4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?
- swasheck 6y agoI 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.