3 ms·
Because I'm firmly in the remote-first camp from my point of view remote should never be considered a perk or something that's graciously granted to you but rat
by BjoernKW 9y ago
Because I'm firmly in the remote-first camp from my point of view remote should never be considered a perk or something that's graciously granted to you but rather the default case while on-premise work should only be required if or when it's truly necessary. I know that many companies are far from that assumed ideal situation but that's the way it should be in my opinion.
There of course also is an objective negotiation angle to this. You could calculate your personal cost of commuting to their office every day and add that on top of your usual rate. Then you could go down by that amount when asked that question during negotiations.
- bproven 9y agoBingo - you would think in an industry like tech this would be the common belief. Head into the office on days when meetings/ in-person collaboration / brainstorming /planning etc is cirtical. Spend the rest of the time remote (which is realistically about 80% of the time). IMO there is no reason - especially in tech - you need to be in the office every day. I say 50/50 is a good starting point. Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the stress relief (and health benefits of this) if this was common? This is especially true in the bay area!
- BjoernKW 9y ago> Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the stress relief (and health benefits of this) if this was common? Indeed, traffic is a major aspect of this. Remote work is the key to solving the traffic problems in large cities around the world. Non-remote work also incurs ridiculously high costs both in terms of necessary public (railways, roads, parking space) and private (office buildings) infrastructure costs and hidden costs such as those caused by health issues and opportunity costs caused by the huge amount of wasted human lifetime.