Lindiwe Sebesho, Managing Director of Remchannel
South African employers that have not reconsidered workplace flexibility are overlooking a relatively low-cost way to ease employees’ commuting costs and support retention without increasing their fixed pay budgets.
A Remchannel survey involving 117 organisations found that, among the 96 respondents to the flexibility question, 77% introduced no additional flexibility in response to fuel or cost-of-living pressures. Only 10% increased remote work, 3% introduced flexible hours and 1% introduced a compressed workweek.
“What employees value about work extends beyond the number on a payslip. When commuting costs rise, flexibility in roles that allow for such can ease a real monthly expense and make the overall employment value proposition more valuable,” says Lindiwe Sebesho, managing director of Remchannel.
That matters as employers compete for scarce skills and strive for productive employees that execute their strategies and help them create sustainable value.
Remchannel’s April Salary and Wage research found that 73.8% of respondents agreed employees were looking for more flexibility in their working environment, while 61.9% saw demand for greater mobility and choice in where employees can work. Labour turnover excluding temporary staff reached 17.8% for 2025, and resignations accounted for 31% of terminations.
Pay remains central to the retention challenge. In the same research, 73.8% of participating organisations selected better remuneration or higher pay as one of the main reasons employees leave.
“Flexibility should therefore not be seen as a substitute for fair and competitive pay,” says Sebesho. “Equally, employers are operating under significant cost and productivity pressures, which can limit the scope for salary increases.” Well-designed flexibility can help balance these realities by adding value to the employment proposition without automatically increasing fixed payroll, provided arrangements support operational requirements, accountability and performance.
“Flexibility does not replace competitive pay,” says Sebesho. “It strengthens the broader employment proposition. Where roles can be performed effectively away from a fixed workplace, fewer mandatory office days can reduce employees’ commuting costs without adding to the employer’s fixed payroll.”
The job should determine the arrangement
The issue for managers is not whether all employees should work remotely, but whether on-site attendance is essential to the role or simply reflects a policy that has not evolved with the work.
Roles that rely on specialised equipment, face-to-face customer service, production lines or on-site care require a physical presence. Others can be managed through clear outputs, agreed availability and measurable performance without a daily commute.
“Employers should begin with the work and the value that needs to be created,” says Sebesho. “Where a role or skill requires an employee to be on site, the operational reason should be clear. Where it does not, flexibility can form part of the employee value proposition rather than remain an informal concession.”
Remote work cannot be the only answer
A remote-work-only response also creates a fairness problem. Higher-paid knowledge workers are often more likely to occupy roles that can be performed from home, while many lower-income employees must be physically present to do their jobs. If commuting relief is delivered only through remote work, the employees most exposed to rising transport costs may receive the least support.
The mobility survey found that, among 105 respondents, 72% provided no transport allowance to employees in lower job grades. Only 18% provided a fixed monthly allowance. The findings suggest that many employers have changed neither the location of work nor the financial support available to employees whose roles require them to commute.
“If flexibility is used as a cost-of-living benefit for employees who can work remotely, employers must also ask what meaningful support looks like for those whose work must be performed on site,” says Sebesho. “Fairness does not always mean giving everyone the same benefit. It means understanding where the burden falls and designing support with equal care and consideration.”
A broader flexibility toolkit
For roles that can be performed remotely, employers can review required office days, working hours and compressed workweek options, while ensuring that service delivery, collaboration and and most importantly how, where and from where optimal productivity are maintained.
For on-site roles, alternatives may include flexible shifts, predictable rosters, targeted transport allowances, employer-provided transport or support tailored to location and employee level.
Not every intervention is cost-free, so employers should weigh employee impact against affordability, operational requirements and expected productivity benefits. A targeted measure may be more sustainable than a broad salary adjustment and can include clear eligibility, duration, ownership and review criteria to assess whether it supports the employees most affected and delivers the intended business outcomes.
The starting point is evidence rather than a one-size-fits-all policy. Line managers supported by HR and Reward teams should consider commuting costs, income levels and employee needs alongside job, skill requirements, customer expectations, team effectiveness and the practical scope for flexibility before selecting an intervention.
“Employers do not need one solution for every role, but they do need a deliberate and fair response,” says Sebesho. “A change in how work is organised should reduce meaningful employee costs where possible, while protecting productivity, service delivery and operational sustainability. When it achieves both, it deserves consideration alongside other elements of the total reward strategy.”
ENDS
