4 ms·

If employers allow some work from home and some work in office, after a few years, there will be lots of reports to claim the statistical differences of wage an

If employers allow some work from home and some work in office, after a few years, there will be lots of reports to claim the statistical differences of wage and promotion between those two groups are discriminations. And demand those two groups to have the same outcomes.

x3n0ph3n3 4y ago
The can demand all they want, but such discrimination is not illegal.
- temp8964 4y ago
  Caving to the demands from a small group is not uncommon. Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose to work from home, and then working from home leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.
smt88 4y ago
It's not about allowing or not allowing. You let everyone work remotely if they want to, and then you pay for a small office for the people who choose it. Remote should be the assumed default.
- temp8964 4y ago
  This semantic difference does not seem to be relevant to my point. If say you choose to work from home and then you find out your coworkers working in office get more wage increase or promotion than you do, would you be OK with it?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Why would anyone be okay with that? If you flip it around do you expect it to suddenly be okay?
    - temp8964 4y ago
      You would be Okay with it because you like to work from home and others choose to take all the trouble to go to office so that they can have more chances to get familiar with the bosses and learn about things not online.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        But that’s just one narrative framing. Would you be okay if remote people got promotions more often because they didn’t waste two hours a day commuting, got more done, and met with their managers in more casual settings like pubs and restaurants and so had more time to shoot the shit? “Not going into the office” != “never seeing coworkers face to face.” Being remote has forced our team to be more proactive about seeing one another and so we’ve ended up socializing more than we ever did at the office. It’s easy to fall into the trap of not doing anything other than working chat and water cooler conversations and never actually socializing because “we see each other every day.”
        temp8964 4y ago
        I am OK with either way, because my political philosophy is personal choice. It really does not matter which specific option leads to better outcome. My point is that there are people who do not hold this philosophy and they will demand for equal outcome. Read my top comment, it really doesn’t matter which way it goes, some people will make it a political issue. Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose option A, and then option A leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.
  - hiptobecubic 4y ago
    This is how things already work. Companies like Google and Facebook are not shy at all about cutting your pay significantly if you move to some location they think doesn't merit the same level of comp as the bay area and nyc.

x3n0ph3n3 4y ago

The can demand all they want, but such discrimination is not illegal.

temp8964 4y ago
Caving to the demands from a small group is not uncommon. Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose to work from home, and then working from home leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.

smt88 4y ago

It's not about allowing or not allowing. You let everyone work remotely if they want to, and then you pay for a small office for the people who choose it. Remote should be the assumed default.

temp8964 4y ago
This semantic difference does not seem to be relevant to my point. If say you choose to work from home and then you find out your coworkers working in office get more wage increase or promotion than you do, would you be OK with it?
- Spivak 4y ago
  Why would anyone be okay with that? If you flip it around do you expect it to suddenly be okay?
  - temp8964 4y ago
    You would be Okay with it because you like to work from home and others choose to take all the trouble to go to office so that they can have more chances to get familiar with the bosses and learn about things not online.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      But that’s just one narrative framing. Would you be okay if remote people got promotions more often because they didn’t waste two hours a day commuting, got more done, and met with their managers in more casual settings like pubs and restaurants and so had more time to shoot the shit? “Not going into the office” != “never seeing coworkers face to face.” Being remote has forced our team to be more proactive about seeing one another and so we’ve ended up socializing more than we ever did at the office. It’s easy to fall into the trap of not doing anything other than working chat and water cooler conversations and never actually socializing because “we see each other every day.”
      - temp8964 4y ago
        I am OK with either way, because my political philosophy is personal choice. It really does not matter which specific option leads to better outcome. My point is that there are people who do not hold this philosophy and they will demand for equal outcome. Read my top comment, it really doesn’t matter which way it goes, some people will make it a political issue. Also, they can always link the difference to race/gender etc. Say, if there are more women or racial minorities chose option A, and then option A leads to less wage increases, then the company will be in trouble.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  This is how things already work. Companies like Google and Facebook are not shy at all about cutting your pay significantly if you move to some location they think doesn't merit the same level of comp as the bay area and nyc.