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
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.
Government officials either owned or had friends own office buildings and it made monetary sense for them to force workers back to the offices.
Even that is sunk-cost fallacy. If they own the buildings, that means they’re already paid for. The only money they lose is theoretical and non-existent.
Edit: In fact, it costs them more money as you have to pay for utilities, maintenance, overhead, etc. when you fill a big building with people 5 days a week.
Some collect rent from sub companies, some have fears of devaluation of buildings if not occupied, etc. Plenty of angles where the lost money.
Right, theoretical money. “Opportunity cost.” They’re not losing anything, they’re missing out on potentially making more.
Boo hoo
Hey, I agree. It is about corrupt officials and businesses who want to make more. I’m not burning a candle for the (perceived) plight of these monsters 😀
There’s gotta be pressure for offices to open up so employees are forced to spend money on food/coffee/dry cleaning/whatever around the building itself too.
I feel for those businesses, but not enough to subsidize their existence when I don’t need it.
Spot on. It is so much more than just ‘already owned a building’. There was an industry created around offices, inside and out. Powers that be (corrupt and otherwise) wanted to keep the gravy train going and so order people back to offices. Does it make sense for people to do so? Largely not I think bit screw the people right? Despicable.
The giant multinational corporation that owns the company that owns the company that owns the buildings is the same multinational corporation that owns the company that leases the office space.
How are they going to surreptitiously pull money out of the country otherwise?
And they’re all owned by Sheinhardt Wig Company.
An 8% raise to bring people back to office sounds like a reasonable cost tbh
it wouldn’t cover the opportunity cost of 3-4 hours a day for me, and while commuting direct costs are about 4% of my wage, that means a 4% incentive to lose 15-20 hours a week. absolutely not enough for me and to be honest I would consider it a disrespectful insult if my employer tried to justify that
Real question, why did you take a job that required a 3-4 hour commute?
because all the work is in the city for my career. and thats 3-4 hours return, not each way. many people do that here
Damn, that sucks. I guess there’s no option to live closer within budget or a competent train service?
not really. cost of housing is huge here. plus i like where i live and the kids all have schools established etc. its only a day or 2 a week i need to commute so its managable at least, but pre covid it was getting unbearable
That’s an extra 500/mo for me.
Factoring in needing to (re)buy office clothes/makeup/hair products, the extra time to get ready every day, commute with the time and money costs, as well as increased food costs?
Hard pass. That “extra” money is only going to pay for those extra costs.
Let’s look from a time perspective. Being conservative in estimating a typical commute (for my area) and getting ready time, that’s an extra 1.5 hours to my day. 500 a month over that extra 30 hours a week is 16/hr. Not terrible, but not worth it to me. I’m not going to trade 3 hours of my off work time for $48.
Now, if you’re willing to trade that time for that cost, I’ll def find 3 hours of chores around my place to hire you for!
But boomer bosses need to physically see their workers sitting in chairs, they need that feeling of power!
My boss wants me to leave him alone, lol. He trusts me to get my work done so he can focus on his own stuff.
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.
I’m not sticking up for them, they can go fuck themselves. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
You ever notice how capitalists hate capitalism the moment it’s their business that’s being killed because of progress?
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
deleted by creator
I would rather make 50k WFH than 100k in an office.
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.
You do you, there’s no way I’d take a $50k pay cut under any circumstance
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funny how cost of living savings for employees become additional profit for employers. Seems a little backwards…
Somebody should write a book about that
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.
8% my ass. I view WFH as a 300% raise.
Dude chill, that’s not how you negotiate
Your suppose to say it’s a %8 paycut and work your way to 0% change in pay, but still he to work from home
Surprised_pikachu.jpg
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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).
Jokes are on them, I’m old but I still quit when they tried to force (illegally, we had at least 2 days@home by contract) us back 4 days/w in the noisy open space.
Got flexible home office at my new job (“must” be at the office Tuesdays, everything else is to your convenience) and cherry on the cake a 14.6% raise!
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?
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.
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.
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.
The push has nothing to do with anything but getting money back into real estate. The majority of wealthy people’s money is tied up in either oil or real estate. Billion dollar office buildings going unused is unexplainable to the oligarchy. And I don’t use the word Oligarchy lightly. Combined with less oil being used moving people around, and you have the most powerful people in the western world yelling at business executives to get their workers back in the office or they’ll be unable to barrow money from the 0.0001% small companies don’t have a lot of debt from the Oligarchy so they don’t have to listen to them. But if you know anything, wealthy people don’t like it when the poors don’t filter their money upwards so this fight is long from over.
If Zoom is trying to get people back into offices, it may not be a real estate issue.
After all, are you going to argue that companies that are more than happy to outsource and offshore work overseas and sell off industrial assets are suddenly going to care about keeping their 4-year leases?
After all, are you going to argue that companies that are more than happy to outsource and offshore work overseas and sell off industrial assets are suddenly going to care about keeping their 4-year leases?
Yes
Zoom is beholden to the same investors trying to force everyone back to the office. They are likely required to use office space owned by one of their investors… That or poor leadership that hasn’t adapted to the new environment
Unless I’m invested in commercial real estate, why would I, as an investor, want to pay for commercial real estate?
What makes commercial real estate so precious compared to other capital investments?
Don’t forget micromanaging bosses who can’t stand not being able to watch their employees at all times.
It’s pressure from real estate and also managers who do nothing but hover and stare. So multiple sides.
The only people I feel bad for are restaurant/coffee shop workers who definitely aren’t getting nearly as much money
It’s not like the land wouldn’t be viable for high end housing if the corps could push for rezoning. It doesn’t have to stay only office space.
Conversion would cost billions for most of those buildings. And many of those areas can’t support a population increase on the level of hundreds of thousands of people. It’s do able but these people are not willing to do anything that improves humanity.
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.
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.
