The voters have decided that Tanmoykayesen is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also by Tanmoykayesen+36Feeling your butt cheeks with your opposite hand make them seem smaller than with your same hand. amirite?
Also about Jobs & Employment+162I don't care how you're doing at work, amirite?
Also by Tanmoykayesen+141Renting a limousine is more indicative of wealth than owning a limousine. amirite?
Also by Tanmoykayesen+50If dogs could use computers they'd probably have their owners on their screensavers, amirite?
Also about Jobs & Employment+180I don't think Gaming should be work or about "earning" gear, levels, ect. amirite?
WFH is actually good (cheaper) for the employer though. If your emploees don't come to the office, you don't need to provide electricity, a desk, a place to sit, a break room, bathrooms, snacks, cleaning...
You are thinking backwards... If WFH is cheaper than office work and the productivity is the same, the employer should not cut pay for WFH workers, they should pay WFH workers MORE. Why would the employer NOT want to cut their expenditures?
And actually, they sometimes do pay WFH workers more. Like, paying the worker's electric bill, paying for their food. Still cheaper than having an entire office space for someone.
Why does the location of where a person carries out their working day matter when it comes to their wages?
Some get travel allowance when they work abroad. If employer need to fork out more money when employee work further away, shouldn't they entitled for cost cutting for giving the benefit for working from home
You were wrong the second that you started to compare it to professions like plumbing.
Life isn't fair in that way, so we shouldn't try to put unequal things on an equal playing field.
If working from home saves a company money and they get more or equal output from an employee, then there's literally no good argument for lower pay.
I'll stress that there are arguments, just no good ones.
Well it's supply and demand. Wfh isn't the important part. Well paid wfh jobs require specific sets of skills. If you don't have those skills then the wfh job you end up obtaining probably pays you less than a plumber anyway.
A person should get paid less because someone in an entirely different job works somewhere else?
Let's go back to communism and have everyone be paid exactly the same
Jk, let's definitely not do that, please
Based on my experience, these jobs do pay less in most cases. That being said it ends up being more because of money saved from transportation.
Is that you Elon?
That makes no sense. You are paid what you are worth to the company. If you are benefiting the company just as much as you were when you were in the office, there's no reason for a pay reduction.
Would you buy something if is cheaper than before? Or do you insist on paying the before discount price because that's how it is previously worth? Free market and competition should drive work from home jobs to be cheaper as it is definitely an extra benefit
And yet it doesn't, because that would be moronic.
After the big tech big shuffle, more jobs are offered at a lower pay for wfh position due to over supply in office workers
Work from home is a bigger benefit to the company compared to the employee, as long as they have good employees that they actually look after.
For example, my friends company is mostly work from home now, he doesn't micromanage his staff, focuses more on if the job is done on time, instead of when the job was done giving his staff more flexibility, independence, freedom etc. In exchange for that, compared to what he was paying, he pays hardly anything for rent, insurance, electricity, internet etc has more international contacts, because some of his staff members don't mind starting late and finishing later to match their time zone.
With the money he is saving he could hire two more staff members if he wanted (he gave everyone a raise to cover any electricity, internet etc use increase in their home instead)
So even if you're the best employee in the office and never missed a deadline...you're still paid less just because you work from home.
What a braindead take.
Is never a reward. Is a trade. So I assume if work from home is a better offer, then free market should drive the pay down for its obvious benefit
Not everything has to be a zero sum game you know.
In the office?
In the figurative
Businesses are finding their overhead drops when employees who can work from home. Less office space required, less utilities costs, less wear and tear on the property, less cleaning costs, etc.
And you think the employees should make less so the business can benefit more financially?
Yeah, this should be unpopular.
While employers are minority compare to employee, why should we as a society benefit employee more than employers. Employers should be rewarded more for the risk taken being a business owner
The value of my work product does not increase if I produce it in an office or at home.
So why should I be paid less if I produce it at home?
Working from home reduces traffic, wear and tear on road ways, noise and pollution.
We should mandate work from home when possible.
My plumber and electrician charge me just for showing up, and the construction engineer I used for my house billed me hourly from the moment he left his door. I'm fine paying workers for their (reasonable) commute and travel times, but that doesn't mean you need to tear down other workers.
Why are you comparing random unrelated jobs?
WFH also benefits employers because they don't need to pay for office space. Wouldn't they WANT to create an incentive for WFH employees?
Yeah, in a cost of living crisis, you know who needs to make more money, big business, that's who.
It might not be big business though. It could be small and medium businesses that face difficulties under the face of inflation too
They have plenty of support with intrest free loans and government schemes. They do not need to be taking money off people badly getting by.
If a company is doing work from home they are already making saving without the cost of an office as it is.
Do you mean company that do not benefit from what you mentioned can cut cost on employee?
bro why would you be so quick to make an opinion when you don't even understand the opinion you have lmaooo
The employer has already made a saving from no longer needing an office space and the associated ulties. Thus, they do not need to lower the pay for an employee doing the same job just at home where it costs them, their ulties.
I disagree, as reducing pay for work-from-home employees might cause a decline in their motivation and job satisfaction, which in turn could have a negative impact on overall productivity and company success. It's important to treat all employees fairly regardless of their work location.
Reducing the wage of say, a software engineer, is a really weird way to try and boost the number of say, chefs.
If you can't find a chef, offer more money. One will show up.
If you work from home, you actually have to pay a bunch of costs like heating and electricity that otherwise would be had at work. If anything, the employer should pay me extra (luckily my employer does do this).
See, my wife's company has taken the exact opposite approach. They're of the mindset, "Hey, with all these people working from home doing the exact same thing they were doing in the office, we no longer have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to rent more office space than we need."
They're saving money, we're saving money, people are happy and able to live more fulfilling lives, everybody wins!
I agree that you should be paid for commute time. But work from home vs on site is a matter of production. Some people are better on site and some people are better at home.