Employers are Offering Remote Work with Lower Salaries (fortune.com) 138
"In many instances, there's a catch: flexible work but at lower pay..." writes Fortune.
"Remote workers are accepting lower salaries in order to achieve remote status. Some are taking as much as 5% to 15% less pay to do so, while other employers are reversing the strategy to entice workers to come to the office at higher salaries..." Today, nearly half of managers anticipate challenges in meeting candidates' compensation expectations. And when the gap between salary expectation and an offer is too great, many employers are negotiating remote and hybrid work to get candidates to sign on the dotted line, according to Robert Half's recently published 2025 U.S. Hiring Outlook. Some candidates accept 5% to 15% less pay in exchange for getting to work from home, Theresa L. Fesinstine, founder of human resources advisory peoplepower.ai, told Fortune. "There's this unspoken exchange rate between flexibility and comp, and for some candidates, it's worth a significant trade-off," said Fesinstine, who has more than two decades of leadership experience in HR. This is especially true "for those who value work-life balance or are saving on commute costs."
There are inherent risks in offering job candidates lower salaries, even if it means getting the chance to work from home. Amy Spurling, founder and CEO of employee benefits reimbursement platform Compt, told Fortune she expects to see a second Great Resignation this year after hiring freezes, benefits cuts, and forced RTO policies in 2023 and 2024. "If you're trying to lowball remote workers, you're about to face a harsh reality," Spurling said. "2025 is going to be a 'find out' year for companies that thought they could use remote work or other 'perks' to replace competitive compensation and genuine employee support." To wit, a 2024 report by PwC forecasts another resignation period with a 28% increase in the number of people who plan to change jobs, compared to 19% during the Great Resignation of 2022...
What's more, Fesinstine argues, remote work "isn't a perk anymore, but rather a standard operating model." So attempting to describe remote work as a benefit doesn't sit well with job candidates...
On the other hand, Michael Steinitz, senior executive director of professional talent solutions at Robert Half, told Fortune their research shows 76% of job candidates are willing to work fully in-office — in exchange for a higher salary.
"Among those employees, the average raise they would request is about 23%, he said."
"Remote workers are accepting lower salaries in order to achieve remote status. Some are taking as much as 5% to 15% less pay to do so, while other employers are reversing the strategy to entice workers to come to the office at higher salaries..." Today, nearly half of managers anticipate challenges in meeting candidates' compensation expectations. And when the gap between salary expectation and an offer is too great, many employers are negotiating remote and hybrid work to get candidates to sign on the dotted line, according to Robert Half's recently published 2025 U.S. Hiring Outlook. Some candidates accept 5% to 15% less pay in exchange for getting to work from home, Theresa L. Fesinstine, founder of human resources advisory peoplepower.ai, told Fortune. "There's this unspoken exchange rate between flexibility and comp, and for some candidates, it's worth a significant trade-off," said Fesinstine, who has more than two decades of leadership experience in HR. This is especially true "for those who value work-life balance or are saving on commute costs."
There are inherent risks in offering job candidates lower salaries, even if it means getting the chance to work from home. Amy Spurling, founder and CEO of employee benefits reimbursement platform Compt, told Fortune she expects to see a second Great Resignation this year after hiring freezes, benefits cuts, and forced RTO policies in 2023 and 2024. "If you're trying to lowball remote workers, you're about to face a harsh reality," Spurling said. "2025 is going to be a 'find out' year for companies that thought they could use remote work or other 'perks' to replace competitive compensation and genuine employee support." To wit, a 2024 report by PwC forecasts another resignation period with a 28% increase in the number of people who plan to change jobs, compared to 19% during the Great Resignation of 2022...
What's more, Fesinstine argues, remote work "isn't a perk anymore, but rather a standard operating model." So attempting to describe remote work as a benefit doesn't sit well with job candidates...
On the other hand, Michael Steinitz, senior executive director of professional talent solutions at Robert Half, told Fortune their research shows 76% of job candidates are willing to work fully in-office — in exchange for a higher salary.
"Among those employees, the average raise they would request is about 23%, he said."
Lower salaries? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Don't they save enough already?
Office Space: Employers save on rent, utilities, and maintenance costs for office buildings or workspaces, as fewer employees occupy them.
Furniture and Equipment: Costs for desks, chairs, and other office furnishings decrease as employees use their own setups at home.
Electricity and Heating: Employers avoid paying for electricity, heating, cooling, and lighting for the space employees would otherwise occupy.
Office Supplies: Consumables like paper, pens, and printing expenses reduce significantly.
Cleaning and Maintenance: Fewer employees in the office mean lower costs for cleaning services, repairs, and general maintenance.
Snacks and Amenities: Many companies provide coffee, tea, snacks, or other amenities in offices, which aren't needed for remote workers.
Insurance: Costs for liability insurance on office spaces can decrease if fewer employees are present.
Re:Lower salaries? (Score:4, Insightful)
Salary is determined by what the worker is willing to accept for the work they need. Seldom does the worker consider what the employers cost of facilities etc are in having them at the office, this is just a cost-benefit analysis done by both parties. Does it save the employer in other ways? Sure. But that is not what the worker considers in remote or in-office settings.
Re: (Score:2)
I implemented this a long time ago. I cut the wages I was charging when I decided to work exclusively from home about 15 years ago and I never looked back. Granted, I am not an employee although.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say there is a sizable savings, both in time and money for both sides. For example, I got a job offer that required a daily drive across town that paid a bit more. Factoring in wear and tear, time on the road, chance of getting hit (the job was in a place where it wasn't just highway, but having to go downtown and brave all kinds of pedestrian and vehicle traffic), it would be a major step down in pay, all things considered. I'd probably have to obtain a new vehicle [1].
WfH is a lot easier, and i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They save, but so do the employees, from work cloths, the cost of the commute, avaiability of their home food vs going to eat out from the office, time they are uncompensated for such as work, etc..
Not necessarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you have an EV and can charge it for free at work, you're still incurring wear and tear on the vehicle, and you still need to have and maintain the vehicle (some people could live without a car if they didnt have to commute, or could reduce the number of cars in the household etc).
One of the main reasons why people don't have space to dedicate a room for work, is because they have to live within commuting distance of their workplace and subsequently face higher accommodation costs. If you take away
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you have an EV and can charge it for free at work, you're still incurring wear and tear on the vehicle, and you still need to have and maintain the vehicle (some people could live without a car if they didnt have to commute, or could reduce the number of cars in the household etc).
Yeah, I did the math for the wear and tear elsewhere in the thread. It largely depends on whether you are the sort of person who trades it after [n] years for some small value of [n] or drives it until it drops. In the former case, the mileage probably won't meaningfully affect the trade-in value, so the only real costs are things like tires and brakes, which means you'll break even by driving just 10 miles a week on your employer's dime. In the second case, you'll never break even unless you charge at w
Re: (Score:2)
work cloths
Is that what you call those cloths?
Re: (Score:2)
Those championing RTO are companies with commercial real estate holdings/loans and cities that shoved out people to create massive office districts.
As a note you can still command a better salary in most jobs while refusing RTO. I have friends in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. But this is not about treating employees fairly. The employers that try to treat their workers fairly will not do such crap. But at least in large enterprises, that seems to be the exception today.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I would still take it if I was still in that market, because I don't have trouble with the concept of win-win. Likewise, I would accept lower salary for shorter hours. Happily. If.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the border conditions. If it is a job that is fun and teaches me stuff, I am willing to accept a lot less money. Not that I actually have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, same. Funny thing is, the more picky I get the happier they seem to be to part with their money.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that might be happening for me as well. Have to think about that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But this is not about treating employees fairly.
What is "fair" depends on the market. The current employment market is not favorable to workers, so the threshold for fair is going to pivot towards what is better for employers. When the market moves towards a worker shortage, then what is fair will begin to favor workers.
Unless there is collusion, the market will figure out what is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just one way to view things. When you want long-term employee retention (which can have a ton of advantages), the "market" becomes pretty irrelevant and "fair" means that better profits go to a significant part to the employees. Of course, the typical C-level cretin does not have any long-term vision or understanding of strategic planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Only it is fair, if you're expecting someone to spend time commuting then you should be paying them for that time and compensating them for the cost.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In many cases they've saved none of that. Unless an office was completely closed or rented out to someone else you end up with the following results:
Office Space the same, just more empty.
Furniture is not usually rented, that's been paid for and now it's unused - lots of empty desks.
Electricity still needs to be on - the big users are the office building rather than individual consumption. Heating still needs to be on, a few people are in the office.
Office Supplies are such a completely irrelevant metric in
Re: (Score:2)
"The reality is the vast majority of offices are the same as they were before, just with fewer people in them and they've saved very little in the grand scheme of things."
Yup, so then they sell or stop leasing that office and move to a smaller more appropriate sized office.
The problem is when darn near everyone wants to do all of this at once, it plays hell with property values/rental prices, occupancy rates, etc which cause problems for others
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when darn near everyone wants to do all of this at once, it plays hell with property values/rental prices, occupancy rates, etc which cause problems for others
So if you're leasing your office and you time it right you can save even more...
Let the existing lease expire, and if you need a new smaller office you'll get a much better deal because there's now a glut of available office space on the market.
It's only a problem if you own the buildings, which most businesses don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, so then they sell or stop leasing that office and move to a smaller more appropriate sized office.
The problem is when darn near everyone wants to do all of this at once, it plays hell with property values/rental prices, occupancy rates, etc which cause problems for others
You're making a lot of assumptions. Quite a few companies own their offices, heck they may even own the entire building. The cost of moving an refitting an office is huge (my own company went through this, and it was literally a case of moving from one building to another they already owned, just the cost of getting out of it and rid of it was massive in itself - the payback period for that is several years). The lease contract may not be easy to get out of (we also lease a building in the UK, the lease ter
Re: Lower salaries? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For some people, the flexibility of working from home is far more valuable than free snacks. Not having to commute, for many women not having to put on make up or get ready (generally most women I know spend at least 10 if not 30 minutes each day getting ready for work) gives them 2+ hours per day of time back. Would you be willing to accept a lower salary for that added flexibility?
If some say yes, then that'
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it is about how people value to time. I work fully remote and have for over a decade. The cost to get me into the office is roughly 50k more a year than I make now. That's how much I value the time I get from working remote.
I get to have lunch every day with my wife. I don't have to burn PTO to let a plumber or painter in the house or sign for a delivery. I can workout in the mornings and just take a quick shower on a 10 minute break, saving me getting up a hour and a half early every day. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically because I am not advocating for a "free market" of labor. I am stating a simple fact: labor IS a market. You exchange time and skills for money, and the value of your time and skills is based on scarcity and need. Market forces are at work because two people are exchanging something, money for labor.
You may be the world's best transistor engineer or AI programmer, and you can command a very high salary because your skill is unique
Re: Lower salaries? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You save money in commuting costs and maybe in clothing and bathing supplies.
Employees willing to accept less (Score:2)
Really? Don't they save enough already?
They don't have to compensate the employee for the time they would spend commuting. Or compensate them for moving to a more expensive location near work.
Rent for commercial office space does not change because employees are working elsewhere.
Cleaning costs do not change.
Insurance for the office itself will not change.
Employees are willing to accept less because they still see it as a win. No commute, larger home/yard, being big wins. While still having the same amount of money in your pocket, no gas
Re: (Score:2)
Rent for commercial office space does not change because employees are working elsewhere.
Cleaning costs do not change.
Insurance for the office itself will not change.
Not if you're tied in to a lease. But when your lease expires it's up for renegotiation.
If you no longer need an office at all, then all these costs go away entirely.
If you no longer need such a large office and can make do with a smaller one, or a smaller number of offices then your costs go down. Insurance and cleaning costs will also scale down.
If a lot of companies are doing the same then demand for office space will be much lower, which due to the laws of supply and demand will allow you to negotiate a
Re: (Score:2)
Rent for commercial office space does not change because employees are working elsewhere. Cleaning costs do not change. Insurance for the office itself will not change.
Not if you're tied in to a lease. But when your lease expires it's up for renegotiation.
You can renegotiate when you have employees on site too. Leasing, etc is often tied to size, capacity, not today's headcount.
If you no longer need an office at all, then all these costs go away entirely.
With companies telling people to return to the office, that seems not to be the common path.
If you no longer need such a large office and can make do with a smaller one, or a smaller number of offices then your costs go down. Insurance and cleaning costs will also scale down.
As I indicated, its tied to size not headcount.
Re: (Score:2)
There's many days I would have not made it in, COVID and flu come to mind, yet I've not taken a sick day. There's plenty of value in remote work for companies - I don't see a valid complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
The price of labor is set by the market. Not by the other costs of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd be willing to take a 5-15% wage cut to WFH
You don't value WFH? Then why do you care?
Same, big buildings are fairly cost effective to warm.
And I do think that in-office employees are generally more productive, more communicative, and easier to retain
The building thing should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics. The surface area increases with the square, volume with the cube. Heating/cooling are fairly efficient.
As for productivity, you're deluding yourself if you think WFH is as efficient for most folks, especially considering the value of communication in the company. It's about the tradeoff.
Should be about productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. What I do is I move the focus-point of my work to where I get better conditions. That does not necessarily mean more money (seems to happen anyways). But I guess most people can essentially do one job and are scared to move away from employers that treat them badly.
Re: Should be about productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong, studies have shown remote people work more: https://practicalesg.com/2023/... [practicalesg.com]
Most people working at offices are experts at trying to look busy while doing nothing.
Re:Should be about productivity (Score:4, Informative)
First, studies have shown that remote workers work less.
One study says that. A whole bunch of others show that remote workers are more productive. What causes those gains is up for debate, though reduced stress, better rest, and increased happiness are often cited.
What is a lie?
Most of what you post.
Re: Should be about productivity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Should be about productivity (Score:2)
Had a director call "gas savings" a raise (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago, at a time when our salaries were going through a "market evaluation" by an external company (which resulted in me getting a less-than-inflation raise), our director told us that working from home (which only started due to COVID) was basically a raise because we were saving on gas money. This was at the same time the CEO started every all-hands meeting with "I know we're all SO excited to return to the office!" (and not sarcastically).
So I got a new job at a fully-remote company (don't HAVE an office for anybody to "return" to), for 24% more salary (and given the reactions of a few people there, I might have under-asked at that, in part because I didn't prepare better).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an EV, but also AFAIK none of the offices had EV chargers. My office and the other locations I visited were older (mostly multi-tenant) generic office buildings, with little to no recent updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me?
My employer charges employees to park in their parking lots.
If you don't like it, you can pay to park in someone else's parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that matter? If you are not tearing up your car driving to work, risking accidents and tickets, then why would you need to charge your EV at the office?
Need to? No. Want to, yes. If 80% of your driving is to and from work, but you can charge your car enough to cover all of your driving, then your employer is effectively giving you the cost of the electricity for that additional 20%. Thus, you could argue that not being able to do so is a pay cut.
This isn't the complete story, of course, because you're saving on wear and tear on the vehicle, tires, etc. which probably adds up to a few hundred bucks every two or three years, but at 40 cents per kWh, if y
Re: (Score:2)
The only good thing I can think of to say about your tale is that the latest silly valley trend is, RIF middle managers because they don't obviously contribute to the bottom line. Duh.
Re: Had a director call "gas savings" a raise (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For gasoline consuming commuters, it would be an increase in take home pay. It's minimal and certainly not a raise, but there is some logic to his argument.
There is no logic to that argument at all. By that idiot's logic, if your cat died, the company is giving you a raise by not having to feed your cat anymore.
Leveraging Supply And Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Increased demand for WFH has resulted in an increase in the "price" of WFH. The price for the worker's increased demand is lower pay.
Increased demand for in-office workers results in the increased price of labor. The price for the employers increased demand is higher pay.
Supply and Demand at work. The indicators may be lagging, but they'll get there eventually every time.
Re: Leveraging Supply And Demand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true if everyone was exactly the same with exactly the same skills.
That is in no way a requirement for the law of supply and demand to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'll be interesting to see the trend over time. Currently a lot of businesses are setup for the in-office model. They might've signed 10 or 20-year leases on very large office spaces, or even purchased them outright. For them, there's much less of a cost difference between remote and in-office. We might see some effects over the next 5 years as those leases expire.
New businesses might decide to go remote to skip the tens or hundreds of million dollars of real estate cost. They will also have management met
That is ass-backwards (Score:3)
They are saving on cost and they want to save even more? Well. Those that do this crap will have even less access to better talented and qualified people. Pity that does only sow up longer-term and most "management" is entirely focused on the short-term.
Re:That is ass-backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
Businesses will always push workers toward impoverishment using any leverage or excuse available. It's the same reason that at least the lower 90% workers haven't seen any gains from productivity improvements since the '70s. The only counterbalance to those forces is collective worker action to tell employers that if they want any of us, they need to be better to all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Having one side-job in the business field, I tend to agree. The person I work for there is actually a decent human being, but I came to the conclusion that business people are conditioned to try to screw people over and to not even understand what they are doing and breaking. I think they just assume everybody looks out for themselves in some way, when that clearly is not true. I have made a recent counter-offer to continue doing that job that includes a 50% raise (brings it in line with what I get elsewher
Re: (Score:2)
They are saving on cost and they want to save even more? Well. Those that do this crap will have even less access to better talented and qualified people. Pity that does only sow up longer-term and most "management" is entirely focused on the short-term.
The flip side is the employee saves as well, no commuting costs, wear and tear on a vehicle, outside meals, clothes for work, no commute time, etc. It ultimately comes down to what does it cost an employer to get employees with the requisite skill levels and potential employees money vs. lifestyle tradeoff value. If enough qualified people are willing to work for less then employers will hire them; if not they will pay more. Simple economics. A side benefit for employers is less upward wage pressure for
I'm gonna go against the prevailing wind here (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see anything inherently wrong with "remote work" being considered a perq - and thus part of the calculation of an employee's total compensation.
Context: As a university employee, I'm also the sort of person who was willing to take a somewhat-lower-than-industry salary to get higher-than-average amounts of vacation leave (with separate sick leave), plus the benefits of working in an academic environment.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see anything inherently wrong with "remote work" being considered a perq...
I agree with you. It is becoming an increasingly important one at that. All else being equal, the company with remote work options will attract more employees than the company with none. A company with 100% remote work will attract more employees than companies with hybrid (all else being equal).
I have about seven years left until I can elect for early retirement from a company that has adopted hybrid work, and my next seven years of employment are guaranteed (barring a depression). I was assuming retiremen
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's a perq but also benefit for employer!. A win-win. If productivity is increased (or at least the same) and there is no office space expense?!
I could take 20% down if I could be employed in CA and live wherever, say in Oregon mountains or Arizona desert... or better yet Guatemala!
Most 'perks' actually cost something (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
There are many non-monetary perqs that don't cost the employer much, if at all, and are often provided because employees value them highly.
And there are costs - usually in the form of enhanced administrative costs - like equipment needing to be shipped back and forth, taxes and other things.
The fact that WFH can be offered "cheap" to the employer but highly valued to the employee just means most employers should consider it in their benefits pac
Re: (Score:2)
My justification is: it is easier to find applicants who will accept WFH than those who will accept on-premises and therefore, due to law of market, the cost of a WFH worker converges to a lower value. I don't say I like it, this is just law of economics are, and these laws don't have morals. If you don't like it (I don't like it either), because your human morals disapprove of it, you have to demand regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we always find ways of justifying or accepting lower salary or compensation?
Yes, absolutely. We should all work diligently at finding justifications for the oligarchs doing what they do. That is, after all, the entire point of society. It was never meant to take care of all of us. It was always meant to take care of a very few, while the vast majority of us are simply fodder for their vast machine. Fodder that will, if their plans work out, no longer be needed once the machines get good enough to justify releasing us from our bonds. Then we can simply be waste product, as we were a
Re: I'm gonna go against the prevailing wind here (Score:3)
Hey, if that works for them (Score:2)
WFH is definitely attractive, so I can see why companies would try to pay less, since WFH is an attractive perk.
I guess it will come down to, will your competitors pay full freight, and out-compete you to get the best employees.
33% in my case... (Score:2)
I make 2/3 of what I would do in the office...
Unfortunately management knows how much I want remote work ....
Plus I have to use 1 room for my office and they are saving on office and costs...
If the work can be done remotely (Score:3)
Why on earth are employers paying for Americans? Hire someone from the Philippines, India, South America...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I support a company who have a presence here but every new hire I see added to the system appears to be working in India or the Philippines.
I have no idea how a small to mid sized domestic-only company manages that without running afoul of any number of government regulations. Especially privacy legislation.
But I only keep the servers running; to me, an Indian employee is just someone who needs to be able to connect from a different range of IP addresses and might be a bit difficult to understand if
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth are employers paying for Americans? Hire someone from the Philippines, India, South America...
You only need to look at the companies who've already done that... Having an office in India is not a new thing, remote work/work from home was not the start of offshoring by a long shot, been happening for decades. It inevitably ruins a good company by trying to skimp on wages. Unfortunately the CEOs who made the bottom line look better for a few quarters are long gone and doing the same thing in another company by the time the customers start fleeing.
The counterbalance to this is that new companies ten
Many reasons (Score:2)
The problem is fairness (Score:4, Interesting)
Remote work is a perk... but remind me again how common it was for companies to compensate you for your commute unless driving was part of your job or you were upper management?
You're paid for performing a task. That task has a value to the company. Calling remote work a perk is correct, it's a perk for the company that doesn't have to pay for office space for you and doesn't have to worry that you won't show up due to traffic or mild or moderate illness.
They really ought to be giving a bonus to you for saving them money by not requiring their infrastructure. I'd say a subsidy of your home Internet connection is appropriate, and they don't even do that.
It's weird how WfH is awesome when it saves the company money and horribly unproductive when the company's trying to lay people off. It'll be nice in a generation when the companies that allow WfH for WfH-suitable jobs (that haven't yet been automated... but that's another discussion) have used their profit advantage to out-compete the dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling remote work a perk is correct, it's a perk for the company that doesn't have to pay for office space for you
Your office space is already paid for. The cost of changing / downsizing an office is huge. It's not something you'll win back through playing with salaries a bit. This is why so many offices are happily sitting half empty.
You're not getting a bonus because you haven't saved them a dime of infrastructure. At best, you may have saved them a dollar or two a day if you work for the type of company who offers you a subsidsed lunch at the canteen.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling remote work a perk is correct, it's a perk for the company that doesn't have to pay for office space for you and doesn't have to worry that you won't show up due to traffic or mild or moderate illness.
If WFH were indeed only a perk for the employer, why do we see so many employees with such a strong opinion on the option to WFH? If it truly isn't an employee perk we should expect to see employee ambivalence. That's obviously not the reality of the situation, reflected by the downward pressure on WFH wages.
Re: (Score:3)
It was never part of your salary or wage, and this is obvious because it didn't vary based on the length or expense of your commute.
20% Seems Reasonable (Score:2)
For most situations, a 20% premium/discount seems like a pretty good balance. Hybrid is where it gets tricky.
Personally I struggle justifying going back to work at current local wages, but 80% of San Francisco or LA wages for a remote position might be compelling at some point.
The tyranny of extroverts (Score:2)
Good Economy in 2025? (Score:2)
Only fair (Score:2)
Seeing as when I WFH I spend about 30% of my time being bothered by my cat and helping my wife with her home IT problems I'd say it would be fair.
Article feels like yet another fishing trip. (Score:3)
There have been countless articles being spoon fed into media about return to the office. Most feel like they are a public reaction gauge by big corporations to evaluate what they can push.
We've seen countless 3/2 work split articles. We've seen tons of articles about return to office mandates and people leaving as a result. We've seen several on mandatory return or else stories.
Now we are starting to see a trend of remote at less pay.
They seem to be tests of people reactions. With some clearly bating social media responses to fish on particular subtopics. It's also quite common to see responses blatantly plug and industry or region to illicit responses on those filters.
Some forums just seem to be full bot. Slashdot has a solid core of real human responders. But you can often see suspicious responses that are very targeted.
On this topic of reduced pay. We specifically see precise numbers like 15%. An obvious gauging number. This puts a line in the sand. How many people will stand on each side of 15%? How vocal will they be? How deep will the threads of opinion be on each side etc.?
We also see responses stating very specific regions and industries in the article and the threads that spawn. Most I believe are honest people.
The shear number of articles in circulation on remote work leads me to think that enterprises are trying to push this return to office agenda and failing. Using social media coercion as a tool of this agenda. You know how when you see an Movie advertising blitz that is so intense, trying to get people in the theatre and you all know the movie is a bomb without anyone seeing it. So the companies doubles down, once, twice, three more times with the blitz trying to save it. Only to have it bomb even faster. This is the impression I'm left with when I see all these articles on return to the office.
Now none of what I have put here is scientific of course. It's just an observation tied very loosely to a theory. Others and myself of course could cherry pick articles and responses to fortify and break down this "theory" of mine. Which is why I specifically avoided precise article/response references. Thus avoiding getting mired in the minutia of a specific piece of text. I'm more looking at this from a removed position and possibly falsely seeing a pattern to it.
( PS don't bother picking at my spelling or grammar skills. I know I'm horrible at both. :) )
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely to be a giant conspiracy. It's more likely just shared motivations resulting in shared behavior, with lesser players following the lead of the big ones we read about in the news.
They don't want to pay, they just want the labor, so they're all very motivated to look for whatever excuse they can find to treat you more like a disposable slave than they already do.
Fairness? (Score:3)
I'd be fine with this if they also cut the compensation packages for the executives who work remotely also. Chop their stock options and bonuses.
WFH saves them money (Score:2)
Demand employee supply their own furniture, electricity, heating, office supplies, cleaning, snacks, amenities and then be paid less, no. That's before we consider all the employers that demanded they use the employee's personal (IT) equipment for WFH activities, for free. Yes, employees spend less on travel (vehicle and fuel), clothes and wasted time but the corporation is spending less too. It doesn't deserve a pay-rise because the employee also saves them money.
Supply and demand (Score:2)
Yes, I know the same work and different pay... However there really is more demand from workers for higher independence (duh!) and employers can and do charge a premium for it... in terms of lower wages.
If you were given two choices:
1) Stay in Silicon Valley with $400k salary, need to come to work 3-5 days per week
2) Stay anywhere else with $250k salary, need to show up online only
Which one will you prefer?
Let us be honest. The cost of living ($6k/month rent is commonplace), the traffic, quality of life (re
Re: (Score:2)
some daycares need to sign up before kid is born!
Some people are extremely picky. It's because fresh parents in the upper middle class are cracked in the head.
$6k/month rent is commonplace
Yes. I know people that pay that much. Most are not. My mortgage is was less than that in the Bay Area, but I bought several years ago. My house is also not big or in a desirable school district.
I think each person makes their own value judgement on to stay or to move. Being able to switch to a different silicon valley job, especially when the start up market is hot, is a huge advantage for those bu
Re: Supply and demand (Score:2)
The daycare issue can have high regional variability. When we had our first kid a couple years ago we got on a half dozen daycare lists in our greater area when my wife was about 4 months pregnant. One, only one, finally had a spot for our daughter at 4 months old, and it was the crappiest option by far. We were just thankful to get something. We actually had our first choice daycare call when my daughter was a year and a half old and ask if we still wanted a spot. That's an almost TWO YEAR lag from applica
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I wouldn't commute 200 miles for $1m/year. Now living nearby AND making that kind of money, sounds pretty good to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd commute 200 miles.
With the take-home increase I'd see from a $1m salary, I could easily afford a helicopter (always wanted to get my license) and pay for a driver to chauffeur me in a very comfortable car (party van?) when the weather isn't cooperating. Even better if I can get my employer to subtract it from my compensation package and deduct it as a business expense.
nice try (Score:2)
I'll stick with my remote job at full pay. Employers are going to be disappointed if they let the free market sort it out.
I left my company. (Score:2)
Sold off my stocks to pay off my house in a cheaper part of the states. If they don't want my 5 years of institutional knowledge on their front end systems, or abilities to hire and attract talent, screw 'em.
if you don't like the idea (Score:2)
... Don't take the job?
It clearly is a perq just like a corner office, a reserved parking space, or more vacation, and it's up to the company to decide what combination of benefits and salary to offer.
And then it is entirely your choice to take the job or no.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers that an FRO (Score:2)
Perhaps there ought to be a satirical group like "Slave Drivers" that endorses certain companies for worker-hostility?
Doing the same work for less? (Score:2)
Employees that don't require office space, heating, and electricity which all costs money. Doing the same job, delivering the same value they were working in the office. Without the added stress of commuting and being able to live where they want which makes them happier and able to contribute more effectively.
And all this somehow _reduces_ their value to their employers? Fuck right off with that nonsense.
Mental health (Score:2)
If I go to the office, I'll have to drive in traffic ~ 60 minutes total. The drive home will be slow, bumper to bumper w/ risks of hitting people. More when its snowing.
Now, I might not drive for a week or more. My depression has improved. I'm less angry at things. I am not getting burned out as I was before.
But I have a WFH job. I could leave & get more for something in an office, but it just isn't worth 30-40% more pay and 10% less time for myself because of the commute.