I believe employees have to start to get used to being paid less when working remote. People who work in an office or factory have to be rewarded for this commute. Some jobs cannot be made remote.
I assume a lot of people working remote also like the fact that they can do the laundry, clean the house, do some errands etc during the working day. This flexibility should also allow the salary for remote workers to be lower than for people working in an office.
Most of the people here (and at Salesforce) are paid, in theory at least, according to their skillset and the value they bring to a company.
Why should that pay differ depending on where someone is sitting when they deliver said value?
I mainly tried to say that if we want to have people working in factories, working as nurses or doing office work that requires working as a team in person or meeting clients or what ever it might be then we have to start to pay them more compared to people who work from home.
Last I checked, no one paid me" for my commute time or comp'd the wear on my vehicle. If those hours* spent in traffic should have been counted on the clock, then golly gee, I have invoices yo get written!
Seriously, I get it. There should be something for it, but there never will be. Wage theft. Management will do anything possible to get unpaid time out of you.
As it's probably easier to hire someone to work remote than hire someone who has to go to the office, the salaries will probably over time be less for work from home jobs anyway (for the same type of job).
It's funny how people feel so entitled to their salaries and that management is there to rip people off. I get it for warehouse people, but for tech workers, come on.
That does not follow. I quote you a salary sufficient to warrant me to work for you. You don't get to come back and demand that you should be able to pay me less when I no longer commute when I'm still working for you. Unless the physical presence in the office is absolutely essential (which it isn't for knowledge workers in the way it is for a stocker or laborer), and the tech exists where working remote is a reasonable accommodation (which it does), then you wanting me in the office to get the job done is now something on the table for me (the employee) to charge you, the employer extra for. In no way are you, (the employer) entitled to an extra discount because I'm not driving in. Nevermind that I don't offer one of those. Though I may to have to ruminate on it.
>It's funny how people feel so entitled to their salaries and that management is there to rip people off.
It's funny how companies feel entitled to their profits and that employees are there to rip them off.
A) People are free to set the price of their time.
B) Management is explicitly there to get the absolute most out of workers with the least input. Even if that means playing dirty, (hopefully not, but I've seen a lot of it). You can say their purpose is leadership, but I've been privy to what high level management types think leadership is, and unfortunately, it ain't leadership. I know leadership. Come from a family with a lot of military background. Civillian business management theory abandoned most facets of leadership in order to cut corners, and maximize value generation. Just look at the C-Suite-to-everyone else pay disparity to see the fruits of that.
The firm didnt give 2 bits about your commute. They pay you to be in on time. Not your commute. I know people who travel 6 hours a day. They get paid the same.
Why would any firm increase salaries, for services you were already providing?
You get maybe 12 waking hours a day, 8 working +2 commuting. Getting 2 hours back is a 16% raise.
If they then all of a sudden don't have to commute (let's say 5 hours), then why could they then not be okay with a slightly lower salary (as they save 5 hours a day).
