this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

World News

37008 readers
645 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gonzoleroy@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 years 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.