• gonzoleroy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose employee value is for any given company to decide. Companies that determine there is value in having employees onsite, and as we know there are plenty of them out there, may place more value on their in-office employees–even if they allow certain positions to be remote.

    From what I’ve seen many remote advocates don’t want to discuss the extra benefits they receive from working remotely as compared with their in-office peers, but it’s true nonetheless.

    I say all this not because I’m anti-WFH, but because I advocate equal compensation for all employees. Folks who expect equal pay while also having zero or reduced commute burden are thinking only of themselves as I see it. Commuting is a pain in the ass, the costs are always rising, and it’s been a problem that employers have passed on to workers for entirely too long. So as long as employees find ways like WFH to mitigate the problem, all employees should benefit in some way. Fair is fair for all, not just some.

    • DrunkenPirate@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Got your point but the direction of result isn’t right imho. Why should WFH employees accept lower compensation? In theory and in now in practice, they can start working anywhere in the country. If they face a reduction because of WFH, they will move to another company for sure. The remote work situation together with aging society massively shifted the power to employees. You aren’t bound to an area for work anymore.

      I think employees that must go to offices should get an extra raise to compensate for the fuel, time, and clothing.