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.
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.
Guys, it’s a free market. The boss gives the worker money, and the worker makes sure that the commute is short. It’s his responsibility. He can change employer or relocate his home. It’s not as if all people have the same commute
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.
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.
Also, I remember paying for travel time when we needed a technician to come to our house and service something. So there is already precedent that traveling for work counts as work in itself. Hopefully that actually went to the tech and not their boss.
I like working in the office, but I hate having to spend an unpaid amount of time commutinh to work. If I could get paid travel time I’d be a very happy man.
Yeah, this is it. While I prefer WFH, I don’t mind working in the office, but I don’t want to spend more time driving to and from, that’s just more lost free time.
My company actually closed the office where I worked because we all went 100% remote and they never forced the issue. It wouldn’t have helped their case that we have dozens of other employees all over the country not linked to either of the company’s offices.
I have it easier as a contractor, I have a MD rate and then I have a MD rate with commute + having to be in the office that’s twice the MD rate, they can decide if they really need me tp be there.
It’s a bit rude to say “8 hours at work, 8 for recreation, 8 for sleep” when the work is actually half an hour to an hour longer with the alleged “lunch break”, and rats into the recreation time typically an hour at each end
So really it’s 8 hours at work, 3 hours work related, 5 hours recreation (nb recreation time is also spent in the “recreation” of making oneself sufficiently presentable to attend the office), and 8 hours of sleep/missing sleep worrying about whether you can afford to commute (fuel, parking, bus fares) in the few days before pay day
i agree with this entire thing, but just for the pretense of seeming balanced, the commute home from work is often quite recreational imo. working from home and simply closing a browser is less satisfying than speeding away from the evil building. [but it is better in every other way]
Nah, driving home in the afternoon/evening rush was even more infuriating than the drive to work because it just seemed even slower and more time-consuming, eating into the vanishingly little time you have left for yourself
Lots of bickering about how it works now vs how it should work. Meanwhile I’m going crazy that nobody is pointing out how much of the burden of the commute is placed on the worker. It’s literally thousands of dollars a year in being licensed to drive, vehicle registration, insurance costs, variable and ever increasing gas prices, repair and maintenance. Every single aspect of the commute is a burden on the worker, and corporations take it for granted. It’s not factored into most people’s pay rate or compensation. Whether or not the employer should be held responsible for relieving some of the burden, we should recognize that workers need to lessen this burden one way or another. Increasing tax deductibles to include commute time isn’t an unreasonable first step. Treat it just like travel for any other work related reason.
I’ve been lucky enough to have one job that did pay for transit. Specifically, they would pay for a weekly bus pass for any employer that wanted one, plus monthly bikeshare membership for any employee that wanted that. It was solid.
You americans propably see this differently, but in europe it’s very simple:
The employer need you to come to work. He doesn’t care where you live and how long your commute is.
The worker can chose an employer close to his home, or relocate and live close to the employer. Generally, if it’s a priority, the worker can live within walking distance of the employer. If other priorities overrule proximity, there’s likely still public transport to get to work.
So you are saying it ought to be this way or it already is?
In the Netherlands it’s quite common to receive €0.21 per km tax free (which doesn’t cover the cost of the commute unless you ride a bicycle). I have a job that comes with an EV as a perk, including all charging expenses for company and private use both. I only have to pay for charging outside of the Netherlands. I do pay an extra tax for private use, but since it’s an EV that’s not a big amount at the moment. Some people receive a country wide public transit pass as a perk.
So if your claim is that there is no commute compensation anywhere in Europe, you’re wrong. If you say it ought not to exist, well then I simply disagree.
As a government subsidy it’s quite different from an employer benefit.
A public transport ticket as a perk is also very different. That’s the same for all employees.the way k read the headline, it’s about paying for the time spent commuting.
Yes it is different. But in this case it is both. The company pays that €0.21, which the tax office should normally see as an income for the employee. So the subsidy is in not taxing this income.
The public transit pass (which can be used privately) is not taxed at all.
Tl;dr for paragraph below: EV company cars that are driving privately get big tax benefits
Same goes for the car. Normally a lease car lease is quite expensive and if the employer pays for it, it is seen as an income for the employee IF the employee uses the car privately. This is taxed yearly as if you would have received 22% of the new value of the car per year. So a €100,000 car is taxed as if you’ve received €22,000 in extra income. Depending on what tax bracket you’re in you pay quite a bit of tax on that. Now for EV’s it depends on the year in which the car was registered. I have a car that cost €43,000 from 2020 which is taxed at 8%, so it is taxed only as if I made €3,440 more. This tax comes down to roughly €150 per month which is very roughly €250 less than I’d have paid for a gas car. So a subsidy in essence. This is why you see so many EVs in the Netherlands, though tax benefits are much lower these days.
Now for the part about paying for time rather than travel expenses. Yes, that’s indeed far less common unfortunately. But such measures do lessen the burden somewhat.
this is exactly the logic in the US as well. except we’re more tethered to jobs because of our malignant healthcare system and general lack of a social safety net. and most of us barely, barely have public transport as an option
I just spent a couple weeks in Germany and Spain. The weather was nice, not too hot not humid even in September. Cities are walkable with clear defined pedestrian paths and bike lanes. Rent was affordable (I looked at a few places for fun and everything was cheaper than the dump I live in far from city center). Seems like it’s way easier to live close to work and commute on foot or by bike than it is here.
Take a look at this video about North American stroads. It’s really enlightening about how awful commuting is in the US (and maybe Canada but idk).
I watched the first half, and it started getting repetitive. But I don’t recall suburbs being mentioned. The way I see it, single family homes are the main reason for your american urban planning. low density makes area consumption big, and thus travel distances. With them comes traffic, and with that big roads.
The point is that America stroads are designed for cars, not for walking. It’s about our urban design in general which effects everything, including commuting.
I think this makes the most sense. Increasing mobility makes Capitalism more efficient. Public transportation should also be free because of the benefits they have on society. People should also be taxed on miles driven with an additional cost based on weight of the vehicle. Then subtract work commute mileage from salary and tax the remainder.
I would propose a $1.50 decrease in the minimum wage IF it was coupled with a pay for commute law. I would go down by $3 an hour if it also had a half pay for “on call” hours amendment.
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.
