Offshore talent is often positioned as a premium, all-inclusive solution. Clients are told they are paying for quality, stability, and ethical employment.
Talent, on the other hand, is told they are part of a sustainable, long-term partnership. Yet across the offshore staffing industry, a persistent question keeps surfacing:
If clients are paying premium rates, and offshore professionals are still underpaid, where does the money actually go?
This may sound confronting. It may even feel like a scare tactic. But it is a legitimate and widespread issue we have repeatedly observed when reviewing offshore arrangements.
In many cases, clients are unknowingly overcharged while the people doing the work receive only a small fraction of the total investment.
The gap is rarely explained, rarely transparent, and often justified through vague references to “management,” “infrastructure,” or “support.”
We believe clients deserve clarity on where their money is going, and offshore professionals deserve compensation that reflects their contribution. Transparency is not a marketing feature for us, but a structural requirement.
This case study illustrates exactly why that stance matters.
Important
We have withheld certain identifying information in this case study to protect the privacy of the individuals and businesses involved.
Offshore VA Pricing and Client Investment
In 2025, we had a discovery call with a client who was at the time working with an agency in the Philippines. They were paying $2,500 per month for offshore VA support. The role was not new, experimental, or short-term.
The VA had been in place for three years and had become deeply familiar with the business, its systems, and its day-to-day requirements.
From the client’s perspective, the arrangement felt settled. The VA was consistent, the work was being done, and the monthly fee reflected what they believed was a premium, fully managed offshore solution.
After learning the actual pay grade for the VA, the client decided to discuss their options with us.
We modeled a cost structure that fairly aligned the VA’s pay with market rate while keeping the overall monthly investment very similar to what they were paying their agency. The focus was on correcting the structure, not replacing the VA.
There were no complaints, no performance concerns, and no immediate trigger for change.
What the Numbers Revealed
When the structure was reviewed, the financial breakdown told a different story.
Despite the client’s monthly investment of $2,500, the VA was receiving a mere $500 per month! This gap had existed for some time and had widened gradually as fees increased without a corresponding adjustment to compensation.
This was not a situation caused by underperformance or limited responsibility. The VA was experienced, dependable, and delivering ongoing value. The issue was not the role or the individual, it was the structure supporting it.
When we reviewed the arrangement, we identified a significant misalignment between cost and compensation.
Why This Matters
Misalignments like this often go unnoticed because surface indicators can look healthy, the client retains the VA, the VA stays in the role, and the relationship appears stable.
However, beneath that stability is real risk. When compensation doesn’t reflect contribution, it eventually impacts engagement, trust, and long-term retention.
Clients can also unknowingly fund employment models that don’t align with their expectations around fairness and transparency.
More importantly, if these lapses are discovered, whether through audits, disputes, or legal review, there can be serious consequences for all parties involved.
Cases like Pascua v Doessel Group highlight how employment structure, pay transparency, and control arrangements can come under scrutiny, creating financial, legal, and reputational risk.
This isn’t theoretical. Companies in Australia have faced multi-million dollar penalties for underpaying workers or hiding wage theft.
Some businesses have been forced to backpay millions on top of court-imposed penalties. In serious cases, leaders can face personal fines — and with new wage theft laws, even criminal exposure.
Real-world enforcement has been significant. One migrant worker underpayment matter resulted in roughly $375K+ in penalties plus hundreds of thousands in backpay.
A major hospitality group faced around $15M+ in penalties for systemic worker exploitation and record falsification. Courts have repeatedly stated that penalties must be severe enough to serve as a warning to other employers.
In many offshore arrangements, the default response is replacement. When issues surface, the VA is swapped out, knowledge is lost, and the cycle restarts.
In this case, that approach was deliberately avoided.
Decision to Fix the Structure
The goal was to correct the imbalance without disrupting an arrangement that was already functioning effectively.
The client valued continuity, and the VA had invested years developing institutional knowledge and operational familiarity.
Instead of replacing the VA or adjusting performance expectations, we conducted a detailed structural analysis of the client’s monthly investment. This involved breaking down costs into direct compensation, agency overhead, and other operational expenses.
By modeling different allocation scenarios, we were able to identify a distribution that fairly compensated the VA in line with market standards while maintaining the client’s overall budget.
The scope of work, daily responsibilities, and expected hours remained unchanged. Likewise, the client relationship and workflow continuity were preserved.
The primary modification was in the distribution of funds, ensuring transparency, proportionality, and alignment between compensation and value delivered.
This approach reinforced both ethical standards and operational efficiency without introducing unnecessary change.
Realigning Your Virtual Assistant’s Compensation
After the restructure, the same VA remained in the role. Their compensation increased to $1,500 per month, reflecting their tenure, experience, and contribution to the business.
The client continued the engagement, now with a clearer idea around how their fees were allocated and confidence that their investment supported fair employment practices.
There was no interruption to operations and onboarding period, and no loss of institutional knowledge. The system was corrected without replacing the people within it.
Learning from Our People
This case took place in 2025, but the lessons from it continue to shape how we operate today, and how we intend to operate moving forward.
In this instance, conversations with the client and a review of the VA’s pay position revealed a structural imbalance: the VA was significantly underpaid relative to the client’s total investment.
Instead of replacing the VA or redesigning the workflow, we focused on correcting the underlying pay structure using our transparent pay model, guided by our Ethical Employment Code and informed by our salary guide benchmarks.
The VA was brought in line with market compensation, the client maintained a comparable overall investment, and operations continued without interruption.
What this reinforced for us is that meaningful improvements often come from paying attention to the signals already present in existing arrangements. Structural transparency is not just a principle, it is a practical mechanism for building sustainable, ethical working relationships.
As we move beyond 2025, these learnings continue to inform how we review models, benchmark compensation, and design structures that work for both clients and offshore professionals.
If you want to understand how this approach applies in practice, explore our salary guide or reach out to discuss how we can support your team.
Articles You Might Also Like
Employee of Record vs Contractor: Which Hiring Model is Right for Your Business?
Choosing between EOR, contractor, direct hire, or freelancer? Learn the key differences, costs, and risks—including contractor misclassification—before you hire.
AI vs Offshore Teams: Which Tasks Should You Automate?
AI can automate tasks, offshore teams add human judgment—but where’s the line? Learn how to split workflows between AI agents and offshore teams for maximum efficiency.
Am I a Contractor or Employee in Australia? Understanding Sham Contracting
Not sure if you’re a contractor or employee? Learn how sham contracting works in Australia, key differences in work arrangements, and what it means for your rights and compliance.
Why Are Some Workers Paid More for the Same Job?
Salary differences often go beyond skill or performance. From labour hire to offshore back-office roles, we break down why some Australian workers earn more for the same job.
Why Businesses are Moving Remote Back Office Jobs to Asia
More companies are relocating remote back office jobs to Asia as part of a broader strategy to improve efficiency and access global talent. From finance and IT to administration and digital marketing, many operational roles can now be performed remotely without sacrificing quality or control. This article explores why businesses are moving back-office work offshore, which roles are best suited for remote teams, and how companies can manage distributed workforces successfully.
What SMEs Need to Know About Victoria’s Two-Day WFH Mandate
Victoria’s upcoming two-day WFH rights are set to impact SMEs from September 2026. Employees can work remotely two days a week, but businesses must plan strategically to maintain productivity, team cohesion, and compliance. Discover how hybrid policies, offshore teams, and AI workflows can turn legislative change into a competitive advantage.