Commutes are part of the work day if the employer does not allow WFH. How else is the employee supposed to show up for work?
There is no reason to debate, it’s clear as day. But the greedy, rich assholes on the reins think everyone should be honored to waste their lives working under them.
Commutes are part of the work day if the employer does not allow WFH. How else is the employee supposed to show up for work?
This.
Our country went mostly work-from-home for over a year, and people were more productive, not less. If you’re going to inconvenience your work force unnecessarily then you should pay for it, absolutely.
Sounds like commuting is an incredibly stupid and inefficient waste of time. Maybe this hypothetical company would get better performance from their employees if they didn’t have a commute. Maybe letting them work from home?
That means we’ll just stop hiring people who live far away, even in the person is willing to make the commute.
No change from the status quo. As it stands, employees move next to their workplace because nobody is ok with a 4-hour commute. It’s impossible even if you give up on social life.
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.
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.
I consider my commute part of my work day. If it takes me an hour each way, I’m only in the office for 6 hours. I go home to “finish up the day” but don’t really get a lot done other than light emailing.
Commute is part of the work day, but unpaid. In fact, avoiding commutes in big cities are one of the main advantages of remote work. In some cases, it is nearly, or even more, two hours back and forth an office or a plant. If people could go to the irs jobs just with a 15-20 minutes walk, it would be a very different issue, but mainly is an hour of traffice jams or packed metros and buses.
If commute should was part of the daily hours, we would see employers preoccupied because there would be people working 6 hours or less in the office or the plant, so they would ask for better transit systems and more affordable housing that implied nota having to go to live 40-50 km away because prices are unpayable nearer. Many of them would allow remote work more easily.
Workers aren’t grasping the managerial challenges of leading a remote workforce.
Cry me a fucking river
Each year, the average American spends nearly $8,500 and 239 hours traveling to and from work, per data from Clever Real Estate.
One could argue that’s “good” because it makes the wheel of economy turn. Gas pollution alone would make me say this is bad for all involved (except oil companies and their shareholders, but they can go fuck themselves)
Still, though, WFH Research also finds that fully remote work is associated with 10% to 20% lower productivity than fully in-person work [<- link to the research paper, go to page 10]. Barrero explained the disparity to Fortune in July: “In many of the studies we cite and in some of our own survey evidence, workers often get more done when remote simply because they save time from the daily commute and from other office distractions. This can make them look more productive on a ‘per day’ basis, even if it means they’re actually less productive on a ‘per hour’ basis.”
There’s no reason to “go above and beyond” when you’re in the comfort of your home. It’s why perceived “per hour” productivity drops. Besides, nobody actually works 8 hours straight, there are several pauses, even in an office or factory. We’re not robots.
When that commute is eliminated, they view it as a productivity increase. Employers, naturally, instead see it as less bang for their buck.
“You’ll waste precious hours of your day and you WILL LIKE IT, WAGESLAVE!”
Challenges in communicating remotely and lack of motivation are the main issues preventing fully remote workers from being more productive
Good luck motivating me to waste 2h every day without any raise or compensation in order to be “more productive in the office”
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.
When I worked in Belgium not only did they pay for your transit costs, they even paid for your car, phone, and lunch. Granted the car and phone were contingent on you having a use for them for your work, but still.
The car is because they don’t pay you shit for actual salary and a car is a huge tax cut (they budget 500 euros per month at my company). However, CoL is lower than America in most places.
They don’t pay your transit costs, some jobs have “meal check” compensation so 8€ per day or so. Not bad. Only some companies give phones. Probably ad many give work phones in America.
Also there is minimal or no pension fund contribution in many/most jobs and the pension system is on the brink of collapse it seems. No Roth IRAs here or anything. Don’t get paid enough to invest in anything. Everything goes into the house here because almost every single house that is affordable to people under 40 has to be stripped and fully renovated.
Also jobs are scarce right now. 2 companies hiring for PCB design stuff within 25 km of my house…
But as a whole, 32 required days of holiday by law, going to the doctor costs 4€ instead of 400, there isn’t any stigma about using all of your holiday, and consumer and worker protections are very good! Plus great public transportation.
A lot of those problems are true in the US/Canada as well (maybe more so; eg. pension). But unlike the US/Canada you get compensated for lunch and transit. AND you get a huge amount of time off. That alone is already drastically better than what you get in the US/Canada. Sure, if you make big bucks that’s mostly moot, but most people don’t.
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.
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.
