Hi Sarah,
Curious to know the reasons why your employers should be proposing to cut employees’ pay in these circumstances?
Aren’t the employers saving on the significant costs of providing office space and facilities etc? Isn’t it probable that most employees working from home can be equally if not more productive than those working from employers premises?

There are a number of threads on this

Most consider it a very bad idea

Certainly worth using search for this one

The question that arose for me was why would you cut their pay at all. Assuming that the pay they receive under their contract terms is pay for the job/work they do, then it doesn't make sense that working from home vs working in the office would attract less pay (given that they're still doing the same work, in the same amount of working hours etc etc). I recognise that there are ongoing debates/discussions about whether working from home could warrant lower salaries (argument often used is that people won't be paying for commuting costs so they can 'afford' a pay cut etc) but in my own opinion, this isnt' paritcularly logical or ethical, given that employers don't routinely pay the commuting costs of their employees so it would in reality be removing something which was never given. That perspective then leads to the argument that salaries are often set 'higher' in certain areas (e.g London) to reflect higher living costs and commuting. Which may be true - but 'living costs and commuting' aren't routinely separated out in peoples' payslips or expressed as such in their contracts, so suggesting that they should be paid less than colleagues doing the same work but who work 'on site/in office' is an uncomfortable concept to me (not least because of the equal pay for work of equal value implications).
The other point that occurred to me, given the link to people making flexible working applications, is to consider whether if your org was to go ahead and apply this policy (ie less pay if WFH 100%), it would disproportionately impact on any group who shared a protected characteristic...
so many thoughts on this, so I won't go on!