4 ms·

You say this like it’s a new and offensive idea when in fact this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. With regards to hybrid job

You say this like it’s a new and offensive idea when in fact this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. With regards to hybrid jobs: you can get a job closer to home, but there is a reason why house prices are more expensive in tech hubs and why wages are lower where housing is cheaper. So you can either have cheaper housing but lower income, higher income but higher house prices, or have both but pay the penalty with you time (ie longer commutes). This is how it’s always been and why fully remote jobs have been a great life hack. But you can’t really complain about having to spend you own time commuting should you have a hybrid role.

georgemcbay 4y ago
> this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's fair or right. The standard work week was once 12-14 hours a day, 6 days a week. Things change. > But you can’t really complain about having to spend you own time commuting should you have a hybrid role. Of course you can. You can complain about anything, and sometimes with very good reasons. Ultimately employers are free to demand that employees RTO with no travel time compensation if they want, but it's silly to say this is something the employees can't complain about.
- shjake 4y ago
  So one person buys/rents an expensive house just to be closer to the office and not have to commute. Somebody else makes the decision to live 1.5 hours away to save money. How would travel time compensation work in this situation? Why would companies not discriminate implicitly or explicitly against employees who live further away?
  - georgemcbay 4y ago
    I am not advocating for travel time compensation; I am advocating for the right to complain in general. I work from home the vast majority of the time currently with very occasional visits to the office. The office for me is 15 minutes away. I would never accept a job that required a greater than 20-minute single direction commute, so travel time compensation is not on my radar of things to worry about.
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      Maybe there’s a language barrier here because “can’t really complain” is British slang for “it’s a bit silly to moan about” rather than “I forbid you from speaking about such a subject”. Apologies for the confusion
- flakeoil 4y ago
  At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. Higher and higher salaries, more and more perks and benefits, less and less hours put into work. Sure there is time savings in not commuting, but there are also time savings in face-to-face interactions, team spirit etc. Instead of cooking some food and eat alone at home you can eat and discuss with colleagues or friends who work in the same area. Instead of commuting people waste their time on social media, news and other junk before, during and after work. A commute via bus, train, subway, bicycle can often be productive or even relaxing versus taking the car. It's an often needed break between work-time and free-time. It's hard to make that break when working form home.
  - georgemcbay 4y ago
    > Instead of commuting people waste their time on social media, news and other junk before, during and after work. A commute via bus, train, subway, bicycle can often be productive or even relaxing versus taking the car. It's an often needed break between work-time and free-time. It's hard to make that break when working form home. You seem to be extending your own experience as if it applies to everyone equally, but it doesn't. I find commutes neither productive nor relaxing. I do not need a break between work-time and free-time, I have an office space at home to provide that compartmentalization.
  - hardware2win 4y ago
    What even is this logic? Wfh = internet addict? Counter example I end my work, get ready and head to the gym 10min later and 1h later im free Meanwhile when commuting Id barely get to the home
  - thedougd 4y ago
    I spent a decade working in an office park with no restaurants and only over priced cafeterias with low quality food. Everyone brought their lunch and usually ate in their office while on conference calls. My employer was responsible for the selection and hiring of the cafeteria management company.
flangola7 4y ago
Something that is bad and harmful which becomes widespread and popular does not cease to be bad and harmful. Appeal to tradition is one of the weakest arguments anyone can make.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  I made more points than just an appeal to tradition. Let me reiterate: You already get compensated by having both a higher paid job and living in a bigger property in a cheaper yet desirable neighbourhood. And more to the point, your employer didn’t choose where you live, you chose that yourself. If you were commuting to different site(s) than the one listed as your “base” location then it would be a different story. But most businesses already compensate you for that. They just don’t pay for you travelling between home and your base location because that was the expectation you agreed to when you took the job.
  - flerchin 4y ago
    It's been 3 years since covid and WFH. Most engineers have changed jobs since then. Many twice. The agreement was WFH.
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      Was the agreement WFH though? Was it actually written into their contract? Or was this just something they informally agreed to while it was difficult to hire staff? I’m not saying changing policy against your employees wishes is a good thing but if your acceptance of a job is predicated on the condition of being fully remote then you’d want to be damn sure that is written into your contract. And if it is, then your employer cannot change those terms without issuing you a new contract. Also I know plenty of people who haven’t changed jobs in the last 3 years.
      - flerchin 3y ago
        As you know, contracts are not a thing for the overwhelming majority of workers in the US, and particularly software developers.
nomercy400 4y ago
You say this like norms are not meant to be challenged. That fully remote jobs are a life hack, which shouldn't be normal (i.e. hack). Having experienced the full-time WFH during covid, I believe many feel that the extra time not spent on commuting can be better used for life. Why bother with extra commute when it does not bring you anything? In the past for the paid workforce WFH has not been possible. You had to physically be present to perform the labor. In these modern times with computers and internet, we now have the ability to communicate and even perform most tasks related to the job when being in a completely different place than my coworkers. Companies only get the benefits of people being in the office (more interaction, more control), but not the penalties (unpaid commute time). Norms should move with the zeitgeist, in the spirit of the time and age we live in. Why stay stuck in the way of working from 50 years ago?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  > You say this like norms are not meant to be challenged. You’re free to challenge the norms. I just don’t agree with the arguments made on this occasion and had listed other reasons why beyond just social norms. Ie you’re already being compensated by choosing to live in a bigger yet cheaper property then you’d have afforded if you wanted to live closer to work. Ultimately there is always going to be a trade off but that’s your choice not your employers.
  - skrtskrt 4y ago
    WFH is completely independent from the idea of moving to a suburb to afford a bigger house. You're literally just making up an imaginary scenario of people moving just because they can WFH and then acting like that's "compensation" built into WFH.
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      We aren’t talking about WFH though. We are taking about people with long commute times being compensated for their efforts. And the exact reason people move out of the city, and thus have a longer commute, is precisely to buy something bigger somewhere quieter. This isn’t a weird new concept I’m throwing out there either. It’s a well discussed topic. So much so that I could name several TV shows that feature this as a plot point.
ReptileMan 4y ago
It is not new, but it is still offensive.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  Care to explain why? I’ve given my reasons
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    Because commute is unpaid time that is completely wasted. If you have a way to charge your company it will be nice compromise.
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      You’ve summarised the discussion without answering the question: why should a company owe you for your commute time? I’ve given reasons why I don’t believe the a company owes you. Yet no one has given reasons why they believe a company should.
      - ReptileMan 4y ago
        Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it. Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent.
        hnlmorg 4y ago
        > Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it. So if I take the tube to see a show, then work should pay for that as well? I’m not working while sat on the tube any more than I’m working while on the way to the theatre. And if people do decide to work on the train, then they can count that towards their working hours so there isn’t an issue. If you’re not working on the train, then it clearly isn’t work time any more than that lunch break which companies also don’t pay you for. Also what about people who have chosen to pay more for a property that is closer to the office? Should they be excluded from this subsidy? Effectively penalising them for not having a long commute? How is that fair on them? > Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent The ironic thing was during COVID some people were complaining that their home expenses had gone up due to working from home and thus insisted they should be compensated for that too. The British government even issued tax credits to help such individuals.
jzb 4y ago
Yes, they can complain - and should. We all should. If there’s no real reason to commute, if the actual work doesn’t require it, then we should push back on this. “How it’s always been” is a lousy reason to keep doing something if there’s a better way. The pandemic forced employers to allow WFH so they could keep the money spigots flowing. We learned that it isn’t really necessary to burn additional fossil fuels and contribute to pollution and donate commute time for free. It’s entirely logical that workers are complaining about a unnecessary constraint that costs them time, money & restricts where they can live.
znpy 4y ago
> You say this like it’s a new and offensive idea when in fact this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. Because it is. People used to write code on paper, later transfer that to punched cards, submit that for execution and wait days for results. If you were asked to do something similar today (write code on paper and not have your own computer) you’d take it as crazy and offensive too.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  People like yourself have been fixated on that one sentence because it’s easy to dismiss and ignored the other points I raised. I’m still yet to hear one single reason why it is “offensive” to have to pay for your own travel into work. I’ve given plenty of reasons why I don’t see an issue with it but nobody has given any reasons why it’s offensive beyond simply saying that it is so.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Here's an answer: because it's time from our life, stress, cost, and physical risk that we are taking for someone else's benefit that we am not compensated for. That is highly and inherently offensive, which is why most users aren't bothering to engage you on it. People aren't going to spend their time arguing over something that is self-evident; if the other person can't see it that's their problem, not ours. Horse, water, drink, etc.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      I think most people aren’t nothing to engage because they’re, and your, point of view is completely unrealistic, overly simplistic and clearly not ever going to work in the real world. So instead you have to make emotional pleas, ignore counter arguments because “isn’t it obvious…” and generally pull all the usual shades debate tactics that one does when they know they can’t win an argument on merit alone. How does such a compensation work fairly when someone people pay the premium to live closer? What’s stopping you from working on the train and counting that towards your working hours? Etc. what’s stopping you from getting a job closer to home? There’s so many flaws to your argument and the only point you make that cannot be refuted is your sense of entitlement. So it’s not surprising I’m unconvinced. But we might just have to agree to disagree on this topic. I suspect this is more a question of perceived morality than it is something tangible that can be proved.
pkilgore 4y ago
There's a lot of fucked up shit that used to "be[] the norm". It's not really an effective or convincing argument.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  It also wasn’t the basis of my argument, it was just a passing remark in just the first sentence. Would have been nice if you read more than just the opening sentence before announcing that it was unconvincing…but each to their own I guess
dmitrygr 4y ago
> when in fact this has been the norm Slavery was also the norm, until we, as a society, figured out that maybe... it shouldn't be? I simply do not get people who defend idiocy by claiming that it has always been the norm?
- theodric 4y ago
  There's a lot of evidence of internalized capitalism on this site, but I'm happy to see a variety of opinions for and against remote coming out in the comments
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    I’m definitely one of the bigger socialises on here (probably because I’m European). I just don’t believe that a company owes you for your commute time. I feel that it pushing entitlement a little too far. Given the shitty wages most people are on, how some people walk for 2 hours a day, every day, to get to and from work because they can’t afford a car…and then we have this thread. It just feels like there’s a real disconnect from reality going on right now.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      > I’m definitely one of the bigger socialises on here (probably because I’m European). I just don’t believe that a company owes you for your commute time. I feel that it pushing entitlement a little too far. Incorrect, it is a reasonable and deserved level of entitlement. When you spend hours of your life for someone else's benefit you are morally entitled to be compensated it. > Given the shitty wages most people are on, how some people walk for 2 hours a day, every day, to get to and from work because they can’t afford a car…and then we have this thread. It just feels like there’s a real disconnect from reality going on right now. Crab mentality. Multiple shitty things exist of different scales and all of them should be fixed. Everyone should be paid for commute time AND no one should have to walk two hours or have a low wage job. Calling out the wrongness of the former does not mean we are okay with the latter. The subject matter of thread happened to be about the former.

georgemcbay 4y ago

> this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's fair or right. The standard work week was once 12-14 hours a day, 6 days a week. Things change. > But you can’t really complain about having to spend you own time commuting should you have a hybrid role. Of course you can. You can complain about anything, and sometimes with very good reasons. Ultimately employers are free to demand that employees RTO with no travel time compensation if they want, but it's silly to say this is something the employees can't complain about.

shjake 4y ago
So one person buys/rents an expensive house just to be closer to the office and not have to commute. Somebody else makes the decision to live 1.5 hours away to save money. How would travel time compensation work in this situation? Why would companies not discriminate implicitly or explicitly against employees who live further away?
- georgemcbay 4y ago
  I am not advocating for travel time compensation; I am advocating for the right to complain in general. I work from home the vast majority of the time currently with very occasional visits to the office. The office for me is 15 minutes away. I would never accept a job that required a greater than 20-minute single direction commute, so travel time compensation is not on my radar of things to worry about.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    Maybe there’s a language barrier here because “can’t really complain” is British slang for “it’s a bit silly to moan about” rather than “I forbid you from speaking about such a subject”. Apologies for the confusion
flakeoil 4y ago
At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. Higher and higher salaries, more and more perks and benefits, less and less hours put into work. Sure there is time savings in not commuting, but there are also time savings in face-to-face interactions, team spirit etc. Instead of cooking some food and eat alone at home you can eat and discuss with colleagues or friends who work in the same area. Instead of commuting people waste their time on social media, news and other junk before, during and after work. A commute via bus, train, subway, bicycle can often be productive or even relaxing versus taking the car. It's an often needed break between work-time and free-time. It's hard to make that break when working form home.
- georgemcbay 4y ago
  > Instead of commuting people waste their time on social media, news and other junk before, during and after work. A commute via bus, train, subway, bicycle can often be productive or even relaxing versus taking the car. It's an often needed break between work-time and free-time. It's hard to make that break when working form home. You seem to be extending your own experience as if it applies to everyone equally, but it doesn't. I find commutes neither productive nor relaxing. I do not need a break between work-time and free-time, I have an office space at home to provide that compartmentalization.
- hardware2win 4y ago
  What even is this logic? Wfh = internet addict? Counter example I end my work, get ready and head to the gym 10min later and 1h later im free Meanwhile when commuting Id barely get to the home
- thedougd 4y ago
  I spent a decade working in an office park with no restaurants and only over priced cafeterias with low quality food. Everyone brought their lunch and usually ate in their office while on conference calls. My employer was responsible for the selection and hiring of the cafeteria management company.

flangola7 4y ago

Something that is bad and harmful which becomes widespread and popular does not cease to be bad and harmful. Appeal to tradition is one of the weakest arguments anyone can make.

hnlmorg 4y ago
I made more points than just an appeal to tradition. Let me reiterate: You already get compensated by having both a higher paid job and living in a bigger property in a cheaper yet desirable neighbourhood. And more to the point, your employer didn’t choose where you live, you chose that yourself. If you were commuting to different site(s) than the one listed as your “base” location then it would be a different story. But most businesses already compensate you for that. They just don’t pay for you travelling between home and your base location because that was the expectation you agreed to when you took the job.
- flerchin 4y ago
  It's been 3 years since covid and WFH. Most engineers have changed jobs since then. Many twice. The agreement was WFH.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    Was the agreement WFH though? Was it actually written into their contract? Or was this just something they informally agreed to while it was difficult to hire staff? I’m not saying changing policy against your employees wishes is a good thing but if your acceptance of a job is predicated on the condition of being fully remote then you’d want to be damn sure that is written into your contract. And if it is, then your employer cannot change those terms without issuing you a new contract. Also I know plenty of people who haven’t changed jobs in the last 3 years.
    - flerchin 3y ago
      As you know, contracts are not a thing for the overwhelming majority of workers in the US, and particularly software developers.

nomercy400 4y ago

You say this like norms are not meant to be challenged. That fully remote jobs are a life hack, which shouldn't be normal (i.e. hack). Having experienced the full-time WFH during covid, I believe many feel that the extra time not spent on commuting can be better used for life. Why bother with extra commute when it does not bring you anything? In the past for the paid workforce WFH has not been possible. You had to physically be present to perform the labor. In these modern times with computers and internet, we now have the ability to communicate and even perform most tasks related to the job when being in a completely different place than my coworkers. Companies only get the benefits of people being in the office (more interaction, more control), but not the penalties (unpaid commute time). Norms should move with the zeitgeist, in the spirit of the time and age we live in. Why stay stuck in the way of working from 50 years ago?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hnlmorg 4y ago
> You say this like norms are not meant to be challenged. You’re free to challenge the norms. I just don’t agree with the arguments made on this occasion and had listed other reasons why beyond just social norms. Ie you’re already being compensated by choosing to live in a bigger yet cheaper property then you’d have afforded if you wanted to live closer to work. Ultimately there is always going to be a trade off but that’s your choice not your employers.
- skrtskrt 4y ago
  WFH is completely independent from the idea of moving to a suburb to afford a bigger house. You're literally just making up an imaginary scenario of people moving just because they can WFH and then acting like that's "compensation" built into WFH.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    We aren’t talking about WFH though. We are taking about people with long commute times being compensated for their efforts. And the exact reason people move out of the city, and thus have a longer commute, is precisely to buy something bigger somewhere quieter. This isn’t a weird new concept I’m throwing out there either. It’s a well discussed topic. So much so that I could name several TV shows that feature this as a plot point.

ReptileMan 4y ago

It is not new, but it is still offensive.

hnlmorg 4y ago
Care to explain why? I’ve given my reasons
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  Because commute is unpaid time that is completely wasted. If you have a way to charge your company it will be nice compromise.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    You’ve summarised the discussion without answering the question: why should a company owe you for your commute time? I’ve given reasons why I don’t believe the a company owes you. Yet no one has given reasons why they believe a company should.
    - ReptileMan 4y ago
      Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it. Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent.
      - hnlmorg 4y ago
        > Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it. So if I take the tube to see a show, then work should pay for that as well? I’m not working while sat on the tube any more than I’m working while on the way to the theatre. And if people do decide to work on the train, then they can count that towards their working hours so there isn’t an issue. If you’re not working on the train, then it clearly isn’t work time any more than that lunch break which companies also don’t pay you for. Also what about people who have chosen to pay more for a property that is closer to the office? Should they be excluded from this subsidy? Effectively penalising them for not having a long commute? How is that fair on them? > Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent The ironic thing was during COVID some people were complaining that their home expenses had gone up due to working from home and thus insisted they should be compensated for that too. The British government even issued tax credits to help such individuals.

jzb 4y ago

Yes, they can complain - and should. We all should. If there’s no real reason to commute, if the actual work doesn’t require it, then we should push back on this. “How it’s always been” is a lousy reason to keep doing something if there’s a better way. The pandemic forced employers to allow WFH so they could keep the money spigots flowing. We learned that it isn’t really necessary to burn additional fossil fuels and contribute to pollution and donate commute time for free. It’s entirely logical that workers are complaining about a unnecessary constraint that costs them time, money & restricts where they can live.

znpy 4y ago

> You say this like it’s a new and offensive idea when in fact this has been the norm for as long as paid workforce has been concept. Because it is. People used to write code on paper, later transfer that to punched cards, submit that for execution and wait days for results. If you were asked to do something similar today (write code on paper and not have your own computer) you’d take it as crazy and offensive too.

hnlmorg 4y ago
People like yourself have been fixated on that one sentence because it’s easy to dismiss and ignored the other points I raised. I’m still yet to hear one single reason why it is “offensive” to have to pay for your own travel into work. I’ve given plenty of reasons why I don’t see an issue with it but nobody has given any reasons why it’s offensive beyond simply saying that it is so.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Here's an answer: because it's time from our life, stress, cost, and physical risk that we are taking for someone else's benefit that we am not compensated for. That is highly and inherently offensive, which is why most users aren't bothering to engage you on it. People aren't going to spend their time arguing over something that is self-evident; if the other person can't see it that's their problem, not ours. Horse, water, drink, etc.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    I think most people aren’t nothing to engage because they’re, and your, point of view is completely unrealistic, overly simplistic and clearly not ever going to work in the real world. So instead you have to make emotional pleas, ignore counter arguments because “isn’t it obvious…” and generally pull all the usual shades debate tactics that one does when they know they can’t win an argument on merit alone. How does such a compensation work fairly when someone people pay the premium to live closer? What’s stopping you from working on the train and counting that towards your working hours? Etc. what’s stopping you from getting a job closer to home? There’s so many flaws to your argument and the only point you make that cannot be refuted is your sense of entitlement. So it’s not surprising I’m unconvinced. But we might just have to agree to disagree on this topic. I suspect this is more a question of perceived morality than it is something tangible that can be proved.

pkilgore 4y ago

There's a lot of fucked up shit that used to "be[] the norm". It's not really an effective or convincing argument.

hnlmorg 3y ago
It also wasn’t the basis of my argument, it was just a passing remark in just the first sentence. Would have been nice if you read more than just the opening sentence before announcing that it was unconvincing…but each to their own I guess

dmitrygr 4y ago

> when in fact this has been the norm Slavery was also the norm, until we, as a society, figured out that maybe... it shouldn't be? I simply do not get people who defend idiocy by claiming that it has always been the norm?

theodric 4y ago
There's a lot of evidence of internalized capitalism on this site, but I'm happy to see a variety of opinions for and against remote coming out in the comments
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  I’m definitely one of the bigger socialises on here (probably because I’m European). I just don’t believe that a company owes you for your commute time. I feel that it pushing entitlement a little too far. Given the shitty wages most people are on, how some people walk for 2 hours a day, every day, to get to and from work because they can’t afford a car…and then we have this thread. It just feels like there’s a real disconnect from reality going on right now.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    > I’m definitely one of the bigger socialises on here (probably because I’m European). I just don’t believe that a company owes you for your commute time. I feel that it pushing entitlement a little too far. Incorrect, it is a reasonable and deserved level of entitlement. When you spend hours of your life for someone else's benefit you are morally entitled to be compensated it. > Given the shitty wages most people are on, how some people walk for 2 hours a day, every day, to get to and from work because they can’t afford a car…and then we have this thread. It just feels like there’s a real disconnect from reality going on right now. Crab mentality. Multiple shitty things exist of different scales and all of them should be fixed. Everyone should be paid for commute time AND no one should have to walk two hours or have a low wage job. Calling out the wrongness of the former does not mean we are okay with the latter. The subject matter of thread happened to be about the former.