4 ms·

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. Avoiding the office saves employees money — in commuti

by avnigo 5y ago

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. Avoiding the office saves employees money — in commuting costs, for example I don't understand the reasoning behind this, and I've seen it being used again and again. Employees are compensated on the work they provide during work hours, and only rarely do companies provide compensation to specifically accommodate for commutes, usually done as an incentive for people with costly commutes. The concern most companies have has to be more about the real estate play, and how the offices they have paid for or are renting won't be getting as much use. Other than that, in terms of energy usage, heating/cooling, etc., I would imagine the cost savings of having people work remotely are considerable. If anything, as I see it, work from home employees should be compensated for the costs of working from home, which include higher utility expenses, or even office furniture to enable their work — some companies have paid stipends for home office setups, for example. I think, long term, companies may have to rethink how they set up their offices so not as much cost is sunk in real estate, so much so that they risk penalizing employees who would be saving them money otherwise, if it weren't for the existing office-centric solution.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>I don't understand the reasoning behind this, and I've seen it being used again and again. They do it because if you won't accept a 20% cut to work out in the sticks then there are plenty of other good people who will. It's got nothing to do with the length of your commute or the cost of unused offices or even the value you provide (as long as that covers your wages). They can do this for exactly the same reason they only need to pay a cleaner minimum wage. That is there is more than enough supply to meet the demand.
- ohazi 5y ago
  > They do it because if you won't accept a 20% cut to work out in the sticks then there are plenty of other good people who will. So the options are: 1. Convince all of the other good people that they can and should demand more. 2. Convince your bosses that you are indispensable.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    3. Quit because you don't want to work for a company that thinks so little of you.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      Quit work you mean? Because I can tell you now that the executives and owners of big companies don't really think about you as an individual at all.
kansface 5y ago
> Other than that, in terms of energy usage, heating/cooling, etc., I would imagine the cost savings of having people work remotely are considerable. You'd have much higher costs around compliance and taxation, which represent an ongoing expense since laws are always changing and people moving. That probably works out after a few employees in any given state. Companies also lose money by flying everyone in once or twice a year. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind seeing some math on the subject.
googlr29783 5y ago
> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. Sample size of 1 here: Google approved my working remotely in a small town outside a major city at the same compensation as working in the office in that major city. So no pay cut. I think there's a game of telephone going on with the facts in these articles: "could see different changes in pay" -> could lose money" -> "would reduce pay"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SlowBall 5y ago
  Exactly (Google employee here as well). Those articles are completely disingenuous. You could have made the headline “Google will increase the pay of remote workers” and it would be equally true.
fairity 5y ago
> Employees are compensated on the work they provide during work hours. Industry-average compensation is primarily a function of supply and demand. Remote work increases labor supply and decreases costs of labor. Both of these factors will cause compensation to go down. How employers justify pay decreases is largely besides the point, imo.
altgoogler 5y ago
> In June, Google told rank-and-file employees it would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. To echo the statement from the other Googler who posted, this quote from the article is simply not true. It implies that if any employee chooses permanent WFH, you get a pay cut. If you follow the link [1] from the article, you'll see the following reasons: * Google supplied an online calculator to see how their possible relocation would affect their pay * Pay rates are defined by metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) * Google says "Our compensation packages have always been determined by location, and we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from," So, if you choose to WFH permanently and you commute far enough to live in a different MSA than your office, then you might see a paycut. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-google-employees-who-work-home-could-lose-money-2021-08-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-googl...
- adolph 5y ago
  1. Perform gradient descent using online MSA calculator and Zillow 2. Move to superfund site nearest NYC or FS 3. Profit!

by avnigo 5y ago

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>I don't understand the reasoning behind this, and I've seen it being used again and again. They do it because if you won't accept a 20% cut to work out in the sticks then there are plenty of other good people who will. It's got nothing to do with the length of your commute or the cost of unused offices or even the value you provide (as long as that covers your wages). They can do this for exactly the same reason they only need to pay a cleaner minimum wage. That is there is more than enough supply to meet the demand.

ohazi 5y ago
> They do it because if you won't accept a 20% cut to work out in the sticks then there are plenty of other good people who will. So the options are: 1. Convince all of the other good people that they can and should demand more. 2. Convince your bosses that you are indispensable.
- Clubber 5y ago
  3. Quit because you don't want to work for a company that thinks so little of you.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Quit work you mean? Because I can tell you now that the executives and owners of big companies don't really think about you as an individual at all.

kansface 5y ago

> Other than that, in terms of energy usage, heating/cooling, etc., I would imagine the cost savings of having people work remotely are considerable. You'd have much higher costs around compliance and taxation, which represent an ongoing expense since laws are always changing and people moving. That probably works out after a few employees in any given state. Companies also lose money by flying everyone in once or twice a year. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind seeing some math on the subject.

googlr29783 5y ago

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. Sample size of 1 here: Google approved my working remotely in a small town outside a major city at the same compensation as working in the office in that major city. So no pay cut. I think there's a game of telephone going on with the facts in these articles: "could see different changes in pay" -> could lose money" -> "would reduce pay"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SlowBall 5y ago
Exactly (Google employee here as well). Those articles are completely disingenuous. You could have made the headline “Google will increase the pay of remote workers” and it would be equally true.

fairity 5y ago

> Employees are compensated on the work they provide during work hours. Industry-average compensation is primarily a function of supply and demand. Remote work increases labor supply and decreases costs of labor. Both of these factors will cause compensation to go down. How employers justify pay decreases is largely besides the point, imo.

altgoogler 5y ago

> In June, Google told rank-and-file employees it would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. To echo the statement from the other Googler who posted, this quote from the article is simply not true. It implies that if any employee chooses permanent WFH, you get a pay cut. If you follow the link [1] from the article, you'll see the following reasons: * Google supplied an online calculator to see how their possible relocation would affect their pay * Pay rates are defined by metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) * Google says "Our compensation packages have always been determined by location, and we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from," So, if you choose to WFH permanently and you commute far enough to live in a different MSA than your office, then you might see a paycut. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-google-employees-who-work-home-could-lose-money-2021-08-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-googl...

adolph 5y ago
1. Perform gradient descent using online MSA calculator and Zillow 2. Move to superfund site nearest NYC or FS 3. Profit!