Same Job, Same Pay has become a major planning issue for employers using labour hire in certain circumstances. The operational impact is not only about rates. It also affects sourcing strategy, budgeting, governance and how employers segment their workforce.
This article outlines the practical questions employers and procurement teams should work through.
Need help reviewing workforce models? Explore managed skilled workforce solutions.
Key takeaways
- Same Job, Same Pay should be assessed as a commercial and workforce-planning issue, not just an industrial relations issue.
- Employers need better role clarity, workforce segmentation and supplier governance to understand exposure.
- Reactive buying usually increases cost and disruption. Early scenario planning is more effective.
Why it matters operationally
Where employers rely on labour hire for recurring roles, the question is not simply “what are we paying today?” It is also whether the current contingent model still fits the work being done, the duration of demand, and the organisation’s broader workforce strategy.
Questions employers should ask now
- Which roles are genuinely contingent, and which are effectively ongoing?
- Where are we using labour hire because of flexibility needs versus process convenience?
- Do we have clear job architecture and role definitions across sites?
- Can procurement, HR and operations see the same workforce picture?
How procurement and operations can respond
- Review workforce segmentation: core, contingent, seasonal, project and shutdown demand should not all be treated the same.
- Model cost scenarios: include direct and indirect impacts, not only bill rate changes.
- Check supplier contracts: understand how commercial changes flow through existing arrangements.
- Improve governance: avoid unmanaged local buying and inconsistent exceptions.
Common mistakes
- Looking only at rate uplift rather than workforce design.
- Assuming one response will fit all role families or sites.
- Leaving procurement, HR and operations to solve the issue in separate streams.
- Waiting until change is forced by urgency.
What good looks like
Strong employers typically respond with clearer role architecture, better panel governance, stronger workforce planning and more disciplined use of contingent supply. The goal is not simply to reduce cost, but to use the right model for the right type of work.
Scenario examples worth testing internally
- Recurring operational demand: if a site uses labour hire in the same roles for extended periods, employers should test whether the current model still reflects a genuine contingent need.
- Project or shutdown demand: where demand is time-bound and mobilisation-driven, the workforce model may still support a stronger contingent case, but assumptions should be documented clearly.
- Mixed environments: many employers have both structural and variable demand. That usually requires segmentation rather than a single blanket response.
Who should be involved in the review
This is usually not something procurement should solve alone. The best reviews involve procurement, HR, operations, finance and industrial relations or legal stakeholders so the commercial, workforce and compliance implications are considered together.
Related reading
For a closely related guide, read Labour Hire vs Permanent Recruitment.
Related services
FAQ
Is this only a procurement issue?
No. It affects workforce strategy, hiring design, supplier governance and operational planning.
What is the most useful first step?
Map your recurring contingent roles, duration of demand and current supplier model. Without that baseline, responses tend to be reactive.
Next step
If you want a more structured way to review contingent workforce design, explore managed skilled workforce solutions.
General information only: this article provides general information and is not legal advice.
