• 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.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny how cost of living savings for employees become additional profit for employers. Seems a little backwards…

      Somebody should write a book about that

    • 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.