5 ms·

If companies are going to force people to be in the office, then the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. That means if you

If companies are going to force people to be in the office, then the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. That means if you want me in the office, I will leave my house at 9AM, if you want me to be close to the office, then increase my pay and I will move closer.

majormajor 3y ago
I have no objection to commuting counting as paid time - at the very least, the fact that in the US even things like mandatory security processes don't count is absurd - but for all of us "lucky" enough to be "exempt" in the US... blah.
slashdev 3y ago
My dad worked the latter half of his career this way. He came in late and left early. But he was good enough / indispensable enough that he got away with it.
sokoloff 3y ago
Suppose I really like driving. Under such a policy, I might be inclined to move 4 hours one-way from the office and just listen to podcasts and drive around all day. (I don't actually want to do this, but when writing government policies, you have to consider that some people will be aggressively adversarial if it suits them.)
- ruined 3y ago
  employers already make proximity-based hiring/firing decisions, i don't think this would matter
- katbyte 3y ago
  Then suddenly you’re wfh!
randomdata 3y ago
So if, say, office hours are eight hours per day, you are incentivized to move four hours away?
- dougmwne 3y ago
  I suppose employers would need to be allowed to ask your living location and decide to hire you based on the length of your commute.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    What does that mean when you move after employment has started? At least in this jurisdiction (and I imagine most others), being able to move is considered a human right, and employers cannot violate human rights. I have certainly worked with more than one person at my workplace who started when they lived locally, but eventually moved to the big city over an hour away, while retaining their employment with the business even after settling into their new home. Them suddenly working 2+ fewer hours each day would be a significant change to their employment. If the time is set in stone at the time of first hire, then I guess you're incentivized to move as far away as possible that still allows you to be hired, and then on your second day move in next door?
    - leshenka 3y ago
      I guess you're negotiating it once when signing the contract and if you move closer/farther that's your business. Or re-negotiate.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      I think you're missing the point. The solution in that case is to let them work remotely.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - randomdata 3y ago
AmericanChopper 3y ago
> the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. This is would have a bunch of perverse outcomes you probably haven’t considered. Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing. Which would in turn correlate to discrimination against the ethnic groups that are over represented in those lower socioeconomic groups. It’s basically only a good idea if you’re trying to intentionally constrain social mobility.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing... Now do college degrees.
- majormajor 3y ago
  > Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. This already happens, and AFAIK it's not a protected class. "Hmm, they'd be driving an hour each direction, are they likely to stick around?"
- someNameIG 3y ago
  > Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. That's already a thing in Australia. > Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing. The current system already does that also. Poorer people are traveling more for work, but they aren't getting compensated for the commute time.
JohnFen 3y ago
> the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. I think a strong case can be made for this. For those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate salaries, we absolutely should be pricing that time into the rates we're negotiating for. Bigger picture, I've always thought it was insane that we talk about "40 hour workweeks" as if they exist. Realistically, the time it takes me to commute is part of my workday. If my commute takes an hour each way, then I'm working a 50 hour workweek.
chad_stevens 3y ago
Some of us are salary and would see no benefit from this.
assimpleaspossi 3y ago
Since when has going to the office been a matter of forcing people? Until covid hit (just two years ago?) almost everyone did. So how did this turn into forcing anyone to do anything different? EDIT: To be clear. I mean "forcing people to do anything different". Going into the office was normal for almost everyone.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Since when has going to the office been a matter of forcing people? Since always? Until Covid, there was no choice. People did it because they had to. Covid just reminded people that there is another way to live and how much quality of life they're actually sacrificing for their job.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Yes, and we only pay attention to studies that signal what we want - such as working from home improved productivity. It doesn't matter how many counter-examples there are, or how many business leaders say they've seen declines. No, those folks are totally wrong because we want remote work.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I don't make any arguments about productivity in general either way because I don't have any data to base them on. That said, there's no question that I personally am much more productive at home vs in the office. Offices seem designed to interfere with productivity. But, all that said, why does it matter either way? I am a human being. I do not exist to ensure that my employer is operating with the greatest productivity possible.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > I am a human being. I do not exist to ensure that my employer is operating with the greatest productivity possible. You literally do if you are employed by someone. You expect money from them in exchange for productive work. You are free to start your own business if you want to be however-productive you feel like that day. For head-down productivity, sure, you can be better at home. But that's not the entire picture, is it? In-person collaboration is always better than remote messaging/video calling. It just is, and probably always will be. It's very disingenuous to pretend remote collaboration is anywhere near as effective as in-person collaboration.

majormajor 3y ago

I have no objection to commuting counting as paid time - at the very least, the fact that in the US even things like mandatory security processes don't count is absurd - but for all of us "lucky" enough to be "exempt" in the US... blah.

slashdev 3y ago

My dad worked the latter half of his career this way. He came in late and left early. But he was good enough / indispensable enough that he got away with it.

sokoloff 3y ago

Suppose I really like driving. Under such a policy, I might be inclined to move 4 hours one-way from the office and just listen to podcasts and drive around all day. (I don't actually want to do this, but when writing government policies, you have to consider that some people will be aggressively adversarial if it suits them.)

ruined 3y ago
employers already make proximity-based hiring/firing decisions, i don't think this would matter
katbyte 3y ago
Then suddenly you’re wfh!

randomdata 3y ago

So if, say, office hours are eight hours per day, you are incentivized to move four hours away?

dougmwne 3y ago
I suppose employers would need to be allowed to ask your living location and decide to hire you based on the length of your commute.
- randomdata 3y ago
  What does that mean when you move after employment has started? At least in this jurisdiction (and I imagine most others), being able to move is considered a human right, and employers cannot violate human rights. I have certainly worked with more than one person at my workplace who started when they lived locally, but eventually moved to the big city over an hour away, while retaining their employment with the business even after settling into their new home. Them suddenly working 2+ fewer hours each day would be a significant change to their employment. If the time is set in stone at the time of first hire, then I guess you're incentivized to move as far away as possible that still allows you to be hired, and then on your second day move in next door?
  - leshenka 3y ago
    I guess you're negotiating it once when signing the contract and if you move closer/farther that's your business. Or re-negotiate.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    I think you're missing the point. The solution in that case is to let them work remotely.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - randomdata 3y ago

AmericanChopper 3y ago

> the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. This is would have a bunch of perverse outcomes you probably haven’t considered. Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing. Which would in turn correlate to discrimination against the ethnic groups that are over represented in those lower socioeconomic groups. It’s basically only a good idea if you’re trying to intentionally constrain social mobility.

willcipriano 3y ago
> that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing... Now do college degrees.
majormajor 3y ago
> Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. This already happens, and AFAIK it's not a protected class. "Hmm, they'd be driving an hour each direction, are they likely to stick around?"
someNameIG 3y ago
> Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. That's already a thing in Australia. > Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing. The current system already does that also. Poorer people are traveling more for work, but they aren't getting compensated for the commute time.

JohnFen 3y ago

> the government should mandate that commute time is included in office hours. I think a strong case can be made for this. For those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate salaries, we absolutely should be pricing that time into the rates we're negotiating for. Bigger picture, I've always thought it was insane that we talk about "40 hour workweeks" as if they exist. Realistically, the time it takes me to commute is part of my workday. If my commute takes an hour each way, then I'm working a 50 hour workweek.

chad_stevens 3y ago

Some of us are salary and would see no benefit from this.

assimpleaspossi 3y ago

Since when has going to the office been a matter of forcing people? Until covid hit (just two years ago?) almost everyone did. So how did this turn into forcing anyone to do anything different? EDIT: To be clear. I mean "forcing people to do anything different". Going into the office was normal for almost everyone.

JohnFen 3y ago
> Since when has going to the office been a matter of forcing people? Since always? Until Covid, there was no choice. People did it because they had to. Covid just reminded people that there is another way to live and how much quality of life they're actually sacrificing for their job.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Yes, and we only pay attention to studies that signal what we want - such as working from home improved productivity. It doesn't matter how many counter-examples there are, or how many business leaders say they've seen declines. No, those folks are totally wrong because we want remote work.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I don't make any arguments about productivity in general either way because I don't have any data to base them on. That said, there's no question that I personally am much more productive at home vs in the office. Offices seem designed to interfere with productivity. But, all that said, why does it matter either way? I am a human being. I do not exist to ensure that my employer is operating with the greatest productivity possible.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > I am a human being. I do not exist to ensure that my employer is operating with the greatest productivity possible. You literally do if you are employed by someone. You expect money from them in exchange for productive work. You are free to start your own business if you want to be however-productive you feel like that day. For head-down productivity, sure, you can be better at home. But that's not the entire picture, is it? In-person collaboration is always better than remote messaging/video calling. It just is, and probably always will be. It's very disingenuous to pretend remote collaboration is anywhere near as effective as in-person collaboration.