cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1125686
Archived version: https://archive.ph/vL1mC
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806071111/https://www.businessinsider.com/employees-work-from-home-benefits-as-good-as-raise-2023-8
People don’t like offices and are more productive when they’re happy. Who knew?
I did. I always knew.
Companies forcing people back to the office are a red flag for bad management, so I’m sure that’s another reason they’re seeing people leave.
My company realized that they can remove office space and use that money for more employees. What a fucking crazy concept.
What’s galling is that big companies claim that the main reason for making people come into the office is to promote in-person collaboration. But, they constantly demonstrate that they don’t, in fact, value in-person collaboration. They organize people into cross-geography teams all the time to save money on hiring. So, you’re often sitting in a cubicle on a conference call with people on the other side of the planet that you will never see in the hallway. Or worse, you’re sitting in a conference room with a handful of coworkers, struggling to communicate over a crappy speaker phone with a handful of coworkers on the other side of the planet. They also frequently lay off entire product teams in one fell swoop. Decades of institutional knowledge that you might tap into during a water cooler conversation just disappears overnight. It’s hard to go along with all the extra real costs and pay the happiness tax that commutes and cubicle farms extract when it’s so obvious that the stated reason for it all is a lie.
Commuting is also a nightmare. Thats 1-2 hours a day of slog to get to an arbitrary location to do a job that I could do at home. Combine this with school drop offs and pick ups and the ability to do life admin during the week instead of cramming it all on a Saturday with everyone else like pre COVID and WFH is a winner.
Also for people that can’t WFH. I’m stuck in a traffic jam every day because of office workers that arbitrarily have to go to office.
7 hours a week and I didn’t even have that bad of a drive.
$50 in gas. $50 in food minimum. That’s happiness lost + costs increased.
I had 2 offers and one was not only a 15k bump vs the other, but the lower one was in the office 2 days a week. That was a pretty easy decision
deleted by creator
My coworkers and I figure it at about 20% raise. No need for a second vehicle for the household, less money on food and clothes, plus the extra time.
From experience I have seen how employers/government were forced back to the office. My Indian colleagues had to return to their offices because the office buildings were empty and it cost money. Government officials either owned or had friends own office buildings and it made monetary sense for them to force workers back to the offices. It was a play between corrupt officials and businesses, nothing more. Well, that and a profound and deep distrust of their workforce. It was a sad sight to see that happening to them.
My guess is that this could also occur the same way in the west.
I can’t go back to working in an office full time anymore. It would be a really difficult adjustment especially losing the time to commuting and needing to deal with child care. Plus we found that we no longer needed a second car anymore since we were both at home so we sold one. Our life is built around not having to commute anymore.
I’m right there with you. It’s just incompatible with how I want to live my life and the cost savings and time savings are unbelievable.
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.
And your gas and car wear and tear
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.
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.
From the business’ perspective though, you are using less of their resources to do your job
In terms of time returned, gas, wear & tear, etc., I would consider being told to go back to the office as a pay cut.
If I’m being asked to sit somewhere else, then I would definitely want to be compensated for that.
Before the pandemic I was spending almost 2 hours a day on my commute to office, while being on site for 9 hours with an unpaid one hour lunch break. That’s 20% of my working hours.
I can use this time for entertainment and side projects
There’s not enough money in the world to pay for the time I save.
Besides, I save a lot on gas and food, and gain much more comfort (my house, my coffee, my chair, my screens, my toilets)
To be perfectly clear, if my company wants me back to office they will have to raise me more than 30%.
It could be considered a raise in terms of the amount of time you dedicate to work and the amount you get paid for it.
8 hour shift plus 1 hour commute both ways means you effectively dedicate 10 hours to your job. Replace the commute with a 30 second walk from your bed to your desk and you are now making more money for your time.
Mind you, I still agree that remote work should never be actively viewed as a raise or a perk. It should be the default for jobs that are compatible, which is a ton of them.
It is in the sense that commute time is not paid so compared to commuting jobs your effective hourly wage goes up. Also, commuting time is actually a negative wage.
Honestly. It’s about more than money.
If your boss says you must return to the office, after 3 years of WFH. At best, it shows that they do not value or respect you, and are just making an arbitrary decision in a bid to sell more stocks.
At worst, there might be some insidious reason to make employees physically available. Maybe they are getting a kickback somehow, or selling data that they can only get when you are there, or maybe they are just horny and want to seduce you sexually.
A remote worker is often happier, more productive, and cost less to employ even if they are paid the same as an on-site worker. Offices do not have to provide parking, seating, HVAC, power, wifi, and will even have less physical security vectors.
If some people prefer to go into an office, then it should be optional. Not a hybrid model where they force you to come a certain number of days a week.
At the end of the day unless you are on some kind of probation or evaluation period WFH should be the default when ever possible.
I could trade my WFH for a room with a view and a door. :) fuck openspace and flexdesks!
Honestly I wouldn’t. I can’t think of anything that would make me work in an office again. I can’t do it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
But boomer bosses need to physically see their workers sitting in chairs, they need that feeling of power!
It’s because they need the real estate money, they built a lot of buildings on long term leases which are now expiring. Also, who is going to rent a space for a restaurant when no one is using restaurants for lunch in business districts?
Maybe we don’t need those expensive shitty food restaurants anymore.
jeez, using boomer at every sauces is so cringe. grow up, little fluid-anime keyboard warrior.
using boomer at every sauces is so cringe
Finally someone with sense. They’re good for gravy, stews, and broths as well
It’s not a perk. Don’t reinforce their framing
I have not read the article yet but the headline saying “equivalent to an 8% raise” does not just have to mean some kind of soft value. I have to drive 50 km each way to my office. I am much more likely to eat out while at work ( or to hit a drive-thru on the way home ). Given the price of gas where I live, going to the office probably costs me $50 a day more than staying home. That is $50 after tax so you can simplistically double that in terms of salary that it consumes. If I have two jobs to choose from, from a purely financial stand-point, my current job and a fully remote one that pays me $100 less per day are equivalent in terms of the value they bring to my family.
Crap. I have been a “want to be in the office some of the time” guy but making me actually type this out has made me question that. I think I need to start shopping my CV.
