• Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No we won’t and this nonsense article tries to set a very bad precedent. I was dealing with this just yesterday, new job offer comes my way last month with 2 salary choices. Come in the office for 20% more pay, work from home for less. I’m already making the higher amount with my current job, working from home. So I pass, They counter and offer other perks, I pass. This goes on for 9 days now. Yesterday, I just told them to stop, I have zero interest in working with a company that tries every way to hire me except for what I ask for.

    I might add that the financials of the company were north of a billion. Get paid for what you’re worth, not where you work.

    • UnknownCircle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This should be standard, people don’t become less productive when working from home. Vast majority of wfh folks I know spend more time and are more productive at home. If my company tried to pull this nonsense (it wouldn’t because its actually a great place to work) I’d immediately start looking for a different job. On Linkedin and other platforms I literally don’t even consider or look at non wfh positions.

      Also I don’t know what jobs are thinking. Its stupid to think someone will change jobs for less pay and move into a non-wfh position from a wfh one. Those jobs should always be avoided, because they clearly think you’re too stupid to do basic math.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d consider taking an in-office position if the trade off was I start my commute at 9, and leave so I get home roughly for 5, so the tradeoff is that my drive is on company time.

        If part of my job is to look at the inside of my car for 90 minutes and then remote connect to my home computer from the other side of the city for some reason, and you’re willing to pay me more than my currently employer to do so: have at it.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          this would still require a bump for me. I get to see my wife and dog casually all day. I am able to eat a nicer and cheaper meal at home as well as walk my dog at lunch. Then there is the additional environmental damage that comes out of my commute. That scenario would significantly reduced the bump I would expect from in office though.

  • snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When my job went remote from covid it was like getting a double digit raise if I count the commute as overtime and vehicle costs plus on site meals.

    That means working from home is comparable to a pay raise. That does not mean that workers need to give anything up to keep it. It means companies need to pay more to people who are required to commute.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      yup. I give a rate for 100% wfh and what the bump has to be for each day of the week expected in office. I will work in office but they will have to pay and its not cheap.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or…OR!…and hear me out here…we work remotely in jobs where it is sensible to do so, AND keep the pay.

    Garbage corpo propaganda piece.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think their true motivation is less available tax write-offs for that commercial real estate expense, which seems to me like piss poor adaptability of a company that a free market should eat alive.