5 ms·

Google may cut pay of staff who work from home

34 points by edward 5y ago

superflit 5y ago
This is the Nth article trying to convey the new narrative. The narrative that "we need to go back". No! We don't need. The market is hot and we can choose. Take the simple math. 1 hour commuting one way. 2 hours by day, 10 hours by week, 40 hours by month. Working at home gives you back at least 40h. Working at home GIVES you BACK AT least 1 Week! And I am not even talking about better food, spresso machine and gym! Now we are fighting climate change staying at home and reducing our carbon print not commuting.
- madmax96 5y ago
  I agree. With the 40 hours I’ve saved each month, I’ve wound up giving easily at least 10 more hours to my employer. I’ve used the remaining 30 to connect more with my spouse, work out, improve my home, read, and take mindfulness breaks. My employer gets more labor. I feel more rested, so I engage more with my work. I’m interested in hearing perspectives where this is a bad thing.
  - okokwhatever 5y ago
    Perspective: 19th century control. Period
- m1117 5y ago
  Hopefully, everyone will go back.
someperson 5y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28127240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28127240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137561
ren_engineer 5y ago
will be interesting to see how the market responds. Companies who are willing to pay the same amount regardless of location will obviously have an advantage in recruiting plus I feel like it might create tension in teams, people doing the same work knowing other people are getting paid more only because of their area code. Google is swimming in cash, the decision really makes no sense unless they plan on becoming the next Amazon in terms of employee treatment. Most obvious explanation seems to be them essentially trying to prevent work from home without explicitly banning it also, is there anything legality-wise stopping 20 people from "sharing" a 1 bedroom apartment and then forwarding their mail and to their actual homes in a cheaper place in California or wherever they live?
- rPlayer6554 5y ago
  I wonder what the metrics are on productivity while working from home. They must be seeing some drop in productivity, because otherwise they wouldn't care. Having to pay less for office space and fancy office benefits would save them a bit of money.
  - superflit 5y ago
    They care because someone spent $$$$$$$ in real state or is locked in real state sitting idle. Then you have Investment funds that $invest nearby these locations (BlackRock) and ahem they want their profit. Then the local govt wants to secure $vote$ because Tech workers tend to vote X. (check Austin vs Texas). We can't have these pesky "recall" actions.
- Hydraulix989 5y ago
  People doing the same work already are paid quite differently. Some negotiated better offers. Others joined at a lower share price for their RSUs. The variance in pay is quite high at many companies. Peer companies to Google also adjust based on zip code. And companies that pay the same regardless of location still don't pay as well as Google, which offers top of market compensation and has one of the strongest performing stocks in our industry. My point is the market reaction won't change the dynamics here.
- 5y ago
AdrianB1 5y ago
Most companies believe they should establish wages based on location or other metrics instead of what people deliver. At the same time, most people don't have the bargaining power to demand wages based on what they bring to the table. There are cases when a company will have to pay more to have someone is a specific, high cost location, but that is salary + location bonus and the location bonus really depends on location costs. But when an engineer can be anywhere in the world working from home, different salaries for people in different countries is not justified other than the power companies have in negotiating.
hughrr 5y ago
I got a rise and expenses paid instead. Which is why I haven’t gone to work for google or amazon. Also they’re bustards and I don’t want to work for them.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  From Wikipedia: > Bustards are omnivorous and opportunistic, eating leaves, buds, seeds, fruit, small vertebrates, and invertebrates. I guess that’s one way to characterize the FAANG companies buying up startup-competitors to retain their various monopolies.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    Oh joy autocomplete. Was supposed to be bastards.
altrent 5y ago
Really shows that Google (and co) are not willing to make some hard changes to fight climate change (besides lip service / greenwashing).
- ipaddr 5y ago
  That's a good point not considered. Employee travel must push google from green/neutral to being part of the problem.
- ttGpN5Nde3pK 5y ago
  Yep. .* and co will do anything to fight climate change, except let people that drive to an office to sit on a computer all day work from home. The world had a real shot at making a huge impact on emissions. Really sad to see it slip away because people can't let go of their LinkedIn fantasies of collaborating in an office around the water cooler.
- esprehn 5y ago
  Google may do many things, but one of them isn't paying lip service to climate change. https://sustainability.google/commitments/ https://sustainability.google/commitments/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/sharing-carbon-free-energy-percentage-for-google-cloud-regions https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/sharing-... https://techblog.nz/2312-Do-Googles-zero-carbon-footprint-claims-stack-up https://techblog.nz/2312-Do-Googles-zero-carbon-footprint-cl... Google has also invested quite a lot in seamless video conferencing tech way before other companies allowing a large reduction in travel (and carbon footprint) despite a global workforce. These days it's common across tech companies, but it wasn't 10 years ago when they started rolling out GVC.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    So is Google saying what's good for thee isn't good for me? You lead by example. These tech companies sell all the tools you need to support a remote work force and then turn around and say a remote work force isn't good for them. What message does that send?
Robotbeat 5y ago
I see this is basically location-based cost of living adjustment.
- ttmb 5y ago
  An important distinction is that these companies generally do not and have not ever described location-based pay differential as cost-of-living. They are pretty consistent in saying that the differential is due to hiring market competitiveness. If they choose to hire in a particular market (because they have an office there), how much does it cost to make sure they get the people they want in that market? This is somewhat but not entirely aligned with cost of living, and there have always been clear examples of better and worse markets - eg engineers in London are not that well compensated compared to their cost of living. The big losers here will be people who lived in a HCOL location and yet still had a long commute to an office. They have no tradeoff to leverage if they decide to leave the high-pay salary market.
StevePerkins 5y ago
I read a similar article that cited the example of a 10% cut, for Google employees commuting from Connecticut to Manhattan. Your mileage may vary, but to me that's NO-BRAINER trade off. When you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars, how is an extra 10% really worth the lifestyle downgrade of being trapped in transit for hours each day? To say nothing of the life quality downgrade of trying to do focused mental work in an open floor plan office all day. I understand the gripes. But location, supply and demand, etc all factor into comp. Companies have to pay more to hire people in San Francisco than they do in Austin, TX because there are more people willing to work in Austin for less money. I imagine that long-term, WFH probably will result in lower comp than in-office work, simply because workers are competing against more people who want that lifestyle. Personally, after the initial shock and anxiety of the pandemic's first few months, the past year+ has been the greatest and most satisfying period of my career and life overall. I feel anxiety from worrying about the possibility of battles ahead, if my current employer decides to pivot away from remote-first policy next year. I would absolutely, without a moment's hesitation, take a 10% cut to lock in my current lifestyle from now until retirement. If my current lifestyle remains permanent, then I may never retire.
- verganileonardo 5y ago
  The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. If you believe this, the 10% trade-off doesn't matter and is simply a distraction from the real discussion.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Wages are based on supply, demand, and for those at the very bottom, minimum wage laws.
  - geodel 5y ago
    > The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. Well this seems rather naive view of things. Do these folks also pay same SFO/NYC rates for all services and infrastructure that they consume in cheaper area. Doesn't a beautiful home in mountains add same value that a million dollar condo in silicon valley offer? But remote promoters seem happy to pay 200K for a mountain home. Because of this real estate agent will get only 20 percent of potential commission on this deal as compared to expensive city.
lordnacho 5y ago
"Swap" houses with a single friend in the city. You get higher pay and utility bills to show you live there. They get some pocket change and an address in the commuter belt. How are they going to police this?
- okokwhatever 5y ago
  Man, I like your "Anarcho-thinking". Respect
  - t0mbstone 5y ago
    It's the way a hacker SHOULD think
- ganoushoreilly 5y ago
  The only issue will be dealing with NYC's draconian tax issues, but it's 100% what i'd do too.
123pie123 5y ago
I don't know much about the US, but in the UK it's fairly expensive to rent office space, so by working from home the employer should be giving you more money (obv job dependant)
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  On the other hand you save a lot of time on commute.
  - 123pie123 5y ago
    possibly yes, possibly no I have a couple of friends/ colleagues who live almost next to the city of london who walk in having a proper home office takes space up - this will be a bigger inconvience for people in smaller houses or flats/ appartments I generally work at least an extra hour a day when wfh - or more, since I'll just leave PC on while around the house, and I'll answer any important emails
animanoir 5y ago
No problem. The benefits outweigh the risks. Also, money isn't everything in life.
m1117 5y ago
Why is this news? Tech companies announced long time ago.
motohagiography 5y ago
If you buy meat at the grocery store on Tuesdays at 40% off, should you return some of that savings to your employer? Let's say your kid gets a scholarship, do you accept a pay cut because you don't "need," the money to pay for their tuition? If you sell your house and move into a smaller condo with fewer expenses, do you inform your boss that you no longer need all the money you are being paid? If you command a tech salary but someone can still convince you that your work is worth less because you have found a way to make your own costs lower, and that you are somehow obligated to pass on your savings to your employer...well, I should get into recruiting. Sure, the company could offer you less when they hire you, but if you are actually physically remote, the discount isn't based on your discretion or circumstances, they're just making an excuse to offer you less, and you can take it or leave it. There is no principle at work.
GoodJokes 5y ago
And do they get a pay raise if they work from a more expensive place? It’s impossible to be consistent with policies like this unless they specifically state that the whole point is to pay you as little as possible and still keep you. None of this is. About economics. Just profits.

34 points by edward 5y ago

This is the Nth article trying to convey the new narrative. The narrative that "we need to go back". No! We don't need. The market is hot and we can choose. Take the simple math. 1 hour commuting one way. 2 hours by day, 10 hours by week, 40 hours by month. Working at home gives you back at least 40h. Working at home GIVES you BACK AT least 1 Week! And I am not even talking about better food, spresso machine and gym! Now we are fighting climate change staying at home and reducing our carbon print not commuting.

madmax96 5y ago
I agree. With the 40 hours I’ve saved each month, I’ve wound up giving easily at least 10 more hours to my employer. I’ve used the remaining 30 to connect more with my spouse, work out, improve my home, read, and take mindfulness breaks. My employer gets more labor. I feel more rested, so I engage more with my work. I’m interested in hearing perspectives where this is a bad thing.
- okokwhatever 5y ago
  Perspective: 19th century control. Period
m1117 5y ago
Hopefully, everyone will go back.

someperson 5y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28127240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28127240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137561

ren_engineer 5y ago

will be interesting to see how the market responds. Companies who are willing to pay the same amount regardless of location will obviously have an advantage in recruiting plus I feel like it might create tension in teams, people doing the same work knowing other people are getting paid more only because of their area code. Google is swimming in cash, the decision really makes no sense unless they plan on becoming the next Amazon in terms of employee treatment. Most obvious explanation seems to be them essentially trying to prevent work from home without explicitly banning it also, is there anything legality-wise stopping 20 people from "sharing" a 1 bedroom apartment and then forwarding their mail and to their actual homes in a cheaper place in California or wherever they live?

rPlayer6554 5y ago
I wonder what the metrics are on productivity while working from home. They must be seeing some drop in productivity, because otherwise they wouldn't care. Having to pay less for office space and fancy office benefits would save them a bit of money.
- superflit 5y ago
  They care because someone spent $$$$$$$ in real state or is locked in real state sitting idle. Then you have Investment funds that $invest nearby these locations (BlackRock) and ahem they want their profit. Then the local govt wants to secure $vote$ because Tech workers tend to vote X. (check Austin vs Texas). We can't have these pesky "recall" actions.
Hydraulix989 5y ago
People doing the same work already are paid quite differently. Some negotiated better offers. Others joined at a lower share price for their RSUs. The variance in pay is quite high at many companies. Peer companies to Google also adjust based on zip code. And companies that pay the same regardless of location still don't pay as well as Google, which offers top of market compensation and has one of the strongest performing stocks in our industry. My point is the market reaction won't change the dynamics here.
5y ago

AdrianB1 5y ago

Most companies believe they should establish wages based on location or other metrics instead of what people deliver. At the same time, most people don't have the bargaining power to demand wages based on what they bring to the table. There are cases when a company will have to pay more to have someone is a specific, high cost location, but that is salary + location bonus and the location bonus really depends on location costs. But when an engineer can be anywhere in the world working from home, different salaries for people in different countries is not justified other than the power companies have in negotiating.

hughrr 5y ago

I got a rise and expenses paid instead. Which is why I haven’t gone to work for google or amazon. Also they’re bustards and I don’t want to work for them.

gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
From Wikipedia: > Bustards are omnivorous and opportunistic, eating leaves, buds, seeds, fruit, small vertebrates, and invertebrates. I guess that’s one way to characterize the FAANG companies buying up startup-competitors to retain their various monopolies.
- hughrr 5y ago
  Oh joy autocomplete. Was supposed to be bastards.

altrent 5y ago

Really shows that Google (and co) are not willing to make some hard changes to fight climate change (besides lip service / greenwashing).

ipaddr 5y ago
That's a good point not considered. Employee travel must push google from green/neutral to being part of the problem.
ttGpN5Nde3pK 5y ago
Yep. .* and co will do anything to fight climate change, except let people that drive to an office to sit on a computer all day work from home. The world had a real shot at making a huge impact on emissions. Really sad to see it slip away because people can't let go of their LinkedIn fantasies of collaborating in an office around the water cooler.
esprehn 5y ago
Google may do many things, but one of them isn't paying lip service to climate change. https://sustainability.google/commitments/ https://sustainability.google/commitments/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/sharing-carbon-free-energy-percentage-for-google-cloud-regions https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/sharing-... https://techblog.nz/2312-Do-Googles-zero-carbon-footprint-claims-stack-up https://techblog.nz/2312-Do-Googles-zero-carbon-footprint-cl... Google has also invested quite a lot in seamless video conferencing tech way before other companies allowing a large reduction in travel (and carbon footprint) despite a global workforce. These days it's common across tech companies, but it wasn't 10 years ago when they started rolling out GVC.
- taylodl 5y ago
  So is Google saying what's good for thee isn't good for me? You lead by example. These tech companies sell all the tools you need to support a remote work force and then turn around and say a remote work force isn't good for them. What message does that send?

Robotbeat 5y ago

I see this is basically location-based cost of living adjustment.

ttmb 5y ago
An important distinction is that these companies generally do not and have not ever described location-based pay differential as cost-of-living. They are pretty consistent in saying that the differential is due to hiring market competitiveness. If they choose to hire in a particular market (because they have an office there), how much does it cost to make sure they get the people they want in that market? This is somewhat but not entirely aligned with cost of living, and there have always been clear examples of better and worse markets - eg engineers in London are not that well compensated compared to their cost of living. The big losers here will be people who lived in a HCOL location and yet still had a long commute to an office. They have no tradeoff to leverage if they decide to leave the high-pay salary market.

StevePerkins 5y ago

I read a similar article that cited the example of a 10% cut, for Google employees commuting from Connecticut to Manhattan. Your mileage may vary, but to me that's NO-BRAINER trade off. When you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars, how is an extra 10% really worth the lifestyle downgrade of being trapped in transit for hours each day? To say nothing of the life quality downgrade of trying to do focused mental work in an open floor plan office all day. I understand the gripes. But location, supply and demand, etc all factor into comp. Companies have to pay more to hire people in San Francisco than they do in Austin, TX because there are more people willing to work in Austin for less money. I imagine that long-term, WFH probably will result in lower comp than in-office work, simply because workers are competing against more people who want that lifestyle. Personally, after the initial shock and anxiety of the pandemic's first few months, the past year+ has been the greatest and most satisfying period of my career and life overall. I feel anxiety from worrying about the possibility of battles ahead, if my current employer decides to pivot away from remote-first policy next year. I would absolutely, without a moment's hesitation, take a 10% cut to lock in my current lifestyle from now until retirement. If my current lifestyle remains permanent, then I may never retire.

verganileonardo 5y ago
The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. If you believe this, the 10% trade-off doesn't matter and is simply a distraction from the real discussion.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Wages are based on supply, demand, and for those at the very bottom, minimum wage laws.
- geodel 5y ago
  > The point is that your compensation should not be based on where you live, but how much value you add. Well this seems rather naive view of things. Do these folks also pay same SFO/NYC rates for all services and infrastructure that they consume in cheaper area. Doesn't a beautiful home in mountains add same value that a million dollar condo in silicon valley offer? But remote promoters seem happy to pay 200K for a mountain home. Because of this real estate agent will get only 20 percent of potential commission on this deal as compared to expensive city.

lordnacho 5y ago

"Swap" houses with a single friend in the city. You get higher pay and utility bills to show you live there. They get some pocket change and an address in the commuter belt. How are they going to police this?

okokwhatever 5y ago
Man, I like your "Anarcho-thinking". Respect
- t0mbstone 5y ago
  It's the way a hacker SHOULD think
ganoushoreilly 5y ago
The only issue will be dealing with NYC's draconian tax issues, but it's 100% what i'd do too.

123pie123 5y ago

I don't know much about the US, but in the UK it's fairly expensive to rent office space, so by working from home the employer should be giving you more money (obv job dependant)

isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
On the other hand you save a lot of time on commute.
- 123pie123 5y ago
  possibly yes, possibly no I have a couple of friends/ colleagues who live almost next to the city of london who walk in having a proper home office takes space up - this will be a bigger inconvience for people in smaller houses or flats/ appartments I generally work at least an extra hour a day when wfh - or more, since I'll just leave PC on while around the house, and I'll answer any important emails

animanoir 5y ago

No problem. The benefits outweigh the risks. Also, money isn't everything in life.

m1117 5y ago

Why is this news? Tech companies announced long time ago.

motohagiography 5y ago

If you buy meat at the grocery store on Tuesdays at 40% off, should you return some of that savings to your employer? Let's say your kid gets a scholarship, do you accept a pay cut because you don't "need," the money to pay for their tuition? If you sell your house and move into a smaller condo with fewer expenses, do you inform your boss that you no longer need all the money you are being paid? If you command a tech salary but someone can still convince you that your work is worth less because you have found a way to make your own costs lower, and that you are somehow obligated to pass on your savings to your employer...well, I should get into recruiting. Sure, the company could offer you less when they hire you, but if you are actually physically remote, the discount isn't based on your discretion or circumstances, they're just making an excuse to offer you less, and you can take it or leave it. There is no principle at work.

GoodJokes 5y ago

And do they get a pay raise if they work from a more expensive place? It’s impossible to be consistent with policies like this unless they specifically state that the whole point is to pay you as little as possible and still keep you. None of this is. About economics. Just profits.