It would be better if there was a standard calculation like:
Commute time = time it would take to commute by public transport from the nearest residential area that could house a family on the income of the worker in question
That puts positive pressure on improving cost of housing, and improving speed of public transport
And were they to try to play the system by getting high speed trams linking a poor, cheap area to the CBD, that would quickly no longer be a cheap place to buy
The amazing part is lots can, and that would instantly decongest infrastructure so that those who did have to go in would have an easier time about it.
Only people who work in the relatively few jobs that cam be done from home believe most jobs can be done from home. Y’all are in a white collar bubble.
If it was possible for 70% of the country to work from home when it was suddenly needed, and even now 30-40% still do with a booming market economy, the only bubble appears to be the one the media is creating around your ears with the dollars their corporate overlords are paying them.
You’re right and that pisses me off. I didn’t realize how many jobs like that there are. Most recent data I can find says at least a third of all jobs can be done from home.
Fuck you lucky fucks. 0% of my industry can be done from home. I hate all of you.
Seriously this only works for like white collar office work and even then not really. Anyone working with inventory or warehouse and all the jobs that are food service and other onsite management go where?
They don’t want to admit it but it really does not work for more than a specific group of office jobs.
I looked into it and there’s a LOT more of those useless office jobs than I thought. Something like at least a third of all jobs can be done fully remote. I’m jealous as fuck.
I would be jealous, if sitting at a desk didn’t make me wanna hang myself with an ethernet cable. I’m a process engineer in a steel mill and holy sweet fuck did I wanna die when I was WFH as a desk engineer. Bored out of my mind and feeling like I’ll never progress because I couldn’t even network well with managers/engineers like you can in a mill/in person office.
That’s when I learned at this point in my career, heavily WFH is not for me. I need challenged and I need hands on, 1 of those I very much cannot get at home
The only reason I own a car is to get to work. Otherwise I’d use public transport and delivery services all the time.
Therefore, 90% of the time I use my car is in service of my job. Getting to the office and coming home from the office. Therefore my commute is entirely based on the fact that I’m going to or from work. Otherwise I wouldn’t be using the car, sitting in traffic.
So yeah, it’s 100% ‘on the clock’ time, even if they want to somehow argue it isn’t. Even if I wanted a car for things like grocery shopping or getting elsewhere in the city, the time spent in traffic going to or from work, and the wear and tear on the vehicle during that time is because of my job. Therefore my job should pay for my time and the vehicle maintenance. Period.
I’m not paid well at my current job but it’s also close and I can walk/bike.
I’m looking at jobs that pay me a lot more and it’s not worth it since I have to buy, license, and maintain a car then on top of that I’m driving into work, which blows.
Well…It wasn’t part of my work day, but I came on as a remote employee. Now that they are telling me that I need to come in 3 days a week with no comp increase, you can bet your butt that I will be counting that commute as part of my work day.
My company is going to be pushing for three days a week in the office soon. I find it suspicious that so many other components have landed on three days as the magic number. They clearly get together and plan this shit behind our backs.
In general, bosses want white collar workers to work 24/7 — at home, on the train, in the car, etc. etc. It’s ridiculous. Push to keep your work and home life separate. And if your boss expects you to work on your commute, count those hours towards your “40 a week”.
I actually wouldn’t mind counting the commute towards my workday if we had reliable public transit with secure wifi around here. I could get set up, go through emails, square my head for the workday, etc. on the way in and wind down, answer emails, finish up small tasks on the way back. All while actually committing 8 hours a day to my employer rather than 8 plus commute time. Could allow more flexibility for folks living further away from their office as well.
I feel like the argument against is always going to be the same though. Work outside the office isn’t Real Work because Real Work can only happen in a cubicle under surveillance. It’s the same reason they don’t want us to work from home
When I remote in on the bus to/from work, that’s work hours. It’s slightly cheating on the maximum 40% WFH but I haven’t had complaints. I share network from my phone
When they forced me back into the office I didn’t ask permission, I’m just subtracting the hours I commute from my workday. Nobody I work with is in the office I go to so I just poke the mouse every 15min and tether my personal laptop to my phone for the first couple of hours while I decompress from the hour commute. Nobody ever comes by my cube, I’m just in a depressing beige box all day hating the company that’s making me be there.
I used to like my job and go out of my way to find and solve problems. Sometimes I’d work at night if there was something interesting I’d found. Now I’m never ever online after I get home and I’m doing enough to not get fired.
I want to make a ‘give my back my god damn stapler or I’ll burn the building down’ joke, but it’s a highrise and I don’t want to be on some FBI list or something.
This is why I refuse hybrid or on location working as an office worker: I'm not getting paid for the commute. Fuck that. (Of course, it's also a waste of time to be in the office as it's impossible to concentrate, when you have some sales people loudly talking into their phones right opposite you as you're trying to get some though work done)
Not a popular opinion, and it does suck, but I do think we should strive to sponsor mileage of any kind as little as possible and that includes employers paying for commute, to incentivise wirking closer to your home or relocating closer to your work
In the US, zoning restrictions means people literally cannot live very close to their jobs in a lot of locations because housing is far from businesses. City structures encourage commutes, and would require spending money to undo those problems. Your suggestion punishes the poor who would need to move more often to find new jobs.
We should instead sponsor more mass transit accessibility and frequency to decrease the use of single occupancy vehicles in daily commutes, which would have a for larger positive impact over trying to force people to live in specific locations that limit their ability to find work. For example, if people move near their jobs and want a different job, making them movie again is stupid when instead they could have easy access many potential jobs within 30 minutes or less on public transportation if working at home is jot an option.
Yes well, unfortunately, hastening climate change will also disproportionately punish the poor in very concrete ways much more than high gas prices ever will. It’ll also punish the real poors of the southern hemisphere.
You can force corporations to pay 50% of the fare of any of their employees transit like it’s done in a lot of places in Europe and I’m not against that as a band-aid but nothing beats re-zoning to fix your density issues and living close to work in terms of quality of life and ghg emissions
If you need to do something for work that you would not otherwise do it’s part of the job and should be compensated. At least that has been my attitude with any company trips or events and going to the office.
Hey smooth-brain: it’s actually the opposite that’s true:
If you’re doing anything for your employer, it should be paid. That’s driving, emails, snow-removal, talking to a coworker, waiting for transportation, etc.
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.
Second: Workers aren’t grasping the managerial challenges of leading a remote workforce.
I can grasp it pretty well: Shitty managers can't tell if someone's working without watching them, so they're panicking. Managers who can measure their teams output more accurately than asses-in-chairs aren't having a problem.
As the experts have maintained for years, a flexible hybrid schedule is almost always the proper approach.
The proper approach to have people sitting in an office on a Zoom call, maybe. I've never seen hybrid be as effective as either fully remote or fully on premises.
Spot on. I’m a people manager and I set my expectations on productivity early and give them the freedom to make their own choices as to how and where they spend their time. At the end of the day, if they didn’t get the work done, they’re held accountable for it. Wish my own boss understood this.
When I did WFH my boss insisted that because I didn’t have to commute I should have all my tools up before my shift even starts.
I didn’t last very long.
This same company got sued up the ass when we were in office for trying to say we needed to have all our tools up before clocking in. But somehow WFH made it ok.
Any kind of work, should be after you clock in. Getting equipment, tools, software started etc. is work. Companies trying to deny that should be reported.
Pre-shift prep time is paid. At my last shift job, we were expected to be there and ready before the shift started, but we also got paid for that time.
