1325
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
1325 points (99.2% liked)
World News
31537 readers
505 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe that's the approach for hiring...remote employees are hired with the understanding that they will earn less than equivalent in-office employees. Commute time, transportation expenses, and any other incidentals make up the difference. It's all made clear and transparent upfront.
If remaining remote limits an employee's promotability for reasons of company need, this is also made clear.
Why should they earn less than somebody who is in-office? A remote employee costs less in physical resources like office space, heating and cooling, electricity and internet.
Ultimately it's the end result that matters, not where it's done.
Because remote employees don't spend their own time and money on commuting to work. Those factors, along with saving on childcare, are the main drivers for desire to work remote, yes?
A company can reduce its office footprint to account for fewer in-person employees and save money. But that alone doesn't address the factors above faced by employees who commute, so those workers should be compensated.
Funny how cost of living savings for employees become additional profit for employers. Seems a little backwards...
Somebody should write a book about that
Nonsense. If the value output of an employee is equivalent then they should be paid the same. It's a net negative to employers if employees work in expensive offices, so if anything your argument says that in office workers should be paid less because they cost the company more.
I suppose employee value is for any given company to decide. Companies that determine there is value in having employees onsite, and as we know there are plenty of them out there, may place more value on their in-office employees--even if they allow certain positions to be remote.
From what I've seen many remote advocates don't want to discuss the extra benefits they receive from working remotely as compared with their in-office peers, but it's true nonetheless.
I say all this not because I'm anti-WFH, but because I advocate equal compensation for all employees. Folks who expect equal pay while also having zero or reduced commute burden are thinking only of themselves as I see it. Commuting is a pain in the ass, the costs are always rising, and it's been a problem that employers have passed on to workers for entirely too long. So as long as employees find ways like WFH to mitigate the problem, all employees should benefit in some way. Fair is fair for all, not just some.
Got your point but the direction of result isn’t right imho. Why should WFH employees accept lower compensation? In theory and in now in practice, they can start working anywhere in the country. If they face a reduction because of WFH, they will move to another company for sure. The remote work situation together with aging society massively shifted the power to employees. You aren’t bound to an area for work anymore.
I think employees that must go to offices should get an extra raise to compensate for the fuel, time, and clothing.
Employers already have the upper hand in almost every situation. You don't need to do mental gymnastics to make sure they have it in this one too.
I disagree. Workers should be compensated for being at a specific location if and only if that physical presence is necessary to do their work. If that's the case, I think the commute and other costs should be carried by the employer. But if the employee is going to the office simply because they prefer to or enjoy it more, that adds zero value to the work they're doing compared to wfh employees and should not be compensated differently.
A remote worker's worth is no less valuable than one who's onsite. If you want something like this to work then the employer should pay a differential for those who have to be onsite to compensate for the time and money spent commuting.
So pay the WFF employee more than the WFH employee?
One way is baked in, the other is a topping, still damn near identical though
Instead of the stick of paying people less from working home, they're getting a carrot for deciding to be there. That has a wildly more positive perception for workers IMO.