For decades, employers have controlled when workers get paid—and employees have largely accepted biweekly or monthly paychecks as a fact of working life. But now, a younger workforce is questioning the rationale.

The quiet justification for many employers has been concern that workers might not manage their money responsibly if given faster access to it, said Andrew Brandman, COO of DailyPay, a tech company that gives employees access to their earned pay before payday. But in an economy built around immediacy, employers may be concerned with the wrong thing.

The rise of the gig economy has reset expectations around pay, with workers like Uber drivers able to access their earnings as soon as a job is completed rather than waiting until the end of a shift, Brandman said. “I hear this from employers all the time: they’re competing for a workforce now that’s looking for instant,” he said.

Currently, only 3% of employers offer this type of instant paycheck access, known as earned wage access, according to the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. 

But worker demand is already substantial. Roughly 10 million workers tapped some form of early wage access in 2022, moving nearly $32 billion, according to a 2024 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau study. Three million of them bypassed their employers entirely and used  consumer apps, though nearly all workers paid a fee for expedited access to their funds, the CFPB found. (Most employer-partnered earned wage providers offer both free and fee-based options for employees to receive wages).

It’s not just hourly workers demanding this benefit. Brandman says he’s seen an increase in higher-wage workers using his platform. “There’s this misnomer that if you’re salaried, you must not be living paycheck to paycheck,” he said.

The solution? More communication. Firstly, HR leaders should strive to talk to their employees about the benefits they need and understand the rationale behind it, Brandman said. But more importantly, they should be talking to their fellow CHROs or CPOs about pay and why it’s been a workplace category that hasn’t changed in decades.

“What we see is when employees feel like they’re covered, that the employer’s got their back, they feel a different connection,” Brandman said. “Suddenly you get a workforce that’s way more engaged.”

Kristin Stoller
Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media
kristin.stoller@fortune.com

Fortune Office Hours

This week, Paul Rubenstein, chief evangelist at workforce analytics software company Visier, answers your burning workplace questions. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: I work with a coworker who's been openly unhappy for a while, frequently complaining about where he lives, the company, and our in-office policy. He often insists that "no one comes into the office anyway," which isn't accurate. It feels like he's looking for reasons to complain.

He wants to move out of state and keep working remotely. His manager and our department head have repeatedly told him this isn't an option. He's telling coworkers he plans to move anyway but is vague with management about his actual intentions.

Yesterday, he went directly to the company president, who mistakenly assumed the move was already approved. A meeting followed where he was again told remote work wasn't an option and that skipping required office days could mean termination. He then returned to complain to the team. After he left, our department head asked the rest of us what he'd shared and how we'd feel if he were eventually allowed to work remotely. Two coworkers said they wouldn't care.

Here's where it gets complicated: I'm currently interim director, so I have management-side context my coworkers don't, even though they still treat me as a peer. So how do I stay neutral with former peers while moving into management, and am I wrong to think an exception here would reward bad behavior? How do you handle a chronically draining, disgruntled employee?

A: Your coworker handed you information you can't un-know, and then your department head asked the room a direct question. You stayed quiet. It was an awkward position to be in, but now that you’re the interim director, it's worth asking what you'd do differently next time instead of staying quiet.

You keep coming back to staying "neutral." I'd aim for clarity instead. Leadership doesn't mean picking a side in every disagreement. It means being willing to say how you see an issue and, most importantly, why. That takes vulnerability, but the payoff is lasting trust.

Your concern about making an exception is fair, too. This coworker got three clear answers and kept looking for another route while staying vague about their plans. Your team will notice what behavior gets a pass, so think about the precedent you want to set.

As for this coworker, here's the bigger question: Do you trust them? Do you respect how they operate? Those are two different things, and the answers may tell you more than whether they're simply "difficult." Think about what they bring to the team, too. Do they add energy or drain it? Life's too short to work with a Debbie Downer.

Engage this coworker by asking, “Is this how you want to show up at work?” They might not even realize what they are doing to their brand. Remember, always stick to honesty and transparency, and remember that trying to be "neutral" is a trap: It looks different for everyone depending on where you're standing.

Have a workplace situation that you're unsure how to navigate or a scenario worth unpacking? Send it our way via this form.

Watercooler

A round-up of the most important HR headlines from Fortune and beyond.

Big spender. Companies are spending trillions of dollars on AI, but C-suite executives are unclear about who actually owns AI decisions. Fortune

Training tech. This year’s crop of summer interns are using AI in ways that may kill future internships. Business Insider

Productivity theater. In an era of heightened employee surveillance, workers are figuring out how to game the AI Big Brother. Wall Street Journal