the employment conversation. What was once viewed as a routine expense is now having a real impact on household budgets, especially as fuel prices and wider living costs continue to rise. For many workers, the daily commute is no longer just a practical part of the day. It is an ongoing financial pressure that shapes how sustainable a role feels over time.



This shift is forcing employers and employees alike to look again at what workplace flexibility really means. For years, flexible working was often framed as a lifestyle benefit or a cultural advantage. Now, it is increasingly being seen through a more immediate and practical lens. When the cost of simply getting to work starts to noticeably reduce take-home pay, flexibility becomes less about preference and more about financial reality.

It is no surprise, then, that the debate around working from home has returned with fresh urgency. As external pressures continue to build, many organisations are being challenged to think carefully about how workplace expectations line up with the pressures people are facing outside the office.

“Commuting isn't just a lifestyle choice anymore. It is a direct cost.”

On a recent NZ Market Update, Host NZ Team Leader Kirsty Henegan explored why flexibility at work is moving back to the centre of employer decision-making. Her focus was not on flexibility as a perk, but as a cost-of-living consideration that is becoming harder to ignore.

A major part of the discussion centred on the way costs are being redistributed. When fuel prices rise and flexibility is reduced, that pressure does not disappear. Instead, it often lands more heavily on employees. That matters because the return-to-office conversation has, in many workplaces, been framed around productivity, collaboration and culture. Those are valid business priorities, but they do not exist in a vacuum. They sit alongside rising transport costs, inflationary pressure and tighter household budgets.

That is where the conversation becomes more nuanced. The push back to offices may make sense from an operational or leadership perspective, but for workers facing a more expensive commute, the day-to-day impact can be significant. In that context, a rigid approach can feel disconnected from reality. As Kirsty pointed out, once the cost of getting to work starts to visibly eat into wages, flexibility stops feeling like a nice extra and starts to feel like a practical tool.

For roles where remote work is possible, hybrid arrangements can provide meaningful relief. Even a small reduction in commuting days can make a noticeable difference over the course of a month. Flexible start times can also help workers manage travel more efficiently, whether that means avoiding peak traffic, reducing childcare pressure or finding more cost-effective ways to commute. These adjustments may seem modest, but they can send a strong signal that employers are paying attention to what staff are dealing with in real life.

At the same time, this is not simply about reverting to old pandemic-era models or making sweeping policy changes. Kirsty’s perspective reflected something more measured. What many organisations are showing is not a full reversal, but an adjustment to present conditions. Employers are beginning to use more discretion around hybrid days, working patterns and individual circumstances. That does not necessarily mean a blanket shift across every business, but it does point to a more responsive way of thinking.

There is also an important talent piece here. Flexibility is no longer only tied to employee preference or workplace culture. It is becoming part of how employers demonstrate awareness, empathy and competitiveness in a challenging labour market. People are paying attention to whether businesses respond thoughtfully to the realities they are living with. Where flexibility is possible and used well, it can support not only retention but also morale, trust and engagement.

Of course, not every role can be done from home, and that remains a key part of the wider discussion. In sectors where physical presence is required, rising commuting and transport costs can throw an even sharper light on the overall affordability of work. In those cases, the issue becomes broader than flexibility alone. It raises questions about support, pay, accessibility and how organisations think about the true cost of employment for their workforce.

That is why this conversation matters now. It is not just about where people work. It is about how work fits into the economic pressures of everyday life. Employers who recognise that shift are more likely to make decisions that feel practical, balanced and sustainable. Those who ignore it may find that policies designed to strengthen culture or productivity are experienced very differently by the people expected to follow them.

What should employers be thinking about as flexibility returns to the agenda?

• Review whether current return-to-office expectations still reflect today’s cost-of-living pressures.
• Consider where hybrid working can reduce financial strain without compromising business outcomes.
• Use flexible start and finish times to support employees managing transport, traffic and family demands.
• Encourage open conversations so staff can raise budget pressures before they become bigger retention issues.
• Recognise that flexibility now plays a stronger role in employer brand, engagement and talent attraction.
• Look beyond policy language and focus on whether workplace practices feel realistic and fair in current conditions.