• mercano@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    At least. If you work an 8 hour day, a 0.5 hour commute each way adds an extra 12.5% to work time commitment each day, and it’s considered unpaid time.

  • jeanma@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I could trade my WFH for a room with a view and a door. :) fuck openspace and flexdesks!

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly I wouldn’t. I can’t think of anything that would make me work in an office again. I can’t do it.

  • CodeBlooded@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Holy smokes, working from home is not a “raise.” You should be compensated for the value you bring, not where you’re sitting when you bring value.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I spend $400 a month on gas because of my long commute. Work from home is definitely a raise in my situation. Gas bill goes down to $100 a month. Works out directly to a 5% raise just in gas alone. Car insurance can be switched to leisure only saving money further. Gain an extra two hours a day which were unpaid before, so my workday is now only 8 hours instead of 10, that is another equivalent to 25% on an hourly rate indirectly.

      Then there is all the other benefits such as just being happier and more productive.

  • gonzoleroy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe that’s the approach for hiring…remote employees are hired with the understanding that they will earn less than equivalent in-office employees. Commute time, transportation expenses, and any other incidentals make up the difference. It’s all made clear and transparent upfront.

    If remaining remote limits an employee’s promotability for reasons of company need, this is also made clear.

    • MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why should they earn less than somebody who is in-office? A remote employee costs less in physical resources like office space, heating and cooling, electricity and internet.

      Ultimately it’s the end result that matters, not where it’s done.

      • gonzoleroy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because remote employees don’t spend their own time and money on commuting to work. Those factors, along with saving on childcare, are the main drivers for desire to work remote, yes?

        A company can reduce its office footprint to account for fewer in-person employees and save money. But that alone doesn’t address the factors above faced by employees who commute, so those workers should be compensated.

        • Someonelol@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A remote worker’s worth is no less valuable than one who’s onsite. If you want something like this to work then the employer should pay a differential for those who have to be onsite to compensate for the time and money spent commuting.

          • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So pay the WFF employee more than the WFH employee?

            One way is baked in, the other is a topping, still damn near identical though

            • Someonelol@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Instead of the stick of paying people less from working home, they’re getting a carrot for deciding to be there. That has a wildly more positive perception for workers IMO.