5 ms·

Am I the only one who wants to work from home and still get the 30k-a-year raise? jokes apart, if remote culture consolidates with different compensation and b

by postit 5y ago

Am I the only one who wants to work from home and still get the 30k-a-year raise? jokes apart, if remote culture consolidates with different compensation and benefit packages compared with those in the office, we'll likely start to see lawsuits in that matter.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
The thing is, if people value WFH then they may be willing to accept lower salary offers for those positions than they would for on-site ones. I think that's the take-away for employers here.
- Dwolb 5y ago
  Something about this feels very much similar to airplane pricing. Intentionally make the default (come into work) option uncomfortable or inconvenient. Offer “upgrades” for more comfort (work from home) and convenience.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    WFH is more convenient for most people. No need to make going to office less convenient. The question what price do people put on that convenience. But on the other hand, WFH creates savings for employers so they are actually able to pay people more for the same overall cost as working from office, if they so wish (e.g. to attract top talents in a concurrential market)
Leherenn 5y ago
Lawsuits based on what? If employers feel employees working from home are less valuable, and employees prefer working from home, it sounds logical this will results in lower compensation for WFH employees. Not sure what laws they would be breaching here, it's just the market at work. It doesn't even matter whether they are right or wrong, the market should take care of that.
- danmur 5y ago
  It would make more sense to 'rent' the office to people who want to come in. People who don't use the office pay less rent. Seems unlikely though :)
  - afandian 5y ago
    The assumptions are so lop sided and disproportionately benefit emloyers. Not everyone has a spare unused room at home. If they do, they are likely paying rent or mortgage. So not everyone has the option of choosing whether or not to work in an office. Your suggestion becomes less incentive more punishment of the less fortunate.
afandian 5y ago
Seriously though, working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place. And you foot the Internet and heating bill. Like-for-like, surely WFH should demand a higher, not lower, salary. Of course ofice vs home is often not like-for-like and it enables people to live in different locations.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else Does it? When I'm working, I don't need that room during working hours for another purpose. I just work in it, tapping away and speaking into the microphone and so on, and when work is done, I use the room for sitting, reading, all that sort of thing; it's the lounge, I guess. Worked out fine so far.
  - afandian 5y ago
    Many people have dependents or families.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      That goes without saying. But I think some people do not really envision a person in the tech industry with a family living in, like, a tiny studio apartment. Where I live, that would suggest a household income of <$40K. Even if salaries are low here, entry level is more like $75K. Are we talking about the SF bay area?
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      Indeed they do. Many of those families and dependents have individual bedrooms. During the day, when they're not sleeping in it, those rooms have sat empty because the person has been at school or the office. Same argument as before, I guess. I could sit in there working away quite happily. No extra room needed. Sure, it's not the case for everyone, and some people share bedrooms, but the blanket statement that "working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place" is a massive generalisation that doesn't apply to many households in which people have bedrooms and in which there is a lounge. Sure, add a desk, change the furniture layout. I'm saving 25% of my rent by not having to commute. It's a two-bed flat; between us, we have 50% of the rent to spend again each month on furniture, rearranging things, or just renting a place with two extra rooms. Not that we need them, with three rooms available to work in during the day (two bedrooms and a lounge). My experience is not uncommon and in no way do we essentially need more rooms to work in.
ergocoder 5y ago
Lawsuit is so yesterday. Here is how we can do it in 2021: 1. Poor people cannot afford to live close to the office (probably true) 2. Certain minority groups are poor (probably true) 3. Minority is likely to commute for longer time and distance 4. Commute kills people with road accidents 5. Accuse execs of racism and killing minority.

by postit 5y ago

mytailorisrich 5y ago

The thing is, if people value WFH then they may be willing to accept lower salary offers for those positions than they would for on-site ones. I think that's the take-away for employers here.

Dwolb 5y ago
Something about this feels very much similar to airplane pricing. Intentionally make the default (come into work) option uncomfortable or inconvenient. Offer “upgrades” for more comfort (work from home) and convenience.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  WFH is more convenient for most people. No need to make going to office less convenient. The question what price do people put on that convenience. But on the other hand, WFH creates savings for employers so they are actually able to pay people more for the same overall cost as working from office, if they so wish (e.g. to attract top talents in a concurrential market)

Leherenn 5y ago

Lawsuits based on what? If employers feel employees working from home are less valuable, and employees prefer working from home, it sounds logical this will results in lower compensation for WFH employees. Not sure what laws they would be breaching here, it's just the market at work. It doesn't even matter whether they are right or wrong, the market should take care of that.

danmur 5y ago
It would make more sense to 'rent' the office to people who want to come in. People who don't use the office pay less rent. Seems unlikely though :)
- afandian 5y ago
  The assumptions are so lop sided and disproportionately benefit emloyers. Not everyone has a spare unused room at home. If they do, they are likely paying rent or mortgage. So not everyone has the option of choosing whether or not to work in an office. Your suggestion becomes less incentive more punishment of the less fortunate.

afandian 5y ago

Seriously though, working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place. And you foot the Internet and heating bill. Like-for-like, surely WFH should demand a higher, not lower, salary. Of course ofice vs home is often not like-for-like and it enables people to live in different locations.

EliRivers 5y ago
essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else Does it? When I'm working, I don't need that room during working hours for another purpose. I just work in it, tapping away and speaking into the microphone and so on, and when work is done, I use the room for sitting, reading, all that sort of thing; it's the lounge, I guess. Worked out fine so far.
- afandian 5y ago
  Many people have dependents or families.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    That goes without saying. But I think some people do not really envision a person in the tech industry with a family living in, like, a tiny studio apartment. Where I live, that would suggest a household income of <$40K. Even if salaries are low here, entry level is more like $75K. Are we talking about the SF bay area?
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    Indeed they do. Many of those families and dependents have individual bedrooms. During the day, when they're not sleeping in it, those rooms have sat empty because the person has been at school or the office. Same argument as before, I guess. I could sit in there working away quite happily. No extra room needed. Sure, it's not the case for everyone, and some people share bedrooms, but the blanket statement that "working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place" is a massive generalisation that doesn't apply to many households in which people have bedrooms and in which there is a lounge. Sure, add a desk, change the furniture layout. I'm saving 25% of my rent by not having to commute. It's a two-bed flat; between us, we have 50% of the rent to spend again each month on furniture, rearranging things, or just renting a place with two extra rooms. Not that we need them, with three rooms available to work in during the day (two bedrooms and a lounge). My experience is not uncommon and in no way do we essentially need more rooms to work in.

ergocoder 5y ago

Lawsuit is so yesterday. Here is how we can do it in 2021: 1. Poor people cannot afford to live close to the office (probably true) 2. Certain minority groups are poor (probably true) 3. Minority is likely to commute for longer time and distance 4. Commute kills people with road accidents 5. Accuse execs of racism and killing minority.