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
What are a set of tools I can recommend to my employer, which increase productivity of office workers, and which provide greater value than a hybrid office policy?
I’ve suggested to my work that if they really want people back in the office full time, they should offer those that return a 4-day work week as a meaningful incentive to compensate for the lost time and money to commuting. Still waiting for them to implement that one…
I’ve been thinking about this, I’d sooner take a 20% paycut and keep working from home for a different company, than deal with traffic and smelling other people’s lunches. Fuck all that.
A shorter than 40 hour work week would be the biggest draw.
According to a study conducted by Zippia.com (1,000 full-time workers), the average worker is only productive for a little over 4 hours per day, with productivity capping out at 6 hours. This article on studyfinds.org references another 2,000 employee study done by OnePoll (no link given) that says “A new survey finds office workers are at their most productive by 10:22 a.m. each morning — but start to slump by 1:27 p.m.”
Letting employees who commute to the office every day work 30 hours per week instead of 40 would be a HUGE draw for a lot of people. Less traffic on the commute, less “fluff” time where you’re not doing anything, time to take care of personal errands during the week while businesses are still open, and I’m sure other benefits.
I’d say probably a four day work week. I mean 4x8, not 4x10.
Keep in mind this does not just apply to ‘top talent’.
Anyone who is confident they can find something elsewhere and have a good enough resume to land a hybrid/WFH job will do so, if pushed.
My parent company issued an RTO for everyone stating the typical corporate talking points (we did great during COVID but now we need to all come back within a month because we all work better together, blah, blah, blah). A half hour later an HR rep had to clarify it was meant to apply only for the parent company. I imagine the parent company is doing poorly and is trying to shake off some workers to cut down on its payroll. The only reason I can think of why they can’t force my smaller company is because we’re actually making them a lot of money so far.
I prefer to think of myself as top talent though
deleted by creator
Yep. My employer has made several decisions I strongly dislike and disagree with over the last year or so. And would have been looking for the door over it if they did not allow full WFH for those that like that setup better.
Now that I have gotten to experience it I don’t think I will ever willingly go back to a job that requires mandatory weekly in-office time.
My job requires me to go in bc I physically fix machines, so wouldn’t be able to complete my tasks from home. I’ve convinced myself I like it because it gives me a definitive separation between work and home. But I’ve never had a WFH job and would probably end up liking that a lot more tbh
it gives me a definitive separation between work and home.
This is big for me since I don’t have an office space at my house. I didn’t mind working from home during COVID but I also don’t mind having to go into the office. That said, my commute is only like 7 min to the office. I would like to be able to have a hybrid schedule though. Being able to work from home 3 days a week would be ideal for me. My working from home setup is a desk in the corner of my living room so the space where I work is the same room I relax and it was tough to have that separation.
I’m waiting to hear back from a job and chomping at the bit to leave because they offer a hybrid work schedule (3 home/2 office). It’s a 6% pay bump (from $80k to $85k) but being able to work from home 3 days a week is such a big plus (and not having to manage anyone being the other) makes it worth it for me. Not to mention that I can cash out all the vacation time that I’ve accrued. I’m sitting on 287 hours of vacation time right now so that would be roughly $10.9k paid out when I leave. I asked them if I could cash some out earlier this year but was told “no but if you leave the company, you’ll still get paid out so don’t worry about losing it”. Well guess I’ll be leaving the company then. I rolled over 218 hours so it’s not like it wasn’t time I didn’t have accrued. I also have 300 hours of sick time and 41 hours of weather time too. Those won’t get paid out though.
I worked from home for over a year and we had our best year in commercial lending as a credit union while everyone was home. Now everyone needs to be in the office every day. Yeah, no thanks.
Yeah, just keep in mind that in some countries, paying out vacation hours results in a large portion of that sum being paid to the tax-man. In the Netherlands that’s about 40% (from the top of my head).
Yeah, I’m in the US and I understand that a bunch of that might be paid to the tax man but at the very least, I’m getting that cash out. Currently, the only way for me to benefit from it is to get my same salary every week but just have times where I’m not at work which just means I have more work when I come back. Things have been tight since my wife lost her job (though she does have an interview next week so fingers crossed) so just getting even half of that $10.9k in cash back to replenish our rainy day fund would be a big relief.
“Yeah, boss. Weird thing… There’s a thunderstorm in my house, gonna take me about 41 hours to figure this out.”
It’s an old relic from pre-covid where if it was snowing and you needed to come in an hour or two late (like if your kids had a delay at school), you could. Now we all have laptops and can work remotely if needed (minus the branch staff). Also, we didn’t get shit for snow here in PA this past winter either.
300 hours of sick leave? I think I feel a fever coming on.
Yeah. We get 2.77 hours per pay period in accrual. The most you can get to is 60 days (480 hours) since they don’t offer short term disability. But once you hit 440 hours you can cash out 45 hours of sick time for 15 hours of pay or once you hit 480 you can cash out 60 hours for 20 hours of pay (3:1 conversion to cash).
People don’t like offices and are more productive when they’re happy. Who 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.
I did. I always knew.
Bullshit. You only knew since I told you on Thursday.
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.
I couldn’t believe how much more time it felt like I had in the day just cutting out the short work commute. You don’t really realize the extent of how much time you waste going into work until it’s gone. Even a short commute adds up quick when you include all the time to get ready in the morning and decompress at night. Plus all the extra maintenance on a daily driver and gas… Companies making people go into the office when it’s not even necessary are just power hungry morons. That’s all there is to it.
The traveling time I’m saving by working from home, is directly reinvested into having a walk with the lady and the dogs, including sitting on a bench in the sunshine including a coffee, and if the mood is right, we’re staying for my first meeting at 10:00, …
Money can’t buy this, …
Sorry to hear about your troubles :-(
Yup. I have meetings at 8AM. If I had to do them in the office, I’ll have to be up at 6AM to get ready and leave to be able to get to the office in time. If I do it at home, I wake up at 7:50, which gives me almost 2 hours of extra sleep.
If I leave the office at 5PM, I’ll get home around 6PM. At home, I can log off as soon as the clock strikes 5, and now I have an extra hour of time to do whatever.
That adds up to around 3 hours a day that I save from not commuting to an office.
It’s not just the commute even, my “morning routine” is maybe 10 minutes if I’m not going into the office, 30+ if I am. Need to make myself “presentable”, pack some food, make a to go coffee. When I’m able to just snack and make coffee during downtime waiting for replies etc at the office it’s so much easier, I get another hour of sleep if I need it…
And for many, half an hour primping in order to be seen in public. I guess if you’re still in vid convos that somewhat still applies, but for others, now you can lay around in your underwear and stink and still get work done.
If you have complicated health problems that can increase the amount of time done “primping” as well. I generally have to be awake three to four hours before I have to be anywhere and it’s a fucking nightmare.
My wife was talking about this recently. She used to wake up at 5:30AM everyday, take a shower, blowdry her hair and style it, put on makeup, and prep her lunch by 7AM. Then she’d set out on her 1.5 hour commute to the office.
Once we started working from home, all of that extra time went to sleeping well and relaxing.
3 hours a day of unpaid time just to get ready for work… we were far overdue for a shift in the system.
Working from home made me decide that I will never wear uncomfortable clothes again. I’ve seen the other side I will never go back
I went from commuting 1-3 hours a day to zero commute. It is unbelievable how much of a quality of life improvement it is.
I am grateful I worked in a couple offices before switching to fully remote for my next few jobs, because it showed me how much better remote working is for me.
And your gas and car wear and tear
Yep, the IRS estimates that it is $0.655/mi in wear and tear on one’s car via the 2023 Mileage Rate.
That depends a LOT on the car.
A small suzuki would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a BMW 7 series… (not in the price tag, but… running costs)
Sure, but that is the rate that the IRS has come up with as an estimate/reimbursement amount.
A mile of city traffic is tremendously different than a mile of rural driving.
Yeah, for me WFH is a lot more than 8% raise. It’s a lot cheaper. We were paying to work and didn’t even realized it
- You might need to buy additional food
- Wear and tear of work attire
- Might need to pay extra for someone to watch pet/child
Also there are additional costs of time
- Extra time shaving or similar (if you know you are staying home some things can be delayed a bit)
- Possibly extra time to prepare food
- Traffic/weather delays
- Extra effort for small things easily manage while at home e.g accepting deliveries, watching pets or opening for maintenance workers
That’s of the top of my head, so 1 hour lost per day is a low estimate.
Also your spine, tailbone, piriformis, hamstrings, and psoas muscles. Cars are bad for your back.
I’m not surprised; WFH is a great benefit to workers. The big thing is going to be how companies choose to balance remote and in-person work and it is going to be wildly different across different industries.
Surprised_pikachu.jpg
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.
Nonsense. If the value output of an employee is equivalent then they should be paid the same. It’s a net negative to employers if employees work in expensive offices, so if anything your argument says that in office workers should be paid less because they cost the company more.
I suppose employee value is for any given company to decide. Companies that determine there is value in having employees onsite, and as we know there are plenty of them out there, may place more value on their in-office employees–even if they allow certain positions to be remote.
From what I’ve seen many remote advocates don’t want to discuss the extra benefits they receive from working remotely as compared with their in-office peers, but it’s true nonetheless.
I say all this not because I’m anti-WFH, but because I advocate equal compensation for all employees. Folks who expect equal pay while also having zero or reduced commute burden are thinking only of themselves as I see it. Commuting is a pain in the ass, the costs are always rising, and it’s been a problem that employers have passed on to workers for entirely too long. So as long as employees find ways like WFH to mitigate the problem, all employees should benefit in some way. Fair is fair for all, not just some.
Got your point but the direction of result isn’t right imho. Why should WFH employees accept lower compensation? In theory and in now in practice, they can start working anywhere in the country. If they face a reduction because of WFH, they will move to another company for sure. The remote work situation together with aging society massively shifted the power to employees. You aren’t bound to an area for work anymore.
I think employees that must go to offices should get an extra raise to compensate for the fuel, time, and clothing.
Funny how cost of living savings for employees become additional profit for employers. Seems a little backwards…
Somebody should write a book about that
Employers already have the upper hand in almost every situation. You don’t need to do mental gymnastics to make sure they have it in this one too.
I disagree. Workers should be compensated for being at a specific location if and only if that physical presence is necessary to do their work. If that’s the case, I think the commute and other costs should be carried by the employer. But if the employee is going to the office simply because they prefer to or enjoy it more, that adds zero value to the work they’re doing compared to wfh employees and should not be compensated differently.
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.
I would rather make 50k WFH than 100k in an office.
You do you, there’s no way I’d take a $50k pay cut under any circumstance
For double the salary, I’d need to think long and hard about it tbh.
For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe).
Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn’t a huge red flag for bad management in the first place.
Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn’t spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let’s say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that’s worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary.
Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn’t actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I’m 100% WFH in Denmark so I’m not advocating to push people into an office building but there’s definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough.
50K isn’t worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work.
Lol, my family can’t afford to live on $50k a year. So that’s a hard no for me.
Hahaha, yeah definitely a no for the family man. But as a single man 50k is fine, and the flexibility is worth more than a 100% raise.
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’m on my second probationary period entirely WFH, you shouldn’t be required to work in the office unless the job physically requires it. Return to office is very often a big power grab by shitty management that don’t know how to measure outcomes properly and instead prefer to micromanage. It is one of the biggest red flags.
Control is another thing. I can’t tell you the amount of execs I’ve heard say “they’re losing control of their company” or “I don’t feel I have the same control over my people”. It’s crazy that they think that. What do they think the past 3 years have been when they’ve gotten record profits “oh, but our profits would be even better if we had people back in the office”. Sadly no amount of data will override the entrepreneurial “it could always be more” what if that they throw out.
The executives are nervous everyone will realize how overpaid and absolutely fucking useless they are. Every good workplace I’ve ever had, was absolutely nothing to do with the VPs/C levels. The best work places those people are barely involved in most of the day to day.
Control sounds insidious, but there are a lot of ways in which being physically present plays into your psychology and manipulates you into working harder/later/ect. Thinking back to the last time I was in an office, usually when someone was fired/they announced layoffs, the anxiety in the space was palpable. You ended up working later voluntarily just because you were afraid of not being seen at your desk and they’d fire you next.
WFH allows me to be more rational with my employer. They can’t scare me into working harder, and I’m not at all attached to the “office culture” if it suits me better to leave. I think a lot of the “soft power” of the employer-employee relationship comes from physical proximity, which is why you have middle managers not involved with the bottom line profitability rooting for BTO.
I’m working in IT and as my last team lead hasn’t had any technical knowledge in my area, and he didn’t had to for his job, he wouldn’t even be able to control what I’m doing, …
Yeah, but there will also come a tone when the technical lead is being managed by someone with less technical experience than them.
At that point, it is less about telling them what to do and more about making sure they stay productive on tasks and projects that are important to the company.
The last part is important because a lot of the work management does at that level is supposed to be catching all the shit from other departments and setting goals, which does not look like technical work.
He couldn’t control whether you’re doing your work properly, but he can control that you "pretend* to be controlled by him.
It’s never about making you a better worker, it’s just about the illusion of control.
Think about it, when was the last time you had an interaction with your superior that actually had anything to do with your actual job? It’s all just a huge charade.
Any executive who has “lost control” of their business by allowing their employees to work from home is no more than the ring master of a runaway circus that they never actually controlled to begin with.
I’ve had the unfortunate displeasure of working for at least one company that made a full time job of keeping their employees under their thumb and I can say this much: the more you micromanage your workforce, the better your workforce becomes at professional time wasting. By that I mean finding creative ways to look very busy while achieving nothing of benefit to the organization.
But then again, much of the corporate world runs on incompetence so poor business decisions based on some executives feelings, rather than statistics, aren’t exactly rare.
Can confirm. I quit my last job because they told us to come back to the office. In 2020, when COVID was still in full swing. And being remote was our company’s entire business model.
People don’t quit jobs, they quit managers.
I agree with almost everything hog say, and strongly think WFH is the future and worth the costs.
But I think physical security concerns are a fair one for some companies to hold for WFH, if they handle sensitive data where leaking is a concern.
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.
8%? Who came up with that? It’s at least 20%
Shhhhhhhh