The big news this week is that if you’re in tax at Deloitte, you’ll be expected to show your face at the office or client site a couple days a week going forward. FT has the scoop:
An email sent to staff in the firm’s US tax division in recent weeks, and seen by the Financial Times, said that “being present at a Deloitte office or client site will now be considered in your . . . performance evaluations”.
Staff should ensure “in-person collaboration 2-3 days (50 per cent) weekly”, added the email, which was sent by Katie Zinn, the tax practice’s chief talent officer.
Badge swipe monitoring will continue until morale obedience improves.
Didn’t they already try to get tax to do a 2-3 day in-office schedule years ago? They did. While we want to immediately jump to the conclusion that this latest directive is a direct result of rebellious staff ignoring it the first time, it seems more likely that there’s more at play here. It’s this:
Deloitte did a survey of people working in financial services a while back that found people will quit if you make them go back into the office so they know what will happen next and it’s not entire teams of compliant staff cheerfully returning to office.
With federal contracts being vaporized before their eyes under Trump, Deloitte needs to save as many pennies as it can. This way they can blame YOU if your bonus is small, not their own cheapness.
Forbes just covered the topic actually. In “Why Rigid RTO Mandates Cost More Than They Save,” Solange Charas writes:
A case study of a professional services firm in New York City illustrates this dilemma. The firm, with 1,000 employees, pays an estimated $18 million annually in real estate costs. If 50% of employees work remotely, half of that investment—$9 million—is effectively a sunk cost. However, consider the impact of a forced RTO policy that leads to a conservative 30% attrition rate. This 30% attrition rate is also conservative as recent research indicates that close to 42% of recent attrition is due to forced RTO policies. Assuming an average salary of $125,000 and a replacement cost of 1.5 times salary (a standard HR estimate), the economic cost of replacing 300 employees would be $56.25 million.
Being experts in crunching numbers, some people on r/Deloitte don’t care about missing out on bonuses if it means having to leave home 2-3 days a week.
Childcare, commuting costs, lunch, petsitting for the anxious rescue dog you got in 2020 who can’t be alone for more than 30 minutes…that stuff adds up. Of course a bunch of accountants are going to do that math and figure out it’s literally not worth it.
Last time we did the math in “EY Expects Its People to Build a Better Working World Together In Person Up to 60% of the Time,” here’s what we came up with:
Reminder that the average cost per in-office day is $71 (assuming pet care is part of your costs) which means an $800/year stipend would cover approximately eleven days in office. Hybrid workers spend a more modest $36 per day, that breaks down to 22 days. Technically 22.22 so 22¼ days. The average American commuter spends $8,466 and about 19% of their annual income on their commute every year, if you live in Detroit, Atlanta, NYC, SoCal, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, or Washington, DC your average commute cost per year is closer to $10,000.
The average cost per day in-office figure above came from Owl Labs 2023 State of Hybrid work report. According to their 2024 report, the average amount hybrid workers without petcare costs are spending for a day at the office is of $61, an increase of 20% from 2023. The report says:
This may be why 22% of hybrid workers said that if they were no longer allowed to work remotely or hybrid, they would expect a pay increase to make up for the additional costs. The pay adjustments could go the other way, too – nearly 1 in 5 workers (19%) said they would give up 10% of their annual income for a 4-day work week, flexible working hours, or a better health insurance plan.
When you think about it, a smaller bonus is better than a straight pay cut right?
This has to be the biggest waste of pay – the tax practice’s chief talent officer. By the way, when was this role ever served by a male partner? It’s a defined female role.
Most firms bonuses in core service lines for staff are between 5-10%. On salaries that are often below $100k at staff and senior levels in core services, the math is absolutely clear, with the cost of commuting it doesn’t make sense to show up to receive that little. Firms have absolutely lost the plot on compensation.
I’ve been a CPA for 36 years and the folks who run these forms have absolutely abused the talent by low pay, poor benefits, shear verbal abuse, incompetent training and simply giving to the industries cheapening of the value a trained CPA brings to work. If I had the time I would explore alternative options to accounting and ever becoming a CPA.
Good for Deloitte. Eliminate bonuses and freeze merit increases until they either comply with the initiative or leave the firm. The tail wagging the dog needs to be eliminated. Everyone is replaceable. It’s a privilege working for Deloitte and there are plenty of applicants who don’t possess the greater than thou attitude. Conform or get lost.
People aren’t stupid. Especially in metro areas with constant traffic and construction, the extra “bonus” won’t even cover the travel costs.
Thank you for citing my Forbes column. Deloitte’s decision to link bonuses to office attendance reflects a growing trend among firms struggling to justify real estate costs. However, as I discussed in my column (Why Rigid RTO Mandates Cost More Than They Save), the financial trade-offs of forced return-to-office policies often outweigh the perceived benefits. Attrition rates linked to rigid RTO mandates can drive replacement costs and productivity losses far beyond the “savings” of filling underutilized office space. Rather than penalizing employees for remote work, organizations should prioritize strategic, purpose-driven office environments that enhance engagement and performance. Curious to hear how Deloitte plans to measure the long-term impact of this policy shift.
Feels like most people are missing the longer game here. Yes, in a single year missing out on a $10k bonus to save $10k in commuting costs is likely to leave most people working from home. But higher bonuses are also a reflection of performance and are counted directly in career progression discussions. So you’re not only handing over the bonus but also slowing your progression and thus your salary increases for future years. Not to mention the growing evidence that some in-person always seems to drive a deeper and more influential network, increase learning and mentoring etc.
My sense of those that want to learn, progress, grow will find a way to do the 60% in office even it is costs them a little more in the short term. And they will be rewarded with higher bonuses and faster progression. And in 5 years those that stayed at home will complain they missed out, because they did.
PwC at least has a “cohort” pay schedule now. Performance does not matter and you are linked to what your cohort makes so this logic does not play out or matter. You also assume that people are promoted solely on metrics and not the games of politics and favoritism.
The salaries paid are already to low for what is expected of the CPAs. Therefore, a one time bonus is a joke. Why not a permanent raise if you want to keep people? I mean even if the bonus was permanent, the CPAs would still be underpaid.