4 ms·

I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?

by dependenttypes 6y ago

buro9 6y ago
That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.
- phkahler 6y ago
  That's not what it is either. As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Health insurance is a benefit, paying for equipment necessary to do the job isn't. I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      Equipment ok, but part of your living expenses/rent?
- ramblerman 6y ago
  You didn't negate OP's point though. Just stated it was a different motivation. The net result is still that you - disincentivize companies to let people work from home - give people who can work from home, (and already are at an advantage to cashiers/tellers/etc...) more benefits.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    So because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?
  - swasheck 6y ago
    I get what you’re saying, I just see it a bit differently. With a majority remote workforce, the company’s physical plant expenses should be reduced, effectively shifting the cost of utilities to the employee. All things being equal reduced expenses mean increased profits. This increase in profits generally does not go back to the employees, so even though their personal assets are effectively serving as a rent-free physical plant for the company, there’s no consideration of that in the company’s bottom line. Depreciable expenses plummet for them, and on and on. I don’t like marrying it to salary and definitely prefer a reimbursement model, though that has a few new burdens for the employee, but that’s acceptable.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but have to pay for transportation only if they have to attend the company.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Your plumber is not an employee. Your plumber should be paying for the tools of their employees, yes. If you are an independent contractor, a company should pay your rate. If you are an employee the company should pay for the equipment needed for the job.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      I would argue that there should be no employees and only independent contractors but this is going to be kind of offtopic for this thread.
  - Voloskaya 6y ago
    I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office. Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent). Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X. In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).
- marcusverus 6y ago
  This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week. Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?
the42thdoctor 6y ago
I mean, since I started working from home my eletric bill is up by 20%. So is only fair to assume that they should pay me more, to cover that cost.
- nojito 6y ago
  Do you pay your employer for the utilities at work?
  - asjw 6y ago
    The employer wants you to be there, if they want you to stay home, they save on the office bill and can pay for the difference in your bills It's a zero sum game for them No big deal, seems fair to me
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - close04 6y ago
    Your employer also doesn't ask you to work from the bedroom while in the office. If your home is not equipped for office work (you live with family, have no dedicated office room, or multiple residents have to work from home at the same time) then you end up working in some pretty poor conditions. Some may be breaching the regulation regarding work safety and I'm sure this isn't part of your contract. Then there are additional costs with internet, electricity, or heating/cooling to consider. If the situation becomes permanent some people may have to move to larger homes, upgrade some utility subscriptions, etc. But I'm afraid for most people this payout from the employer will come out of their future raises.
  - Uberphallus 6y ago
    No, they pay for it. They should still pay for the costs associated with that work. I'm shoving $50 a month to keep the AC when normally it would be off. They're shifting a cost to the employee otherwise.
clarry 6y ago
So if you don't work from home, you bring your own office and computer and desk and chair to work? In my part of the world, employer tends to provide those. And it makes sense that they still provide for what I need to do my job even if I don't do it on premises. But yeah, I think people who work from home should make more money. Consider it a reward for not contributing to traffic congestion and pollution. :P If you really insist on working onsite, fine, maybe we can allow that but it's not a free perk!
enriquto 6y ago
> Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not? If I have to work from home I need a larger apartment with an extra room, and it will be more expensive. During lockdown I'm using the room of my son, but it is not really a feasible arrangement in the long run.
gspr 6y ago
> I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not? Well, take a job that requires a truck, or expensive construction equipment, or whatever, to do. Is it surprising that a job that requires the employee to furnish his own such pays a bit more? In this case, the employee is asked to provide his own office (in a country where real estate is immensely expensive).
oedmarap 6y ago
I'm also puzzled, since in my view the workplace gives a certain equity to job satisfaction and most of all, productivity. For example, some people are not living in an ideal "work" environment — smaller spaces, no air-conditioning, pets/children, noisy streets/neighborhoods, etc. In my opinion workplaces provide a stable environment that negates the above-mentioned constraints and also encourages interpersonal contact; both of which (barring the current pandemic that necessitates WFH) would give a better median ROI across the workforce.

I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?

buro9 6y ago

That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.

phkahler 6y ago
That's not what it is either. As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Health insurance is a benefit, paying for equipment necessary to do the job isn't. I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    Equipment ok, but part of your living expenses/rent?
ramblerman 6y ago
You didn't negate OP's point though. Just stated it was a different motivation. The net result is still that you - disincentivize companies to let people work from home - give people who can work from home, (and already are at an advantage to cashiers/tellers/etc...) more benefits.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  So because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?
- swasheck 6y ago
  I get what you’re saying, I just see it a bit differently. With a majority remote workforce, the company’s physical plant expenses should be reduced, effectively shifting the cost of utilities to the employee. All things being equal reduced expenses mean increased profits. This increase in profits generally does not go back to the employees, so even though their personal assets are effectively serving as a rent-free physical plant for the company, there’s no consideration of that in the company’s bottom line. Depreciable expenses plummet for them, and on and on. I don’t like marrying it to salary and definitely prefer a reimbursement model, though that has a few new burdens for the employee, but that’s acceptable.
dependenttypes 6y ago
Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but have to pay for transportation only if they have to attend the company.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Your plumber is not an employee. Your plumber should be paying for the tools of their employees, yes. If you are an independent contractor, a company should pay your rate. If you are an employee the company should pay for the equipment needed for the job.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I would argue that there should be no employees and only independent contractors but this is going to be kind of offtopic for this thread.
- Voloskaya 6y ago
  I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office. Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent). Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X. In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).
marcusverus 6y ago
This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week. Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?

the42thdoctor 6y ago

I mean, since I started working from home my eletric bill is up by 20%. So is only fair to assume that they should pay me more, to cover that cost.

nojito 6y ago
Do you pay your employer for the utilities at work?
- asjw 6y ago
  The employer wants you to be there, if they want you to stay home, they save on the office bill and can pay for the difference in your bills It's a zero sum game for them No big deal, seems fair to me
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- close04 6y ago
  Your employer also doesn't ask you to work from the bedroom while in the office. If your home is not equipped for office work (you live with family, have no dedicated office room, or multiple residents have to work from home at the same time) then you end up working in some pretty poor conditions. Some may be breaching the regulation regarding work safety and I'm sure this isn't part of your contract. Then there are additional costs with internet, electricity, or heating/cooling to consider. If the situation becomes permanent some people may have to move to larger homes, upgrade some utility subscriptions, etc. But I'm afraid for most people this payout from the employer will come out of their future raises.
- Uberphallus 6y ago
  No, they pay for it. They should still pay for the costs associated with that work. I'm shoving $50 a month to keep the AC when normally it would be off. They're shifting a cost to the employee otherwise.

clarry 6y ago

So if you don't work from home, you bring your own office and computer and desk and chair to work? In my part of the world, employer tends to provide those. And it makes sense that they still provide for what I need to do my job even if I don't do it on premises. But yeah, I think people who work from home should make more money. Consider it a reward for not contributing to traffic congestion and pollution. :P If you really insist on working onsite, fine, maybe we can allow that but it's not a free perk!

enriquto 6y ago

> Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not? If I have to work from home I need a larger apartment with an extra room, and it will be more expensive. During lockdown I'm using the room of my son, but it is not really a feasible arrangement in the long run.

gspr 6y ago

> I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not? Well, take a job that requires a truck, or expensive construction equipment, or whatever, to do. Is it surprising that a job that requires the employee to furnish his own such pays a bit more? In this case, the employee is asked to provide his own office (in a country where real estate is immensely expensive).

oedmarap 6y ago

I'm also puzzled, since in my view the workplace gives a certain equity to job satisfaction and most of all, productivity. For example, some people are not living in an ideal "work" environment — smaller spaces, no air-conditioning, pets/children, noisy streets/neighborhoods, etc. In my opinion workplaces provide a stable environment that negates the above-mentioned constraints and also encourages interpersonal contact; both of which (barring the current pandemic that necessitates WFH) would give a better median ROI across the workforce.