I used to work for a company that had the right idea. We brought our work trucks home, and our work day started when we turned the key, and ended when we got home.
Had to be at a job for 8 and it was an hour away? You were paid for that. Only had a job 5 minutes away? Enjoy the extra sleep in time and the short commute home.
Now, this is way different than an office job that is stationary, but there is definitely a conversation to be had about it. If nothing else, it may have more companies going back to taking WFH seriously again instead of needlesslt forcing people back into office spaces in order to prop up the commercial real estate sector.
When I had a 1hr commute through heavy city traffic, I needed a break when I walked in the door. It took me at least an hour to get up the energy to do anything. Most of the time I would sip coffee while pretending to read e-mails or talk to coworkers. My body might be there but I wasn’t doing anything. So the company was paying for my recovery time from the “work” of the commute.
I don’t know why any company would push an employee into a long commute if it’s not necessary. It costs the company a ton of money in productivity.
It’s the problem with companies focusing on time spent, not productivity. I can waste a ton of time and get nothing done if I am so inclined.
Removed by mod
This idea that to be stable or put down roots means buying a single family home in the suburbs is one of the biggest problems in America. Because of this idea, there’s so little high quality medium density housing designed for families in cities, which only reinforces this idea. It causes people spread out, they isolate, they use more energy to live and commute, they don’t have experiences with a diverse group of people.
In many Labor Economic Models, the distinction in Time is measured as Time spent working vs Time spent not working, in which the commute is factored. Many companies deal with people’s reluctance to commute by offering better pay or better benefits (if they’re seeking specific skillsets that are more difficult to find close by), but sometimes you find a gem like your company.
I know it would be difficult to implement for many companies, but I wish more companies did something like that when they could. The company I work for doesn’t pay for commutes from home, but will pay for them if you are temporarily relocated to a different office by calculating the distance between the two offices and average fuel price
From what understand that is following the U.S. tax code. The commute from your home to your assigned work location is considered the employees responsibility. If they are temporarily assigned to another location further away, the difference in mileage is considered a business expense. In some states they are required to pay the employee. In others it’s an allowable wage theft, the company claims the mileage and doesn’t reimburse the employee.
I drive a work vehicle. I have to declare how many personal miles I used the vehicle for yearly. Personal miles are all non-company related miles and the commute to my primary office. This benefit is considered income and taxed.
Currently my primary office is my home so 95% of my miles are business. At my last job they assigned my primary office to one 20 miles away (even though I was only there 1 day every 2 weeks). As such 20% of my miles were personal. A real dick move in my opinion but perfectly legal.
Oh it’s simple. Would you be commuting if you didn’t have the job? No? Then it’s work related and should be compensated.
If you have a two hour daily commute you should be paid for those two hours. Hell the company should probably pay for the cost of commuting and a tax for offsetting the emissions.
They would just not hire people that live two hours away.
And this is a problem because…?
Because that just limits people’s ability to find employment.
I’ve had jobs where I lived 10 minutes away, and took a different job with a further commute because it paid significantly more.
Should an employee have to up and move their house every time they change employers, or should employees be able to decide if a long commute is worth it to them based on the offer?
If everyone commuted two hours daily, we’d fuck our climate even faster, so…
Greater Toronto Area what’s up
Because that just limits people’s ability to find employment.
Not really? In cities with actual functional public transit, you can go way further than you can with a car. In cities with reasonable density, the stuff you need, including job opportunities, aren’t 2 hours away to begin with. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
Even in my city with mediocre transit, and that’s got way more sprawl than necessary for the population, I can cross the city, a distance of 20 miles/31km, using transit, in 1.5hrs. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
I’ve had jobs where I lived 10 minutes away, and took a different job with a further commute because it paid significantly more.
How much further? 30 mins? 2 hours? Let me guess, you used a car because transit and density is bad?
Should an employee have to up and move their house every time they change employers, or should employees be able to decide if a long commute is worth it to them based on the offer?
That’s a loaded question, a strawman, and a black or white fallacy. It isn’t an either/or, and you’re reaching for the absolute most unreasonable scenario that’s unlikely to happen to begin with. That’s called arguing in bad faith.
Removed by mod
you are arguing against a city with quality public transportation which is not always the case and wasn’t the original arguement.
It should be, and we should be making those changes, so arguing that something is only a problem if the given situation really should be temporary isn’t a very good argument. Arguing that this change is a problem (It still isn’t for the majority of people) if we’re dealing with problems in other areas (So this change itself isn’t even the problem, it just exacerbates another one, that we should be fixing anyway), isn’t a very good argument.
I think the biggest point the other poster is arguing is that personal choice comes into play.
“Personal Choice” is only an argument when it doesn’t affect other people. Having a 2 hour commute by car definitely does. And even if it didn’t, it has a large effect on the person doing it. And we block/disincentivize people from doing other harmful things. Why is this one special?
It’s not the employers job to tell you how to get to work,
Good thing nobody suggested it was.
nor is it their responsibility if you want to take a job a distance from your house
So commutes should be unpaid, despite the only reason you do it is because of work? Why are commutes different from other work? They pay when you’re moving between jobsites, why is this different? “Employers don’t have control over it”? Did you know relocation packages are a thing? Lobbying for loosened zoning, so we can have higher density? Better public transit? They have far from 0 control over it.
its their job to find the best candidate who is willing to do the job offered.
And they need to include a variety of circumstances, one of which is the employee’s proximity to any jobsites, because how long it takes them to get there is very much relevant in many industries. And in the ones it isn’t, remote work is quite often possible.
You also argue against the argument that people won’t move house every time they change job.
I didn’t though. In fact, if you’re planning on a 2 hour commute, you should be considering moving closer, or not taking that job.
It sounds extreme, but it is always an option for the employee and a part of free choice.
We also block people from purchasing food with bleach in it. That’s part of free choice, isn’t it? Why is this choice so important that it should be up to the person to make? The externalities of having a 2 hour commute are massive, and even just the effects on the person themselves are also huge. Since these 2 hour commutes are mostly done by car, that’s a huge mental load on the person doing the commute, and a lot of emissions, which we should be avoiding.
No, people should not be free to choose a 2 hour car commute.
The people who live closer than 2 hours away can afford to work for a better company
That doesn’t even make sense.
Let’s say I have a job right now that I live 10 minutes from. I interview for a different job in the next city over, or across town, because it’s offering 50% more than my current job, but my commute would end up being an hour and a half.
How does that mean that by living closer to my current job I can afford to work for the company an hour and a half away?
But the pool of people living close enough is really small.
I would move as far as possible from the job site. 2 hours one way on a train watching Netflix, 4 hours work, 2 hours relax on the train. That would be nice.
…and you just wouldn’t get hired, because the guy who lives next to their office is a more attractive option, even if he’s only 80% as productive as you.
And that’s arguably why it makes some sense; companies would be more likely to hire more locally and be more flexible about remote work - both of which save precious planetary resources ánd people’s time.
Companies would also then be incentivized to invest in and lobby for better affordable housing in the communities their offices are located in/around so that employees at all pay scales have affordable options within a few miles of the office.
They could even set up close by company shops, where you could pay with company issued tokens, along with clinics, amenities, and private security for the urbanization…
Which is why I also advocate for laws keeping corporations/business out of residential property ownership altogether.
I would just move temporarily, and after probation period move far away. Surely they can’t fire me because my living situation changed and had to move…
In this hypothetical scenario this gets implemented it would certainly be standard to have a clause to protect employers against exactly that.
Seems kinda shitty that you basically can’t move without employer’s approval.
Also poorer people living farther away would get discriminated.
It’d be fair to just keep paying the same compensation you received before moving; you could still move, but you’d have to pay the price.
And yeah, there are still a lot of problems with this approach as long as housing is left to market forces. But those problems are inherent to free markets, not to this possible solution to another problem.
They very much can, will, and do for much less. Welcome to an “at-will” employer. The only thing that’s illegal is discrimination
What about “living distance discrimination”… /s
okay but when do chores happen? i can barely keep up on dishes and laundry with a 45 minute commute each way. sleep, too…
Currently you work 8 hours + 1.5 hours commute. With this you’d work 6.5 hours + 1.5 hour commute, so you’d have 1.5 extra hour for chores or whatever.
If you use train/bus for commuting, you can even sleep there :-)
i didn’t realize the commute was implicitly a part of the 8 hours in your scenario. that makes a little more sense.
You’re highlighting that it’s not a great solution, but at least a 2 hours of flat payment per office call would be an acknowledgement of my time considering it’s an hour each way for the majority of people.
Removed by mod
In the US, commutes aren’t covered and that’s part of law. However, the FLSA was passed in the 30s and the Portal-to-Portal Act was passed in the 40s so it’s arguably time to reevaluate.
As pro labor as I am, I do think it’s reasonable to put some cap on commute times so that commuters can’t abuse it. The hard part is coming up with a good one. You can’t give a max time without some idea of things like housing, public transportation, commute costs, etc. because then employers could abuse it by setting up offices away from everything or setting the radius too low.
A completely different problem for paid commutes is that suddenly it becomes work time. When I had a shit job doing pool inspections, the city controlled my time in the car from the office to the pools and back. The city did not control my time commuting. If the company is paying me for my commute, I’m on the clock, which means they can reasonably ask me to do things like not listen to my podcasts or take specific routes. If I’m on public transport, they can reasonably ask me to do work because I’m being paid. My solution here is working from home.
I think this conversation is more about office workers than site workers. You need to get on site to do the work but office workers don’t need to actually go in, they are being told they have to come in and the time needed to adhere to an enforced policy should be included in the work day.
Everything I said applies to office work.
As a manager with a limited budget that I want to stretch as much as possible, I need to limit the amount of it I spend paying for commutes. At the same time, I need to make sure my team is protected from the company abusing a commute cap.
Similarly, if I’m paying for an employee’s commute, I’d like to get some value out of that. That’s money out of my budget I’m spending for no appreciable gains unless they’re producing. I can build work that’s doable on a train or a bus.
Of course, all of this is solved by WFH as I said at the end of my previous post.
if I’m paying for an employee’s commute, I’d like to get some value out of that. That’s money out of my budget I’m spending for no appreciable gains unless they’re producing.
So, like bathrooms. Do you require employees to “produce” while in the bathroom, or do you write it off as part of general expenses along with chairs, lighting, and office cleaning?
Commuting is an expense linked to the production, and should be billed accordingly. The gains, are preparing the employee to produce; just like starting a production line, it doesn’t happen instantly.
Strictly speaking, even WFH employees should be paid a “getting up” rate for the time it takes them to get up to working speed.
If I’m actually onsite, my employer has tremendous control over that. They can play the music they want and ban headphones. They can put a bunch of informational literature all over the bathrooms (this is a thing Google does/did). If I start getting paid for the commute, suddenly my employer has the ability to start controlling that.
You and I agree that commute should be paid. What I think you’re lacking right now is my point about the commute being controlled. If it’s paid, it can be controlled, and that’s something I’m personally not comfortable with.
If the company is paying me for my commute, I’m on the clock, which means they can reasonably ask me to do things like not listen to my podcasts or take specific routes. If I’m on public transport, they can reasonably ask me to do work because I’m being paid.
You do work: you commute.
If the company wants you to do some other kind of work in that time, they can offer an office space in your car or public transport… or have you stay at your home office, it’s up to them.
There should be a reasonable limit of one hour in normal traffic for the commute each way though. Basing it on time would encourage companies to be flexible on start/end times to avoid needing to pay for people to sit in traffic, and there should be some kind of high but not crazy limit on commute time.
Yes I should only have to kiss and lick one boot a day each way maximum.
Imagine how much more chill everyone on the road would be if they were getting paid to be there.
Removed by mod
Is a worker on the road for their own benefit or for the benefit of their employer? Do people voluntarily choose to drive in godawful rush hour traffic 5 days a week just for shits and giggles, or is it because times are mandated by their employer?
Fuck you. Pay me.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision? Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes, and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
It’s a nuanced debate. In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer. Huh, just something else to think about.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
This only seems like a difficult question if it’s one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it’s one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.
Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they’ll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.
Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices… ugh.
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes,
If companies charge to have their workers commute to work locations to do jobs for them, then yes, they should.
Basically the flip side of the coin of, for example, a plumber coming out to your house to fix a leaky pipe charging you for him to actually come out to the house regardless of any work done when he gets there.
and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
Well a company should make sure compensation is satisfactory enough for the best talent to do the best work for them.
Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Only if employees can dictate where employers have their offices at, to make their commuting life easier.
It’s a nuanced debate.
Actually, I’m big on nuanced conversations, but I really don’t think it is in this case, I think what you been expressing is more strawmanning than actual real world scenarios.
In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer.
I don’t think you can use this as a justification for the points you’ve been expressing, as a military and a corporation are two very different things, and the responsibilities of persons to each of them is very different, and not comparable.
Huh, just something else to think about.
Well, real conversations are always better than just attempts to redirect the narrative, that’s for sure.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
I don’t think a company would want to restrict themselves by using that as a criteria, because someone who is much better for the position but lives farther away may be excluded for the person who lives closer who cannot do the job as well.
Cost to employer is calculated based on many factors, the capability of the worker doing the work is one of them.
People don’t choose to commute for “shits and giggles”, but there is choice involved in how long your commute is, if it’s a job that pays well enough that moving is an option. To be clear, if a job is changing from remote to in-office, I think it should absolutely come with a pay increase to compensate for that increased labor of getting to the office. But should you be paid for the time spent commuting as if they’re working hours? That doesn’t seem right to me.
I live in a city with ridiculous urban sprawl. However, I choose to live in a smaller apartment with a higher $/sq ft so that my commute is just a 10 min bike ride. I chose it both because it saves me time and reduces the amount of pollution I’m contributing every day. I have coworkers, though, that choose to live as far as 2 hrs drive each way, outside of the reach of the city’s public transport. I’ve asked, and their reasons are: to be closer to their relatives, to be in a part of town they just like better, for lower cost housing so they can spend more elsewhere, or bc they want their kids to be raised in a suburb instead of the city. They all technically could live closer, but they choose not to because they have other priorities. Which is fine and valid, but still ultimately a choice.
So, should my coworkers be paid up to 50% more than me (4 hrs per day!) because of their choice? Or to say it another way, should I be paid less than them because of my choice that is already costing me more in rent? Wouldn’t that actually incentivize longer commutes and the problems that come with it, like more road congestion and more pollution? Realistically, I think employers would stop employing those who live so far because they’re not actually getting more value from the employee that’s costing them 50% more.
“but there is choice involved in how long your commute is”
I can choose to live half an hour away, or I can choose to be homeless because wages are shit and rents are high.
That’s why that sentence continues…
if it’s a job that pays well enough that moving is an option
The transportation situation in the US is fully the failure of cities, states and the federal government to fund and plan for adequate land use and transport networks.
I could not agree more. The vast majority of American cities seem to have been thrown together ad hoc one development at a time with zero planning for mass transit with a few exceptions like Chicago.
In person work should be taxed to pay for the roads, transit, and congestion costs they cause if we really wanna get all ‘let’s measure productivity’ about this.
Your commute is your own problem, I don’t pay my employees for driving to work, they can always move closer to the office or sleep in their cars in the parking lot overnight if driving home and back is such a big deal.
So no, I won’t be paying you to drive home and furthermore, at my businesses I have a swear jar policy; every swear word an employee says I take a dollar/hour off their pay for that day. So watch your potty mouth or you’ll be the one who ends up paying me.
I have seen you thinking similarly on other posts. Are you actually a business owner or just a troll? Based on that second paragraph I have to believe you’re just a troll.
Forcing companies to pay for commute time would also force companies to lobby for more efficient public transport and cycleways, and limit private car access to areas with regular traffic jams. In addition, there are certain job categories where driving time is limited by law: truck drivers, bus drivers, and others. However, these rules only apply when the driver is being compensated for being on the road. So, your bus driver may have driven for two hours to get to work, and now he’s towards the end of his nine-hour shift, bone-tired. If the company was forced to pay him for his commute, his shift would end after seven hours, and possibly five (if he has to drive back home for another two hours). That would improve road safety. I think the two aspects - more public transport and more road safety - should be enough for everyone to support the idea of paid commute.
Would also encourage employers to allow remote working
Absolutely! I’m salaried, so paying for my commute wouldn’t make any difference, but I’m incentivizing my employer to let me work from home by spending my potential commute time at the computer. No big difference for me, but enough that they are happy to let me stay on hybrid.
Even salaried workers get overtime in certain situations. You’d either get a raise or a “travel stipend”
Neither. Instead of overtime, we’re partly on flex time, where we can leave on Friday after lunch, if we reached our 40 hours. However, we always have more projects than people, so the hour or so extra per day when working from home is quite normal. No travel stipend, either - I’m lucky to live in a city where one-way journey is €2, which is negligible. It’s certainly cheaper than replenishing my burned calories when I cycle or run to work…
In my area, public transport will likely never improve, even with tons of support from local voters and business people because racism.
I lived in Atlanta, and was told that this was the reason one of the counties (Cobb) refused metro transport. Had to reject a job offer there before I got a car.
ah, the infamous East Cobb snobs and their NIMBY brigade.
p.s. hello neighbor!
Small world! That’s literally the exact area I’m talking about!
deleted by creator
It would also give employers a shared incentive to address the cost of housing. It would either incentivize the companies to not build all the jobs in a single location (ie. downtown of a major city), or it would give them an incentive to pursue policies that would lower the costs of housing in major metropolitan areas.
Holy shit that made a lot of sense.
Commutes are part of the work day if the employer does not allow WFH. How else is the employee supposed to show up for work?
There is no reason to debate, it’s clear as day. But the greedy, rich assholes on the reins think everyone should be honored to waste their lives working under them.
Commutes are part of the work day if the employer does not allow WFH. How else is the employee supposed to show up for work?
This.
Our country went mostly work-from-home for over a year, and people were more productive, not less. If you’re going to inconvenience your work force unnecessarily then you should pay for it, absolutely.
WFH?
Work from home
Removed by mod
This would create an issue where they only hire people in close proximity. This is terrible, for a number of reasons.
Nepotism gets exponentially worse and is then excused, poor areas will be effected the most because they lack businesses
I think a better solution is allowing people who have longer commutes to write it off on their taxes. This prevents the issues above
Subsidize based on type of transportation used? Public transit is mostly subsidized, and private transportation is the least subsidized. This would make employers seek out poorer people.
Private transportation is not the least subsidized. The government spends ridiculous sums of money to maintain infrastructure specifically for cars.
I think they’re saying kind of the opposite, they’re proposing that the employer be assisted in payroll by the government to hire folks, and they get more assistance for people with less commute impact?
Idk, most of these solutions boil down to UBI with extra steps imo. Once we get much further up the chain than “workers shouldn’t be burdened by commutes” then the obvious answer is to pay people to not need cars and that’s a lot like UBI, and I’d prefer we just do that than make it more complicated
Why would the employers care?
deleted by creator
When I studied sociology, the common time spent commuting was generally 1 hour each way.
My own commute by public transport or bicycle is 50 minutes to 1 hr
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Don’t like the commute - pick a different job or move, you’re an adult who can make these decisions.
Well yeah, that’s what’s happening. That’s what sparked this debate.
People ARE leaving their jobs for other organizations that allow work from home, getting paid more in some instances too.
If a competing business can’t offer more than what the same work from home jobs are offering for the same position, work from home will win every time. Just like you said, it’s business. Supply and demand, in a tidy work offer contract based on what is agreed upon.
Everyone at my work is complaining about the commute with RTO. I have a 15 minute bike ride to work on a secluded trail, I dont care
Aww good for you, here is a cookie… now you can ride off the calories on your way to work and feel more accomplished…
Also, half the time, I’m literally taking work meetings during my commute because I’m both required to physically be in the office and also start taking meetings before I can even get to work.
deleted by creator
When meetings are scheduled while I’m on my way home (I work 07:00 to 15:00 so it happens regularly), I fill my timesheet to show that as work time. I’m happy to argue if I ever get called on it
I have participated in meetings on the bus, in my car, on my bicycle, and while at the hair dresser, all that was work time
If i live 3 hours from my workplace my employer should pay me for the six hours to get to and from?
maybe I’m old school…
more reasonably would be something like the first 30 mins of commuting counts as working hours, as an example
Very unrealistic example to use… It would be very unusual for anyone to take a job that’s 3 hours away and make a six hour commute daily, while working an 8 to 10 hour work day… that example is not the norm and would never be the norm for majority. But let’s say for arguments sake you example works… yes the employer should pay you for that extreme commute… absolutely… but maybe I am more new school which was bound to happen as time wore on in society
there are people who took jobs during the pandemic that were not in the neighborhood. this is not as an unreasonable example as it would have been five years ago.
That’s not what I said… and that’s not what you claimed… and also… no one works in their neighborhood, unless they work from home… most work in theirs, or the neighborhing CITY. Most of us workers (at least 95% of us workers) do not and would not work at a job site for minimal pay, with a 3 hour commute both ways and not be well compensated for that commute or be some type of truck driver who is compensated for that.
lol ok buddy
Removed by mod
that’s the point of this outrageous example. How about this: Suppose there are two employees: Alice and Bob, who do the same job at the same factory. Alice has a 10 minute commute, Bob commutes 35 minutes. If you’re the owner of the factory, how would you compensate them for their commutes?
Removed by mod
This doesn’t entirely make sense, since commute is only a part of the routine. You could say, you wouldn’t be taking a shower, so the employer has to pay for the water and the time you spend in the shower, etc.
The employer has no influence on where you live, why would they be paying for it?
If the company is paying for your skills, sitting in traffic is not one of them. So it’s up to you to optimise your commute. (I.e. Bike, train, etc.)
ew, who wouldn’t be taking a shower if not for work? 🤮
Eh, showering every day is bad for your skin and uses a lot of water. I work from home and definitely don’t shower every day especially if I’m only going to be leaving the house to walk my dog.
I prefer taking a shower in the evening. If you’re suggesting people should shower twice I day (instead of just a wash-up), you’re being wasteful.
No, I’m suggesting taking a shower once a day should not be related at all with going to work or not.
using a bike or a train in America is the exact opposite of optimizing one’s commute.
now I WFH - thankfully - but looking up my old commute (10 miles)
27 mins by car
110 mins by public transit
105 mins by bike
215 mins walking
Motorcycle? Private helicopter? Teleport?
The solution is working from home.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all jobs could be done from home?
The amazing part is lots can, and that would instantly decongest infrastructure so that those who did have to go in would have an easier time about it.
Removed by mod
What bubble?
During COVID-19 close to 70% of full-time workers are working from home.
Even if we account for the pandemic “changing” reality, there is still a current report that says near 40% can work remotely.
The majority of U.S. workers overall (61%) do not have jobs that can be done from home.
If it was possible for 70% of the country to work from home when it was suddenly needed, and even now 30-40% still do with a booming market economy, the only bubble appears to be the one the media is creating around your ears with the dollars their corporate overlords are paying them.
Removed by mod
Seriously this only works for like white collar office work and even then not really. Anyone working with inventory or warehouse and all the jobs that are food service and other onsite management go where?
They don’t want to admit it but it really does not work for more than a specific group of office jobs.
Removed by mod
I would be jealous, if sitting at a desk didn’t make me wanna hang myself with an ethernet cable. I’m a process engineer in a steel mill and holy sweet fuck did I wanna die when I was WFH as a desk engineer. Bored out of my mind and feeling like I’ll never progress because I couldn’t even network well with managers/engineers like you can in a mill/in person office.
That’s when I learned at this point in my career, heavily WFH is not for me. I need challenged and I need hands on, 1 of those I very much cannot get at home
A lot of jobs can be done from home.
Set minimum wage for any in-office position to match the amount required to purchase a house within 15 minutes average transit to the office.
Min 250k salary in Seattle lol.
Yeah. That’s exactly what it should be, and would like up correctly with what C level people have given themselves in pay raises over the past decade.
nonono, if all the lowly peasants get a comfortable wage, how would execs be able to afford their second summer homes? Won’t someone think of them?
Seattle should build more walkable neighborhoods with a metro, lol.
God yes please
deleted by creator
Some people just want to watch the world burn. I love it haha
Sometimes the old has to be burned down to prepare the ground for new growth.
I say it, knowing that there’s no possibility of it happening in the current day but, really, it’s the only way that’s fair for both sides and removes most potential discriminatory policies. If a business can’t afford to pay its workers enough to have a decent life, they can’t afford to be in business.
Or reform land and housing so the landlord grifters stop fucking everyone over simply for having their name in a registry of who owns what.
Porque no los dos?
So that’s, what, $1,500,000 per hour?
I’m not sure what area has average cost of houses around $2.8B but, if that’s the cost, sure. That is, of you’re not trying to imply that the “Wage-Price Spiral” exists, despite all evidence contrary.
You were ambiguous about the amount of time to buy a house.
I went absurd and suggested that they should make enough to buy one house per hour.
Do I have to perform the commute to be employed at Job X? If so, sure as hell sounds like a part of Job X to me.
I don’t think you want to work at X…
Especially as a moderator
In general, bosses want white collar workers to work 24/7 — at home, on the train, in the car, etc. etc. It’s ridiculous. Push to keep your work and home life separate. And if your boss expects you to work on your commute, count those hours towards your “40 a week”.
I actually wouldn’t mind counting the commute towards my workday if we had reliable public transit with secure wifi around here. I could get set up, go through emails, square my head for the workday, etc. on the way in and wind down, answer emails, finish up small tasks on the way back. All while actually committing 8 hours a day to my employer rather than 8 plus commute time. Could allow more flexibility for folks living further away from their office as well.
I feel like the argument against is always going to be the same though. Work outside the office isn’t Real Work because Real Work can only happen in a cubicle under surveillance. It’s the same reason they don’t want us to work from home
When I remote in on the bus to/from work, that’s work hours. It’s slightly cheating on the maximum 40% WFH but I haven’t had complaints. I share network from my phone
This is easy: would I be going there daily if I didn’t have to per the employers requirements?
If yes: then it’s my problem not the employer If no: it’s the emplpyer’s problem not mine
Lots of bickering about how it works now vs how it should work. Meanwhile I’m going crazy that nobody is pointing out how much of the burden of the commute is placed on the worker. It’s literally thousands of dollars a year in being licensed to drive, vehicle registration, insurance costs, variable and ever increasing gas prices, repair and maintenance. Every single aspect of the commute is a burden on the worker, and corporations take it for granted. It’s not factored into most people’s pay rate or compensation. Whether or not the employer should be held responsible for relieving some of the burden, we should recognize that workers need to lessen this burden one way or another. Increasing tax deductibles to include commute time isn’t an unreasonable first step. Treat it just like travel for any other work related reason.
You americans propably see this differently, but in europe it’s very simple:
The employer need you to come to work. He doesn’t care where you live and how long your commute is.
The worker can chose an employer close to his home, or relocate and live close to the employer. Generally, if it’s a priority, the worker can live within walking distance of the employer. If other priorities overrule proximity, there’s likely still public transport to get to work.
That is NOT the case in all of Europe. Stop making the rest of us look bad because your country mistreats workers.
At least I got the answer to my “sarcastic or bootlicking moron” question from earlier 🤦
So you are saying it ought to be this way or it already is?
In the Netherlands it’s quite common to receive €0.21 per km tax free (which doesn’t cover the cost of the commute unless you ride a bicycle). I have a job that comes with an EV as a perk, including all charging expenses for company and private use both. I only have to pay for charging outside of the Netherlands. I do pay an extra tax for private use, but since it’s an EV that’s not a big amount at the moment. Some people receive a country wide public transit pass as a perk.
So if your claim is that there is no commute compensation anywhere in Europe, you’re wrong. If you say it ought not to exist, well then I simply disagree.
As a government subsidy it’s quite different from an employer benefit.
A public transport ticket as a perk is also very different. That’s the same for all employees.the way k read the headline, it’s about paying for the time spent commuting.
Commenting in your first remark first:
Yes it is different. But in this case it is both. The company pays that €0.21, which the tax office should normally see as an income for the employee. So the subsidy is in not taxing this income.
The public transit pass (which can be used privately) is not taxed at all.
Tl;dr for paragraph below: EV company cars that are driving privately get big tax benefits
Same goes for the car. Normally a lease car lease is quite expensive and if the employer pays for it, it is seen as an income for the employee IF the employee uses the car privately. This is taxed yearly as if you would have received 22% of the new value of the car per year. So a €100,000 car is taxed as if you’ve received €22,000 in extra income. Depending on what tax bracket you’re in you pay quite a bit of tax on that. Now for EV’s it depends on the year in which the car was registered. I have a car that cost €43,000 from 2020 which is taxed at 8%, so it is taxed only as if I made €3,440 more. This tax comes down to roughly €150 per month which is very roughly €250 less than I’d have paid for a gas car. So a subsidy in essence. This is why you see so many EVs in the Netherlands, though tax benefits are much lower these days.
Now for the part about paying for time rather than travel expenses. Yes, that’s indeed far less common unfortunately. But such measures do lessen the burden somewhat.
this is exactly the logic in the US as well. except we’re more tethered to jobs because of our malignant healthcare system and general lack of a social safety net. and most of us barely, barely have public transport as an option
I’ve been lucky enough to have one job that did pay for transit. Specifically, they would pay for a weekly bus pass for any employer that wanted one, plus monthly bikeshare membership for any employee that wanted that. It was solid.
Here in Alberta if you work in oil, they’ll pay for your hour(s) driving to the site and back.
(Not saying those jobs have fair wages or oil execs divide it fairly or anything of that substance)
I think this makes the most sense. Increasing mobility makes Capitalism more efficient. Public transportation should also be free because of the benefits they have on society. People should also be taxed on miles driven with an additional cost based on weight of the vehicle. Then subtract work commute mileage from salary and tax the remainder.
Although I agree with what everyone is saying “that it make sense to compensate workers for the commute in time and money”, I’d like to nuance a little, because I think it is a bit more complicated from a moral standpoint: Imagine employer were paying for your commute and you were on the clock during it, what happen when you move to another appartment/house further from work ? Should the employer continue to pay and clock your longer commute ? It seems weird that my decision to move to another part of the city would affect my employer. The consequence would be that employer will mandate that you cannot move without their appoval or that their cost for your commute is fixed in the contract and need to be renegociable. In the end what it boils down to is not that commute should be paid for and part of the work day. What people want is better salaries and smaller hours. Then the commute doesn’t matter anymore, and stays at the expense of the worker who can therefore move wherever they want.
what happen when you move to another appartment/house further from work ?
Because employers have never forced indirect layoff by changing a person’s office location without agreement to make them quit instead of being fired.
exactly, this is a non issue. if someone wants to go through the immense hassle and expense of moving just to get like 30mins more pay daily, ok
Removed by mod
The programmers especially on my team agree with you 200%
My team works from four locations in three states, two time zones. We work on the computer, we meet on Teams, we chat on Teams. Occasionally we phone reach other
The other IT people are happy to be in the office occasionally to catch up with others in the office, the programmers overall don’t
So they commute typically about an hour each way on days they must be in the office to work exactly as they do at home and have about as much social contact
Some of them are quite unhappy with the situation
Paying for commute expense is already a solved problem.
Some examples, a fixed amount based on data provided every month for commute. (200 dollars a month or whatever)
Or if a company wants to be both stingy and generous at the same time, make you expense your gas or public transportation every month up to a certain limit.
It doesn’t matter if you move to a different part of town. The cost is negligible to a business.
The expense half may be cheap, but does the time count as wages? That could be non trivial.
In my case, I leave the house an hour before work, but I have some errands I run. When does my “commute” begin? If I wanted to cheat and bump my pay, drive to a park and ride near work and show up on the bus, which wouldn’t be that much longer than normal. Then show my employer the public transit route from my house that would have a 2.5 hour transit time, and claim the extra 3-4 hours as pay.
It’s such a tricky gray area. On the one hand it is unfair to lose hours to a commute on your own time, on the other it creates ways to cheat the system that should be difficult to audit, unless I give my employer permission to track me, which seems unreasonable.
Yes, we all must suffer because Dave was a slimy fuck and lied about his commute that one time. /s
So many good things we decide not to do because Dave might fuck it up.
Or actually, because racism, but we don’t want to admit that and blame a hypothetical Dave instead.
It is not tricky at all. Again the commuting cost is a solved issue and not even the one discussed in the article.
No one pays you by the hour to commute to work. This is not a thing.
I admit I’m not paying to read the full article, but that seems to be exactly what the article is saying, does the workday start when you get to work or when you start the commute?
I’ll agree I’ve never heard someone seriously chase commute as work hours, but this article suggests it is a thing, so I was commenting on that context.
Where I live, I have to calculate (and show the process of calculation) the cheapest cost of getting to and back from work from my house. My boss simply pays me that much each workday. If I move, I have to do this calculation again. It doesn’t matter how long it takes me to get to work (i.e. I’m not “on the clock”), they are simply imbursing me for that part.
Ironically, sometimes moving further away is both cheaper and faster.
Removed by mod
It is for most companies. You put the drive into a mileage calculator for your company and they reimburse you a certain amount per mile. You don’t do napkin math, they need legitimate records for accountants, audits, etc.
Second: Workers aren’t grasping the managerial challenges of leading a remote workforce.
I can grasp it pretty well: Shitty managers can’t tell if someone’s working without watching them, so they’re panicking. Managers who can measure their teams output more accurately than asses-in-chairs aren’t having a problem.
As the experts have maintained for years, a flexible hybrid schedule is almost always the proper approach.
The proper approach to have people sitting in an office on a Zoom call, maybe. I’ve never seen hybrid be as effective as either fully remote or fully on premises.
Spot on. I’m a people manager and I set my expectations on productivity early and give them the freedom to make their own choices as to how and where they spend their time. At the end of the day, if they didn’t get the work done, they’re held accountable for it. Wish my own boss understood this.
