4 ms·
To be far, the metric of a salary at 40 hours is not valid. The time to commute should be count against that 40 hours and yet we exclude it. You're driving to w
by yndoendo 3y ago
To be far, the metric of a salary at 40 hours is not valid. The time to commute should be count against that 40 hours and yet we exclude it. You're driving to work means work is taking your time, they also know where you live and how long it takes so there should be no scruples there.
Current metric fuzzes reality and allows for persuasion against 35 work weeks because people think they are only working 40 hours a week.
To be far, I find 9:00-17:00 to be a destructive cookie-cut mentality too. Prefer having about 12 hours of continual time when implementing a new feature or working a new solution. This allows for laying out the solution and better refactoring to make it cleaner. 9:00 to 17:00 does not allow for this because continual thoughts have to be shelved for the next day which takes more energy and time to try and rev-up again to continue where one left off.
To be far, a CEO or President or Owner or Manager seeing you in the office is a social engineering hack. "They are there so they must be doing work, I'm getting what I payed for."
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMy guess is it's because the commute is really up to the employee. So if someone moves does the employer adjust their salary? What if I ride to work on my bike a few times a week (15 miles)? Perhaps there could be some time stipend, so days may start a bit later and end sooner than 9-5.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoSome companies do indeed do transport stipends for this reason. $100 a month for gas, maintaining a bike, bus/train ticket reimbursement, etc. Doesn't happen often and it doesn't replace the time you take, but it's not unheard of. Time stipend would he interesting, but Idk if it'd really gain traction, especially with more white collar work offering full remote.