Depends on a lot of things but yes. A compensation based on distance is good
In Debmark we get “driving deductable” (not sure about the translation)
Thats also some cents per kilometer, after a certain amount of km. If you live super close you get nothing. And you get more if you live far away too.(if you live in certain munincipalities you get more)
It also doesnt matter how you get to work. Bike, train, bus or car. Its based on distance using google maps navigation iirc (or some similar tech)
This couldn’t possibly create scenarios that employers only allow employees from a set distance. Live inside the circle and you’re good, outside and sorry you can’t have a job.
When my job that I did covering at other locations, the company would pay me per mile to get there. It was in 2007, and they paid $0.55/mile. I think with inflation that should be much higher now.
I think that was a calculation that was just gas and wear on the car.
That would encourage people to work further away from their home, increasing commutes and lowering productivity further.
If anything, we should do the opposite - lots of small office spaces spread out among high density housing. Enable in-person collaboration with a much shorter commute.
Edit: Wow, didn’t expect this to be controversial. Anyone care to explain?
I’m here to tell you that seeing “good perspective on each end of this” can fuck right off. Yes I’m going into full on asshole combative mode, and I am here to tell you unequivocally that you may go and fuck yourself!
And to eloquently point out why, I’m going to carefully explain why the employer side can eat shit: We have a massive climate change issue, and having workers commute is exacerbating on so many levels. Even if we electrify the transportation entirely with carbon free sources, there’s still a tremendous environmental impact issue by way of the public transportation or the car production itself. One of the best ways to mitigate this is encouraging remote work WHENEVER POSSIBLE! I realize pilots, EMT’s, and firefighter’s won’t have this luxury but if all the office workers are working from home, this removes a huge amount of congestion from our roadways, decreases the non-carbon pollutants resulting in dramatic air quality increase, improves emergency service response times, reduces the fucking taxes we have to pay on transportation infrastructure maintenance, and a host of other psychological benefits.
We have a huge pay gap - CEO’s are making hundreds of times more compensation than their average worker, and the time involved in commuting EVEN FURTHER dilutes the “amount made per hour”. If I have an hour commute each way, I get to take my day’s pay and stretch it over two more hours. What could anyone possibly have an issue with that for? Oh I don’t know, childcare? A dentist appointment that requires additional burned time off? This is why people call scabs motherfucking shithead scumbags. BuT tHe EmPlOyEr iSn’T ReSpoNsiBle, bull fucking shit. The employer chooses to be in some shitty downtown location so the uber rich CEO can walk from his cocaine penthouse to the HQ. For the life of me, I see this happen time and time again where HQ’s bitch and moan about attracting talent but they position themselves in some fucked up location where they don’t compensate even a fraction of what they should so their employees could afford housing.
We have a mental well being crisis - people are treated like shit and trampled on enough as it is. Many companies take this indifferent approach and focus solely on the business itself, with little to no regard for the people that make it successful. People are spending hours every day commuting instead of looking after their own personal well being. Commute times cut into exercise, family time, self actualization, and pretty much everything people care about.
The best way to mitigate this is by being on the clock from your front door to the workplace. As it was well put elsewhere here in the comments, fuck you, pay me. I will get the world’s tiniest violin out for the employer side of the argument and then stomp on with heavy work boots. Then I’ll light it on fire and piss on the goddamn ashes. Fuck the employer’s argument.
The best way to mitigate this is by being on the clock from your front door to the workplace. As it was well put elsewhere here in the comments, fuck you, pay me.
Your hostile antagonistic rant makes me doubt that you’d change your attitude for a 25% raise*. Seems like you’re just really angry in general and I doubt if I’d even want to work around you anyway so I agree you should stay at home.
Calculated from 1 hour commute twice a day for 250 workdays a year = 500 hours, 25% of a normal 2000 hour work year.
I’m extremely antagonistic, yes, especially toward scab motherfuckers that have helped get us into the housing crisis, healthcare crisis, and climate crisis. You’re also right that I spit at a 25% raise, 40% motherfucker and then I stop using such harsh words.
Then please, pretty please, stay the fuck at home too. I knew a bunch of people preferred WFH for practical reasons and to avoid commuting but holy fucking shit I never knew there were so many straight up toxic maliciously antisocial people out there who need three weeks to prepare for any kind of human interaction even if it’s just “hey jim take a look at this once in a lifetime situation most people will never see outside of a textbook.” This place is horrific, I’m blocking this community and might leave lemmy entirely, holy shit.
You better block a lot more than Lemmy. The workforce is sick of executive boots stomping on our necks. There are good employers out there, I acknowledge that, but they’re the exception not the rule from the way corporate America functions. To me they seem as rare as drops of water in the Sahara. Until employers start giving some dignity back to the worker en masse, expect things to get a lot more hostile.
For now it’s just nasty language, soon it’s going to be molotovs and worse. Eat the rich.
Your point is completely moot unless they talk like this at work, and you’d be surprised how well the angriest and unhappiest employees can fake everything being okay. It’s an expectation when you’re hired after all – do whatever management says with a smile. Well, you’ll get a smile, but you aren’t going to control the thoughts behind it.
Besides, I don’t terribly like the idea of being paid to comply and fall in line like a good little drone. I value my self worth and dignity at better than a +25% raise. You should too.
Otherwise, I’ll give you +27% to apologize to everyone you’ve insulted and then put a sock in it.
I think the primary issue though is that it incentivizes businesses to only hire people who live nearby. On the one hand that’s good because it’s good for the environment, but on the other hand it means I can’t decide to move further away from my employer without risking being fired. This is a bigger problem if your house has multiple working adults.
We could mitigate that by forbidding companies from firing employees who move further away but stay within some reasonable distance, but that then creates an incentive to move as far away from your job as possible to make that extra income.
So, how do you compensate employees for their commutes without restricting where they can live or creating an adverse incentive?
I don’t think that would work for most companies. The education demands at this point make it impossible to get all the knowledge worker/white collar jobs you need from a 15 mile radius, unless you’re in the middle of a city. They’ll be able to hire exclusively local for their blue collar positions – but they already do that anyway. Companies would not pay thousands for relocation from far away states if they could fill the position easily locally.
I think the workers, at least white collar, really hold the cards here.
Unbelievably based. You want me to be in an office because you think it’s more productive? Great. Pay me for everything involved in that switch and I’ll do it. Oh, it’s more expensive? Boo fucking hoo.
Forcing companies to pay for commute time would also force companies to lobby for more efficient public transport and cycleways, and limit private car access to areas with regular traffic jams. In addition, there are certain job categories where driving time is limited by law: truck drivers, bus drivers, and others. However, these rules only apply when the driver is being compensated for being on the road. So, your bus driver may have driven for two hours to get to work, and now he’s towards the end of his nine-hour shift, bone-tired. If the company was forced to pay him for his commute, his shift would end after seven hours, and possibly five (if he has to drive back home for another two hours). That would improve road safety. I think the two aspects - more public transport and more road safety - should be enough for everyone to support the idea of paid commute.
Absolutely! I’m salaried, so paying for my commute wouldn’t make any difference, but I’m incentivizing my employer to let me work from home by spending my potential commute time at the computer. No big difference for me, but enough that they are happy to let me stay on hybrid.
Neither. Instead of overtime, we’re partly on flex time, where we can leave on Friday after lunch, if we reached our 40 hours. However, we always have more projects than people, so the hour or so extra per day when working from home is quite normal. No travel stipend, either - I’m lucky to live in a city where one-way journey is €2, which is negligible. It’s certainly cheaper than replenishing my burned calories when I cycle or run to work…
I lived in Atlanta, and was told that this was the reason one of the counties (Cobb) refused metro transport. Had to reject a job offer there before I got a car.
It would also give employers a shared incentive to address the cost of housing. It would either incentivize the companies to not build all the jobs in a single location (ie. downtown of a major city), or it would give them an incentive to pursue policies that would lower the costs of housing in major metropolitan areas.
Oh it’s simple. Would you be commuting if you didn’t have the job? No? Then it’s work related and should be compensated.
If you have a two hour daily commute you should be paid for those two hours. Hell the company should probably pay for the cost of commuting and a tax for offsetting the emissions.
I would move as far as possible from the job site. 2 hours one way on a train watching Netflix, 4 hours work, 2 hours relax on the train. That would be nice.
Currently you work 8 hours + 1.5 hours commute. With this you’d work 6.5 hours + 1.5 hour commute, so you’d have 1.5 extra hour for chores or whatever.
If you use train/bus for commuting, you can even sleep there :-)
You’re highlighting that it’s not a great solution, but at least a 2 hours of flat payment per office call would be an acknowledgement of my time considering it’s an hour each way for the majority of people.
…and you just wouldn’t get hired, because the guy who lives next to their office is a more attractive option, even if he’s only 80% as productive as you.
And that’s arguably why it makes some sense; companies would be more likely to hire more locally and be more flexible about remote work - both of which save precious planetary resources ánd people’s time.
Companies would also then be incentivized to invest in and lobby for better affordable housing in the communities their offices are located in/around so that employees at all pay scales have affordable options within a few miles of the office.
They could even set up close by company shops, where you could pay with company issued tokens, along with clinics, amenities, and private security for the urbanization…
I would just move temporarily, and after probation period move far away. Surely they can’t fire me because my living situation changed and had to move…
It’d be fair to just keep paying the same compensation you received before moving; you could still move, but you’d have to pay the price.
And yeah, there are still a lot of problems with this approach as long as housing is left to market forces. But those problems are inherent to free markets, not to this possible solution to another problem.
Literally happened at a place I worked at. They hired people near to the work, who then within a year bought a cheap house out in the boonies and increased their commute to 3+ hours daily. And they got paid for it. Such a stupid policy (for the company, I don’t blame the workers for taking advantage).
There should be a reasonable limit of one hour in normal traffic for the commute each way though. Basing it on time would encourage companies to be flexible on start/end times to avoid needing to pay for people to sit in traffic, and there should be some kind of high but not crazy limit on commute time.
Let’s say I have a job right now that I live 10 minutes from. I interview for a different job in the next city over, or across town, because it’s offering 50% more than my current job, but my commute would end up being an hour and a half.
How does that mean that by living closer to my current job I can afford to work for the company an hour and a half away?
Because that just limits people’s ability to find employment.
I’ve had jobs where I lived 10 minutes away, and took a different job with a further commute because it paid significantly more.
Should an employee have to up and move their house every time they change employers, or should employees be able to decide if a long commute is worth it to them based on the offer?
Because that just limits people’s ability to find employment.
Not really? In cities with actual functional public transit, you can go way further than you can with a car. In cities with reasonable density, the stuff you need, including job opportunities, aren’t 2 hours away to begin with. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
Even in my city with mediocre transit, and that’s got way more sprawl than necessary for the population, I can cross the city, a distance of 20 miles/31km, using transit, in 1.5hrs. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
I’ve had jobs where I lived 10 minutes away, and took a different job with a further commute because it paid significantly more.
How much further? 30 mins? 2 hours? Let me guess, you used a car because transit and density is bad?
Should an employee have to up and move their house every time they change employers, or should employees be able to decide if a long commute is worth it to them based on the offer?
That’s a loaded question, a strawman, and a black or white fallacy. It isn’t an either/or, and you’re reaching for the absolute most unreasonable scenario that’s unlikely to happen to begin with. That’s called arguing in bad faith.
I would argue yours is strawman - you are arguing against a city with quality public transportation which is not always the case and wasn’t the original arguement.
I think the biggest point the other poster is arguing is that personal choice comes into play. It’s not the employers job to tell you how to get to work, nor is it their responsibility if you want to take a job a distance from your house - its their job to find the best candidate who is willing to do the job offered.
You also argue against the argument that people won’t move house every time they change job. It sounds extreme, but it is always an option for the employee and a part of free choice.
you are arguing against a city with quality public transportation which is not always the case and wasn’t the original arguement.
It should be, and we should be making those changes, so arguing that something is only a problem if the given situation really should be temporary isn’t a very good argument. Arguing that this change is a problem (It still isn’t for the majority of people) if we’re dealing with problems in other areas (So this change itself isn’t even the problem, it just exacerbates another one, that we should be fixing anyway), isn’t a very good argument.
I think the biggest point the other poster is arguing is that personal choice comes into play.
“Personal Choice” is only an argument when it doesn’t affect other people. Having a 2 hour commute by car definitely does. And even if it didn’t, it has a large effect on the person doing it. And we block/disincentivize people from doing other harmful things. Why is this one special?
It’s not the employers job to tell you how to get to work,
Good thing nobody suggested it was.
nor is it their responsibility if you want to take a job a distance from your house
So commutes should be unpaid, despite the only reason you do it is because of work? Why are commutes different from other work? They pay when you’re moving between jobsites, why is this different? “Employers don’t have control over it”? Did you know relocation packages are a thing? Lobbying for loosened zoning, so we can have higher density? Better public transit? They have far from 0 control over it.
its their job to find the best candidate who is willing to do the job offered.
And they need to include a variety of circumstances, one of which is the employee’s proximity to any jobsites, because how long it takes them to get there is very much relevant in many industries. And in the ones it isn’t, remote work is quite often possible.
You also argue against the argument that people won’t move house every time they change job.
I didn’t though. In fact, if you’re planning on a 2 hour commute, you should be considering moving closer, or not taking that job.
It sounds extreme, but it is always an option for the employee and a part of free choice.
We also block people from purchasing food with bleach in it. That’s part of free choice, isn’t it? Why is this choice so important that it should be up to the person to make? The externalities of having a 2 hour commute are massive, and even just the effects on the person themselves are also huge. Since these 2 hour commutes are mostly done by car, that’s a huge mental load on the person doing the commute, and a lot of emissions, which we should be avoiding.
No, people should not be free to choose a 2 hour car commute.
In the US, commutes aren’t covered and that’s part of law. However, the FLSA was passed in the 30s and the Portal-to-Portal Act was passed in the 40s so it’s arguably time to reevaluate.
As pro labor as I am, I do think it’s reasonable to put some cap on commute times so that commuters can’t abuse it. The hard part is coming up with a good one. You can’t give a max time without some idea of things like housing, public transportation, commute costs, etc. because then employers could abuse it by setting up offices away from everything or setting the radius too low.
A completely different problem for paid commutes is that suddenly it becomes work time. When I had a shit job doing pool inspections, the city controlled my time in the car from the office to the pools and back. The city did not control my time commuting. If the company is paying me for my commute, I’m on the clock, which means they can reasonably ask me to do things like not listen to my podcasts or take specific routes. If I’m on public transport, they can reasonably ask me to do work because I’m being paid. My solution here is working from home.
I think this conversation is more about office workers than site workers. You need to get on site to do the work but office workers don’t need to actually go in, they are being told they have to come in and the time needed to adhere to an enforced policy should be included in the work day.
As a manager with a limited budget that I want to stretch as much as possible, I need to limit the amount of it I spend paying for commutes. At the same time, I need to make sure my team is protected from the company abusing a commute cap.
Similarly, if I’m paying for an employee’s commute, I’d like to get some value out of that. That’s money out of my budget I’m spending for no appreciable gains unless they’re producing. I can build work that’s doable on a train or a bus.
Of course, all of this is solved by WFH as I said at the end of my previous post.
if I’m paying for an employee’s commute, I’d like to get some value out of that. That’s money out of my budget I’m spending for no appreciable gains unless they’re producing.
So, like bathrooms. Do you require employees to “produce” while in the bathroom, or do you write it off as part of general expenses along with chairs, lighting, and office cleaning?
Commuting is an expense linked to the production, and should be billed accordingly. The gains, are preparing the employee to produce; just like starting a production line, it doesn’t happen instantly.
Strictly speaking, even WFH employees should be paid a “getting up” rate for the time it takes them to get up to working speed.
If I’m actually onsite, my employer has tremendous control over that. They can play the music they want and ban headphones. They can put a bunch of informational literature all over the bathrooms (this is a thing Google does/did). If I start getting paid for the commute, suddenly my employer has the ability to start controlling that.
You and I agree that commute should be paid. What I think you’re lacking right now is my point about the commute being controlled. If it’s paid, it can be controlled, and that’s something I’m personally not comfortable with.
If the company is paying me for my commute, I’m on the clock, which means they can reasonably ask me to do things like not listen to my podcasts or take specific routes. If I’m on public transport, they can reasonably ask me to do work because I’m being paid.
You do work: you commute.
If the company wants you to do some other kind of work in that time, they can offer an office space in your car or public transport… or have you stay at your home office, it’s up to them.
Return to office mandates would be a lot more palatable if we didn’t have to live an hour and a half away in rush hour bumper to bumper traffic because the average person can’t afford to live anywhere near the central business district anymore.
Or if we could take nonexistent public transit.
Or if we could ride a bike or walk without getting run over by a moron in their suv.
We have so many issues I don’t know where to start. Personally I want to RTO. I’m sick of working from home. But with issues like that…fuck…
Because I want to work at work and be home at home. It never stops when I’m working from home because I’m expected to always be on. I find it more efficient to pull up a chair and sit down next to someone going over things line by line. I miss learning through osmosis which is what I call it when you hear people talking about something you’re vaguely aware of but never really saw in real life but maybe read an article on once. So you go and look over their shoulder and learn something new. (Someone on lemmy called me a horrible person because of this once so hopefully you’re not a toxic SOB like average lemming.) Mostly though I just find it like herding cats, trying to get work done when everyone is in a different time zone and may or may not be online…it’s just incoherent. It’s fine to work from home here and there if you have a few hours of technical work that you just need to knock out. But overall I find it much more effective to be in office. IMHO
Because I want to work at work and be home at home. It never stops when I’m working from home because I’m expected to always be on. This is a problem with you setting proper boundaries with your employer. This is not the natural result from working remotely.
Someone on lemmy called me a horrible person… I don’t think that was me, but I understand where they were coming from. From my experience of decades of working in the office, shoulder surfers, as we call them, are a huge drain on your time because of the questions they keep asking, while at the same time, aren’t doing anything productive themselves… but are still considered to be working. Personally, I hate that. If someone requests specific training, that is awesome, but just shoulder surfing? I see it as skimming the system to look productive when the person really isn’t. Part of the social vampirism vibe, too.
But overall I find it much more effective to be in office. Effective in what respect? In actually doing tasks and completing them on your own? Because the shoulder surfing makes me wonder if you really would be, or just appear to be.
One particular serial shoulder surfer really took it to extremes. I so regretted hiring the guy, he was all talk and was incapable of completing most projects on his own. Come to find out he also lied about having been a Marine, which also further cast shoulder surfers in a bad light to me forever. And if you’re out there reading this (Mark was his name), I am so glad don’t work with us anymore! He could only do his job from the office, too. Covid hit, and surprise! He didn’t know how to do anything.
I never knew people consider “shoulder surfing” to be “social vampirism.” Goddamn what an unpleasant person you sound like right now. I like learning. I like teaching. I love when someone shows interest and wants to learn. I love when people take time to teach me. Nobody knows everything, and formal training in my experience is usually pretty useless. Nothing like real life examples to see how stuff works. You can stay the fuck at home too. Bunch of social pariahs on lemmy, what a cold dark world you must live in.
PS: do you think Spock would call me a shoulder surfing social vampire for wanting to learn and teach? Or would he embrace learning for its own sake. “Pseudo” Spock indeed.
Just like all social vampires… “How could my being around be draining on people?” People are being nice to you because they have to. There is an HR dept. and rules. News flash, not everyone likes you. Some, likely many, simply tolerate you. But that is true for everyone, not just you. We come to work to pay the mortgage, to buy our groceries, to buy the kid braces. Not to be everyone’s friend.
I said requesting training is awesome. Asking for a spot on my calendar to train you on something is perfectly fine. Interrupting my own work to get me to do something for you is not that. Casually watching me work without first asking me to be “on” for you is also not ok. I would want time to prepare to teach you. I could have prepared examples, and a workflow diagram, and most importantly, be prepped to be in “on” mode to socialize with you. It’s an effort to mask, just walking up and being an interruption provides no time to mask up for you, and you get an adhoc half annoyed and possibly unprepared lesson. Teaching someone properly is like taking the stage, or preparing a TEDtalk… Many of us need time to get into the role, because everything around other people is some form of act to best interact with the target audience.
What outfit do I wear?
What accent and pentameter have I discovered makes you most at ease and least aggressive?
What slang terms have I observed you use safely, vs which bother you?
Do I know which programming language you prefer, so I can show you in that language and prepare examples?
Will you smell like cigarettes, and if so, make sure I have measures to deal with that smell?
Have I scheduled it around the right time after we’ve both eaten to make sure neither of us is “hangry”?
Are you a loud person, in which case, some examples or even jokes I may cut out to prevent a loud outburst or comment that draws even more people?
Do I know what soda to offer you?
Doing all that for a real public presentation is actually far easier than doing it for an individual you barely know.
Don’t you see? This is an entire performance we have to put on for you. Watching someone adhoc is just cruel and invasive to that person. They have their own job to do and focus on, not worry about chit chatting with someone while making a dead line.
Spock - “May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.”
Do not confuse coworkers with friends. Some can be friends, but most are not. Most are just coworkers… people forced to be in a room or building working together. Those are mostly acquaintances at best. They aren’t all asking you to go have beers with them. We have our real friends who we picked organically to be around. You know where they aren’t usually? At our work.
It takes a village I guess. Good luck with the whole ‘hating everyone and everything’ situation, hope you all find jobs with zero human interaction whatsoever 👍
We don’t hate everyone. We desire the opportunity to prepare for social interactions at work. That you find that somehow offensive really seems like a lack of respect for others.
Should be picturing Milton from office space? Because that’s the vibe I’m getting. He seemed alright (except for that whole setting the building on fire thing) and wasn’t socially inclined.
And to be clear I don’t see how briefly sharing work related info is socializing. I’m not asking for a drink at Tchotchkes, it means helping each other learn new things informally without a Ted talk.
More than social vampire, you are giving off sociopath vibes. Wanting to put you at ease upsets you. I didn’t assume you were a programmer, that was just an example from my world / daily life. If I had to assume your work, I would expect it would be some job high on the toxic masculinity scale.
That’s funny. I’m a tax accountant. Until now I would’ve guessed my industry had some of the most malignant socially incompetent people but I’m clearly wrong. And come to think of it, even the worst most closed off unapproachable people I’ve ever worked with have always been excited to talk about their work, like it’s the one thing they’re comfortable going on about. I’m not asking for a beer at tchotchkes (I too maintain space from colleagues because of the conflict of interest with work in between).
Again, stay the fuck at home, I’ve never encountered such toxic loathing for any kind of human interaction before, I wouldn’t want you in the office with that kind of attitude. Congrats, Dobby is free, you never have to wear pants or look presentable again.
So what is the link between osmosis and delegation? It’s very simple. Take your busiest employee and — assuming you hired smart people — physically put this superstar with one to two team members who are intelligent but possess minimum skills to complete a task or their job. I’ve seen that at the end of one day, the employees who started with few skills will have learned something new that they can likely do again independently. The idea is dependent on your employees being motivated to try, rather than sitting and watching someone work while they create no additional value.
I guess that definitely rules you out! Hope you know everything because with your attitude idk how you can possibly build professional relationships. I know there’s toxic people online but goddamn you’re one of the worst I’ve ever encountered. I’m done here, just wanted to point out the technical value of, you know, not being a fucking asshole to colleagues by calling them friggin vampires.
Not at all. That falls under scheduled training. In this example, the boss has told us that I am to train them. That means I can come into the office or work with them over zoom, depending on the situation, prepared with a lesson plan. I would have interviewed these people and have copious notes about them, as well, as I do the hiring. This allows me also to be prepared for the social interaction that most likely works the best with them. I could do this for a day, a week, or even a month, as that would be my assigned job role for that period of time. Acting and putting on the show for them would be the gig. While emotionally taxing, preparation makes it possible to do, and once having assumed the role, the persona, the mask, I am excellent at it.
Right, so you can choose an outfit and figure out what kind of soda to offer, whether to use iambic pentameter or perhaps haiku, etc. you mentioned that.
Here’s how it could go:
Steve: Hey Bob, I just heard you’re working on a flux capacitor. That’s really cool, I’m more of a warp core guy but I read an article on the holonet about that last week. How’s that project going?
Bob: It’s real tough, we gotta feed this 1.21 giga watts of electricity so I’m working on a Tesla coil to power it.
Steve: Oh no way, you know, I actually just built one last month on another project, I’ve never worked on a flux capacitor before but I can help you with the Tesla coil if you want.
Bob: Oh yeah sure thanks that’s real helpful. I’m just getting started so it’s still in planning phases but I’ll come grab you in a bit.
Steve: Awesome! Mind if I watch you work a bit? I’ll stay out of your way since I can’t add much value, I just like watching people who are good at what they do while they practice their craft. And it’ll help me if I ever encounter this in the future
Bob: Oh you know actually I’m sorta uncomfortable with that, makes me feel on the spot. How about I show you when it’s done? I’m happy to go over the designs and final product and stuff when I have something to show for it.
Steve: Sure great awesome that works! Doesn’t have to be anything formal, just a quick rundown of the basics and maybe how you resolved some technical issues with creative workarounds, stuff like that. You can wear whatever you want, don’t need to dress up fancy for me. You don’t have to feed me or offer drinks or anything either, super chill, just a few minutes to skim over your work.
Bob: Cool man, that works, any time. By the way, how’s that warp nacelle coming alone? I hear the Heisenberg compensator is acting up again.
Steve: Yeah it’s being a little bitch but I’ll show you once it’s done. Everyone wins!
See that’s how it could go if you weren’t a toxic antisocial insane person. Just talk to colleagues about projects, learn, share, collaborate. But instead you drop thousands of words of toxic vitriol overthinking the shit out of it. Going from shooting the breeze with colleagues to planning month long lesson plans and Ted talks down to what outfit you’re gonna where, what accent to use (?), something about perfume…seriously man, get thee to a therapist and eat a Xanax, please l. You’re in dire need.
I get along perfectly fine in an office setting with almost everyone. It’s the people who feel overly welcome to just come up and completely alter your day… and I don’t mean the boss with a priority shift, nor do I mean some critical incident that needs urgent response to fix. How best to explain it to you… In my team of 25 people, only one is a problem. Insists that not only does he need to be in the office, but that he works best if everyone else is at the office, too. When that happens, or as it consistently was before Covid, he was never at his desk. Where’s Mark? He has that xyz deployment today and no announcements have gone out. “I dunno, I last saw him upstairs chatting with Alex.” Great, he’s upstairs with the dev he bullies into doing everything for him again… Ok, I’ll send him a slack and an email reminding him we need his deployment outage announcement or the customer is going to cancel. … Nothing happens still. No one can find him. He shows up at my desk, hasn’t read the slack or email, “Hey, can you send out a notification for the deployment?” Where have you been? “Got side tracked talking with Han in sales.” Um, Han is on the automotive product, you’re on the ships product… “Yeah, I just saw him and we ended up talking and… and… and…” Meanwhile, I get an email from both Han and Alex asking us to try and keep Mark from bothering them today, they have too much to do. Alex’s email asks why he’s having to do Mark’s deployment.
That is what I’m talking about. If a person needs to be in the office to do the job everyone else on the team can do remotely, this is likely why they like the office. Now I get it, some people can’t get away from wife, kids, or other home stuff while working from home and an office gives them the space they need. Those people are happy to go in on their own and don’t try demanding everyone else return to the office to support them. Then there are those who feel they need the commute to shift gears. I get it, I use to be that way a long time ago. It just took getting use to the change and some open honest communication with the family that I’d like 30 minutes or so after work to switch into family time mode and why. That works well.
I get along perfectly fine in an office setting with almost everyone.
I somehow doubt that. You need three weeks to prepare your outfit and soda choices for something that could be a five minute conversation. I’m over this, you win, PLEASE stay the fuck at home.
So I’ve read through this whole conversation between you and PseudoSpock, and at the beginning you definitely had some good points, but you’re coming across awfully entitled.
There are some people who really enjoy training and can quickly shift from their workload to training mode quickly (I’m one of those), and make it clear that you can always come to them when you want to learn something because they value training above just about everything else.
And then there are others (probably most) who have to me an effort to change gears, are trying to get through their own work, and don’t appreciate constant interruptions from people trying to get ad hoc training on their own schedule with complete disregard to the schedule of the person they’re getting training from.
It seems like you are assuming and forcing coworkers into the position of the former. And worse, when it’s pointed out to you that it’s problematic to a lot of people, you’re doubling down and saying other people are the problem instead of rethinking your own approach.
I like working in the office because I have a way better setup there and don’t have room at home to do the same thing. I also like the mental separation my commute gives between work life and home life (usually, sometimes people piss me off so much I can’t shake it before I get home). That being said the more people who WFH the better. Traffic during Covid was great and the office was never quieter.
Is a worker on the road for their own benefit or for the benefit of their employer? Do people voluntarily choose to drive in godawful rush hour traffic 5 days a week just for shits and giggles, or is it because times are mandated by their employer?
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision? Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes, and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
It’s a nuanced debate. In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer. Huh, just something else to think about.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
This only seems like a difficult question if it’s one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it’s one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.
Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they’ll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.
Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices… ugh.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
I don’t think a company would want to restrict themselves by using that as a criteria, because someone who is much better for the position but lives farther away may be excluded for the person who lives closer who cannot do the job as well.
Cost to employer is calculated based on many factors, the capability of the worker doing the work is one of them.
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes,
If companies charge to have their workers commute to work locations to do jobs for them, then yes, they should.
Basically the flip side of the coin of, for example, a plumber coming out to your house to fix a leaky pipe charging you for him to actually come out to the house regardless of any work done when he gets there.
and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
Well a company should make sure compensation is satisfactory enough for the best talent to do the best work for them.
Actually, I’m big on nuanced conversations, but I really don’t think it is in this case, I think what you been expressing is more strawmanning than actual real world scenarios.
In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer.
I don’t think you can use this as a justification for the points you’ve been expressing, as a military and a corporation are two very different things, and the responsibilities of persons to each of them is very different, and not comparable.
Huh, just something else to think about.
Well, real conversations are always better than just attempts to redirect the narrative, that’s for sure.
People don’t choose to commute for “shits and giggles”, but there is choice involved in how long your commute is, if it’s a job that pays well enough that moving is an option. To be clear, if a job is changing from remote to in-office, I think it should absolutely come with a pay increase to compensate for that increased labor of getting to the office. But should you be paid for the time spent commuting as if they’re working hours? That doesn’t seem right to me.
I live in a city with ridiculous urban sprawl. However, I choose to live in a smaller apartment with a higher $/sq ft so that my commute is just a 10 min bike ride. I chose it both because it saves me time and reduces the amount of pollution I’m contributing every day. I have coworkers, though, that choose to live as far as 2 hrs drive each way, outside of the reach of the city’s public transport. I’ve asked, and their reasons are: to be closer to their relatives, to be in a part of town they just like better, for lower cost housing so they can spend more elsewhere, or bc they want their kids to be raised in a suburb instead of the city. They all technically could live closer, but they choose not to because they have other priorities. Which is fine and valid, but still ultimately a choice.
So, should my coworkers be paid up to 50% more than me (4 hrs per day!) because of their choice? Or to say it another way, should I be paid less than them because of my choice that is already costing me more in rent? Wouldn’t that actually incentivize longer commutes and the problems that come with it, like more road congestion and more pollution? Realistically, I think employers would stop employing those who live so far because they’re not actually getting more value from the employee that’s costing them 50% more.
The transportation situation in the US is fully the failure of cities, states and the federal government to fund and plan for adequate land use and transport networks.
I could not agree more. The vast majority of American cities seem to have been thrown together ad hoc one development at a time with zero planning for mass transit with a few exceptions like Chicago.
In person work should be taxed to pay for the roads, transit, and congestion costs they cause if we really wanna get all ‘let’s measure productivity’ about this.
Your commute is your own problem, I don’t pay my employees for driving to work, they can always move closer to the office or sleep in their cars in the parking lot overnight if driving home and back is such a big deal.
So no, I won’t be paying you to drive home and furthermore, at my businesses I have a swear jar policy; every swear word an employee says I take a dollar/hour off their pay for that day. So watch your potty mouth or you’ll be the one who ends up paying me.
I have seen you thinking similarly on other posts. Are you actually a business owner or just a troll? Based on that second paragraph I have to believe you’re just a troll.
On the one hand, as a worker, I absolutely think it should be considered part of the work day, HOWEVER, there’s so many factors that go into what constitutes your commute, that I’m not sure how businesses would account for that. Is it based on distance, so the farther away you live, the more compensation you get, just because you live further away? That seems to unfairly reward people people who live farther away. Do you just give a blanket extra 1 hr (30 min before/after the work day) to everyone to account for it, assuming that that covers most cases?
It does seem to be a standard for most businesses that travel, you’re paying for their time just to come out. I’ve had plenty of plumbers/handymen/house fixerish people who have charged just for gracing me with their presence for <10 min, even though they didn’t actually do any work, there’s usually a ~$50–100 minimum charge for house calls. I’m assuming their travel time is getting factored into it, so why shouldn’t other workers travel time be factored in as well?
Am commercial HVAC mechanic. My clock starts when I get to the shop, grab stuff, then start travelling, or when I get to site if I start there, then ends when I leave my last call for the day.
I can spend anywhere between 10-12 hrs a day not being at home due to traffic, and get paid for 8.
But I see your idea of having a standard 1 hr in and 1 hr out as a compromise and it’s up to you how close or far you live to your work location or bubble. For me, I live within my work bubble, and can work anywhere in the region depending on the day. Could be anywehere between 10 minutes, and 2 hours.
Seems like the most straightforward way to account for commute would be to average the commute times of all employees at a workplace and pay accordingly. If a business doesn’t want to pay that, they can set up a work-from-home situation.
Nah, Hexbear would defend employers screwing over their employees as long as the government claimed to be Marxist. They would only talk about this in a negative light as long as the problem happens in a liberal democracy.
Are you requesting I as a worker dedicate any part of my time, and/or usage of my personal resources to accomplish something for YOUR business? Yes it’s part of the work day.
Subsidize based on type of transportation used? Public transit is mostly subsidized, and private transportation is the least subsidized. This would make employers seek out poorer people.
I think they’re saying kind of the opposite, they’re proposing that the employer be assisted in payroll by the government to hire folks, and they get more assistance for people with less commute impact?
Idk, most of these solutions boil down to UBI with extra steps imo. Once we get much further up the chain than “workers shouldn’t be burdened by commutes” then the obvious answer is to pay people to not need cars and that’s a lot like UBI, and I’d prefer we just do that than make it more complicated
A simple solution here is to compensate a flat rate based on an assumed 30 minute travel time. If employees are called to a secondary location, add on the travel time from the original location to the new location, divided by two if it’s less than 45 extra minutes.
Right, some will be higher, some will be lower. Using the same value for everyone is the compromise we’d have to make in order to avoid biasing the hiring process.
No, i am expecting you to be at your place of agreed work that you were well aware of, at a time we agreed as stipulated in your agreement that you were open to reject if it was not suitable for you.
Its not the employers job to tell you where to live, how to get to work, or what to spend you time doing outside of work hours. Don’t like the commute - pick a different job or move, you’re an adult who can make these decisions.
Better yet, start a business where you pay your employees this way.
Don’t like the commute - pick a different job or move, you’re an adult who can make these decisions.
Well yeah, that’s what’s happening. That’s what sparked this debate.
People ARE leaving their jobs for other organizations that allow work from home, getting paid more in some instances too.
If a competing business can’t offer more than what the same work from home jobs are offering for the same position, work from home will win every time. Just like you said, it’s business. Supply and demand, in a tidy work offer contract based on what is agreed upon.
Very unrealistic example to use… It would be very unusual for anyone to take a job that’s 3 hours away and make a six hour commute daily, while working an 8 to 10 hour work day… that example is not the norm and would never be the norm for majority. But let’s say for arguments sake you example works… yes the employer should pay you for that extreme commute… absolutely… but maybe I am more new school which was bound to happen as time wore on in society
there are people who took jobs during the pandemic that were not in the neighborhood. this is not as an unreasonable example as it would have been five years ago.
That’s not what I said… and that’s not what you claimed… and also… no one works in their neighborhood, unless they work from home… most work in theirs, or the neighborhing CITY. Most of us workers (at least 95% of us workers) do not and would not work at a job site for minimal pay, with a 3 hour commute both ways and not be well compensated for that commute or be some type of truck driver who is compensated for that.
that’s the point of this outrageous example. How about this: Suppose there are two employees: Alice and Bob, who do the same job at the same factory. Alice has a 10 minute commute, Bob commutes 35 minutes. If you’re the owner of the factory, how would you compensate them for their commutes?
Also, half the time, I’m literally taking work meetings during my commute because I’m both required to physically be in the office and also start taking meetings before I can even get to work.
When meetings are scheduled while I’m on my way home (I work 07:00 to 15:00 so it happens regularly), I fill my timesheet to show that as work time. I’m happy to argue if I ever get called on it
I have participated in meetings on the bus, in my car, on my bicycle, and while at the hair dresser, all that was work time
This doesn’t entirely make sense, since commute is only a part of the routine. You could say, you wouldn’t be taking a shower, so the employer has to pay for the water and the time you spend in the shower, etc.
The employer has no influence on where you live, why would they be paying for it?
If the company is paying for your skills, sitting in traffic is not one of them. So it’s up to you to optimise your commute. (I.e. Bike, train, etc.)
Eh, showering every day is bad for your skin and uses a lot of water. I work from home and definitely don’t shower every day especially if I’m only going to be leaving the house to walk my dog.
I say it, knowing that there’s no possibility of it happening in the current day but, really, it’s the only way that’s fair for both sides and removes most potential discriminatory policies. If a business can’t afford to pay its workers enough to have a decent life, they can’t afford to be in business.
I’m not sure what area has average cost of houses around $2.8B but, if that’s the cost, sure. That is, of you’re not trying to imply that the “Wage-Price Spiral” exists, despite all evidence contrary.
If you want a full summary of the article you need to follow that by:
Author: But don’t forget how hard six figured middle managers have it now that the only way they have to motivate employees is rewarding them with money for work accomplished.
Although I agree with what everyone is saying “that it make sense to compensate workers for the commute in time and money”, I’d like to nuance a little, because I think it is a bit more complicated from a moral standpoint: Imagine employer were paying for your commute and you were on the clock during it, what happen when you move to another appartment/house further from work ? Should the employer continue to pay and clock your longer commute ? It seems weird that my decision to move to another part of the city would affect my employer. The consequence would be that employer will mandate that you cannot move without their appoval or that their cost for your commute is fixed in the contract and need to be renegociable. In the end what it boils down to is not that commute should be paid for and part of the work day. What people want is better salaries and smaller hours. Then the commute doesn’t matter anymore, and stays at the expense of the worker who can therefore move wherever they want.
Where I live, I have to calculate (and show the process of calculation) the cheapest cost of getting to and back from work from my house. My boss simply pays me that much each workday. If I move, I have to do this calculation again. It doesn’t matter how long it takes me to get to work (i.e. I’m not “on the clock”), they are simply imbursing me for that part.
Ironically, sometimes moving further away is both cheaper and faster.
It is for most companies. You put the drive into a mileage calculator for your company and they reimburse you a certain amount per mile. You don’t do napkin math, they need legitimate records for accountants, audits, etc.
The programmers especially on my team agree with you 200%
My team works from four locations in three states, two time zones. We work on the computer, we meet on Teams, we chat on Teams. Occasionally we phone reach other
The other IT people are happy to be in the office occasionally to catch up with others in the office, the programmers overall don’t
So they commute typically about an hour each way on days they must be in the office to work exactly as they do at home and have about as much social contact
To add a totally contrary point here, imptomptu in person conversations I’ve had with other teams I wouldn’t interact with a lot has given me a tonne more perspective as a software developer. Especially with people working in sales and support but also from other engineering teams. I think it comes down to office culture. Yeah if everyone just comes in, never interacts with anyone and sits there coding all day then goes home, then yeah that’s going to be a worse experience but if you actually embrace office culture I think it’s super rewarding and beneficial to career development.
In my experience most people are really bad at jumping out of their team and silo remotely, especially software developers. Some people might make it work, but that’s not my experience with the majority of coders. Also as good as zoom/teams/slack is, it really doesn’t compare to an in person conversation. It’s a more formal and often friction filled experience. Conversations remotely are mostly done with purpose, you call someone for a reason. This makes relationships really transactional. The in person aspect drives a lot more potential for organic conversation. Remotely I might see two of my colleagues in a huddle on slack, if I happen to be looking at their profiles at the right time, but I would never join them. Conversely however I’ve commented and jumped in on conversations between the ML engineers sitting behind me all the time, and vice versa when I’m discussing python programming.
Most of my hobbies are online actually, in fact as an expat they’re the only way I stay connected to friends around the world. The majority of my really deep friendships are these days virtual.
I don’t mean the conversations are formal, but the format is. As an example, a group conversation in person can have smaller side conversations going on. On video chat one at a time. Yeah you can still have good conversations, but the only one speaking limitation introduces a level of formality to the conversation. I can’t lean to a friend and whisper an in joke, or comment something.
No forcing at all, if you don’t want to go in, don’t, I just don’t think it actually does your career or relationships any favours.
But is not nearly as easy. Conversations move faster than can type out complex thoughts most of the time. They might not even see it till minutes after. The experience is simply not the same. It leads to a very different social experience, that imo, leads to less strong relationships, especially for people joining a new company and for people on the lower end of the career ladder. I’d hate to have to seek mentorship virtually if I was a grad or junior atm.
And this is totally ignoring the fact that for a lot of people they connect over things in person. Walking by the bar on the way to the station and spotting colleagues, stopping in for a pint that turns into dinner. The walk to get lunch at the market. Sharing a homemade tiramisu. My deskmate asking about my coding problem as I swear under my breath. All things that happened this week and I only go in for 2 days, voluntarily, the rest of my team is entirely in other countries.
At the end of the day, do what you want, but the studies do show a drop in productivity for WFH. I think that stems at least partly from the social interaction elements. My counterpart is 10 years my senior in terms of ability and about as virtually social as a software developer gets, but because I’m well known in the office I get a load more of the random software questions. Which is good for me in the longer term. That’s my $0.02
The walk to get lunch at the market. Sharing a homemade tiramisu.
What the fuck kind of life is that?
Look, go to the office, have fun with the tiramisu, just don’t ever argue your perceived benefits of in-person communication in support of a manager’s wish to force it. I’d much prefer if you would directly argue in favor of it being kept an open option.
I am completely out of the job market right now and I really fucking hate participating in corporate culture. Fuck all of it, completely. It can all burn in a world-ending self-inflicted catastrophe. A bunch of idiots laughing over a coffee about how they’re gonna earn their share from completely unnecessary and actively destructive activities. Managing the company profiles of fucking sports commentators. Designing and turning giant sheets of steel into “decorative” fucking planters.
It’s just so much fluff. Meaningless, unimportant fluff. And this is what we’re requiring people spend 8 hours a day for the rest of their life on.
Mate you sound totally unhinged. Sorry you’re so triggered that I would enjoy casual conversation with a colleague while we try some new food together. My point was that a lot of people connect over shared experiences and the small stuff.
I’d much prefer if you would directly argue in favor of it being kept an open option.
I’m guessing you couldn’t piece together the fact I only go in 2 days a week and explicitly mentioned to do what you want that I’m not arguing everyone returns to 9 to 5 mon to Fri, but maybe you can use this as an exercise in logical reasoning. Me saying there are benefits to going into the office isn’t suddenly asking everyone to go back full time.
I find it more unhinged and illogical that we see mobile game development as a more productive endeavor than picnics and naps, “You might be scamming addicts out of money, but at least you’re putting in work and being productive!”
Your apparent love of corporate culture sent me fucking reeling mate.
Paying for commute expense is already a solved problem.
Some examples, a fixed amount based on data provided every month for commute. (200 dollars a month or whatever)
Or if a company wants to be both stingy and generous at the same time, make you expense your gas or public transportation every month up to a certain limit.
It doesn’t matter if you move to a different part of town. The cost is negligible to a business.
In the UK it’s pretty clearly spelled out (although not always perfectly applied, I’m sure there’s still the odd boss trying it on).
Your working day starts when you arrive at your contracted place of work, and are ready to start work. Not when you walk in the door, before having a cuppa or breakfast in the office kitchen. Not after your computer has booted up and is ready for you.
If you have multiple places of work, or are travelling away from your contracted place of work, then your working day starts the moment you walk out your door and leave home.
The end of the day is the same, if you’re in the office it ends and then you leave, if you’re working away it ends when you get home (so factor in travel time and leave site before then).
Whether or not you actually get paid for every hour is another matter, however. Salary vs hourly work. If you’re salaried it’s supposed to be give and take - however it’s ultimately up to you to take what you can to balance it out. Work isn’t going to offer you an early finish, not as easily as they’ll ask you to stay late.
This may be factual law but just because a holy Law book says something that does not make it true.
The way i understand and perceive my job is as a basic equation for trade. I give, my time, body and energy and in return i receive a monthly paid liveable wage and some additional perks.
When i feel my return doesn’t match my input i have no reason to keep working. Many of my collogues have the benefit of a position that allowed full time WFH, mine simply does not, travel absolutely counts towards the investment i have to put in to do my work.
But to nuance my own perspective, i’m not complaining for not being paid my commute hours because i don’t recognize that i am being paid in hours. My contract may state i am paid per hour but paper is imaginary. Reality is that i get a monthly deposit. And if its enough to get by, stay healthy and have a little extra, then i am content human being and worker.
My workplace tracks hours for salaried workers, and we’re not allowed to accrue more than about a week of excess time without taking it, to the point where of we go over, our managers must put us on leave until the balance is below the limit
People find it pretty easy to take a day here and there, especially Fridays (it’s like no one believes people do anything productive on Fridays)
Your working day starts when you arrive at your contracted place of work, and are ready to start work. Not when you walk in the door, before having a cuppa or breakfast in the office kitchen. Not after your computer has booted up and is ready for you.
Kind of. The “ready to start work” bit is important. If your workplace has requirements that take extra time - such as a long walk from the front door to your desk, a computer that must go through a five-minute bootup process, a queue at the security gate, etc - those must be covered by the employer. But, yeah, arriving to work and having a panini in the kitchen isn’t going to net you thirty minutes of flexi.
