4 ms·

In my opinion, it's not fair for jobs that cannot be WFH. There should be some kind of percent over minimum wage pay or tax breaks for jobs that cannot be done

In my opinion, it's not fair for jobs that cannot be WFH. There should be some kind of percent over minimum wage pay or tax breaks for jobs that cannot be done remotely. While the market seems to be heading this direction, I think the government should step in to ensure those that will dedicate their time to being somewhere else are rewarded as much as those that get to sit in their pajamas and work from the comfort of their homes. I say this as someone who has worked remote for years. Folks that have to be onsite (like tradesmen) see the inequality and it is furthering division within our country. Or the prophecies of remote jobs being outsourced will come true and the onsite folks with their job security will have the last laugh.

sh4un 4y ago
vladvasiliu 4y ago
I can see some consequences of people taking up WFH that could be good for the people who have to commute: fewer people on the roads / in public transit is a clear win: it's more comfortable. People working from home full-time could move further away and lessen the pressure on housing and child care. Prices could go down and allow those who commute to move closer and further improve their commute. In the city where I live, there are ridiculous traffic jams every day during rush hour, and the metros and busses are bursting at the seams with people. Most people are "service industry workers", sitting in an office in front of a computer all day. Why on earth would we, as a society, want to not encourage the people who can to WFH? Even if nobody were working from home, there would still be significant differences between jobs. I hate my commute and greatly prefer working from home. But even if I had to sit my butt in the company's chair, working in an air-conditioned office is leagues above having to work, say, construction under a scorching sun or in the freezing cold. Should the government mandate that I carry a 50 pound sack of cement up the stairs twice a day and blow a heater in my face during the summer? It's true that some (most?) "lower-end jobs" that "keep society working" are under-paid, but I doubt that some people working from home makes the difference between positions significantly worse. Trying to somehow "tax" people who work from home just sounds like a bitter "since I can't have it, neither can you".
rjtavares 4y ago
I've seen discussions of extra vacation days for jobs that cannot be WFH. I think that's a fair tradeoff.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  I could see that. Or having onsite full time clarification be less (20 hours instead of 32).
  - dsq 4y ago
    Where is full time defined as 32 hours? Where I am it's in the forties. More power to you!
lordnacho 4y ago
Isn't this one of those things the market finds a balance for? If the comfort gap between remote and in-office gets too big or too small, people will push the salary/conditions to where it works for a sensible number of people?
homonculus1 4y ago
> it's not fair TOUGH
pdimitar 4y ago
There is zero inequality. Salesmen for example get % of actual profits plus pretty good fixed salaries. They chose the extra stress for extra money. I, a WFH worker, am not in any shape or form stopping them from becoming financial advisers who scratch their balls in the living room while filling up Excel spreadsheets all day (and taking less money). It's their choice. I am not forcing them into it. If we're going to pull out the inequality card then two can play at this game: why should I be forced in an office when OBJECTIVELY AND FACTUALLY my job will be just as, if not more, efficient when I work from home?
mypastself 4y ago
If a government starts subsidizing on-site work, what’s to stop corporations from demanding that all their employees go back to the office? How would you prove a job can be done at home? If someone dislikes working from home (say, fresh grads in need of in-person guidance) but are forced to do it, do you believe a government needs to penalize them? Should people who avoid traveling due to carbon footprint be penalized? If an enterpreneur opens up a small office at their home, should they also be penalized? Do you believe tradesmen are generally underpaid at the moment?
iso1631 4y ago
9-5 tradesmen jobs aren't fair for those of us who work irregular shift patterns and travel lots for work.
Tade0 4y ago
> Or the prophecies of remote jobs being outsourced will come true and the onsite folks with their job security will have the last laugh. Hailing from a country that's a popular outsourcing destination (Poland) I noticed that during the pandemic while the number of remote job listings accepting the likes of me increased, so did the salaries. All around me people suddenly started having daily rates of €350-600 - the lower end of that range was close to the upper end of local listings. To an extent it stayed that way. It appears that regardless of how wide a net companies cast, they still need to pay up to attract talent.
ildon 4y ago
More regulation, especially when through taxation, is a very dangerous path. The actual outcome is unpredictable, and it's likely that those who can will take advantage of any benefit

sh4un 4y ago

vladvasiliu 4y ago

I can see some consequences of people taking up WFH that could be good for the people who have to commute: fewer people on the roads / in public transit is a clear win: it's more comfortable. People working from home full-time could move further away and lessen the pressure on housing and child care. Prices could go down and allow those who commute to move closer and further improve their commute. In the city where I live, there are ridiculous traffic jams every day during rush hour, and the metros and busses are bursting at the seams with people. Most people are "service industry workers", sitting in an office in front of a computer all day. Why on earth would we, as a society, want to not encourage the people who can to WFH? Even if nobody were working from home, there would still be significant differences between jobs. I hate my commute and greatly prefer working from home. But even if I had to sit my butt in the company's chair, working in an air-conditioned office is leagues above having to work, say, construction under a scorching sun or in the freezing cold. Should the government mandate that I carry a 50 pound sack of cement up the stairs twice a day and blow a heater in my face during the summer? It's true that some (most?) "lower-end jobs" that "keep society working" are under-paid, but I doubt that some people working from home makes the difference between positions significantly worse. Trying to somehow "tax" people who work from home just sounds like a bitter "since I can't have it, neither can you".

rjtavares 4y ago

I've seen discussions of extra vacation days for jobs that cannot be WFH. I think that's a fair tradeoff.

candiddevmike 4y ago
I could see that. Or having onsite full time clarification be less (20 hours instead of 32).
- dsq 4y ago
  Where is full time defined as 32 hours? Where I am it's in the forties. More power to you!

lordnacho 4y ago

Isn't this one of those things the market finds a balance for? If the comfort gap between remote and in-office gets too big or too small, people will push the salary/conditions to where it works for a sensible number of people?

homonculus1 4y ago

> it's not fair TOUGH

pdimitar 4y ago

There is zero inequality. Salesmen for example get % of actual profits plus pretty good fixed salaries. They chose the extra stress for extra money. I, a WFH worker, am not in any shape or form stopping them from becoming financial advisers who scratch their balls in the living room while filling up Excel spreadsheets all day (and taking less money). It's their choice. I am not forcing them into it. If we're going to pull out the inequality card then two can play at this game: why should I be forced in an office when OBJECTIVELY AND FACTUALLY my job will be just as, if not more, efficient when I work from home?

mypastself 4y ago

If a government starts subsidizing on-site work, what’s to stop corporations from demanding that all their employees go back to the office? How would you prove a job can be done at home? If someone dislikes working from home (say, fresh grads in need of in-person guidance) but are forced to do it, do you believe a government needs to penalize them? Should people who avoid traveling due to carbon footprint be penalized? If an enterpreneur opens up a small office at their home, should they also be penalized? Do you believe tradesmen are generally underpaid at the moment?

iso1631 4y ago

9-5 tradesmen jobs aren't fair for those of us who work irregular shift patterns and travel lots for work.

Tade0 4y ago

> Or the prophecies of remote jobs being outsourced will come true and the onsite folks with their job security will have the last laugh. Hailing from a country that's a popular outsourcing destination (Poland) I noticed that during the pandemic while the number of remote job listings accepting the likes of me increased, so did the salaries. All around me people suddenly started having daily rates of €350-600 - the lower end of that range was close to the upper end of local listings. To an extent it stayed that way. It appears that regardless of how wide a net companies cast, they still need to pay up to attract talent.

ildon 4y ago

More regulation, especially when through taxation, is a very dangerous path. The actual outcome is unpredictable, and it's likely that those who can will take advantage of any benefit