>Make the full cost of driving salient for employees
The problem that I usually see when someone brings up this idea is that the employee's "cost" is ignored. I used to live in the Washington, D.C. area, where I could walk or take the bus to the subway. One way, the total time was 30 minutes longer than driving. Between the cost of the subway and my time, it was cheaper to drive.
For 18 years, I commuted year-round by bike, rather than drive. It took as long as the bus-subway combination from my last apartment. While it took more time, I did not have to pay for gas and my maintenance costs were minimal.
> companies seem to ignore they are asking all their workers to unnecessarily spend an hour or more a day driving
Um - not all. A number of people use public transportation. Some walk to the office. I chose a home location close to a subway station that gets me downtown with a 25-minute commute if necessary - not that I have needed it since I do work from home :)
> But how can organizations encourage their employees to commute differently?
Instead of expecting the employees to fix things themselves, why not hire some busses and pick the employees up?
It is expensive to do so, but nicer commutes often correlate strongly with lower turnover. There is a reason Facebook, Google, and the like pay for it.
> If commuting is work then employers should pay for it or have the time taken to commute deducted from work hours.
If your employer requires you to come to the office, then getting there is part of the job, and I think you should be compensated for that time. Commuting during rush hour certainly isn't a pleasure activity that I'd be doing without obligation.
> 2.) A lot of employees live 1+ hour away. The bus doesn't work in these situations.
I live in large dense city in the US (Los Angeles). I live a 15-20 minute car ride from work. The city is going to be doing some construction on my route and have asked the businesses to encourage their employees to take public transit, walk, bike, etc. during the construction. I looked into taking the bus, which for the first time in my life, is a reasonable walk from my home. It would increase my commute time (one way) from 20 minutes to 50 minutes! Sorry, but I don't have an extra hour I can take out of my day for that. It would be better to just work from home, but my employer won't let me do that for the duration of the construction which is supposed to last a year or two.
EDIT: For about a month, my office was at the Santa Monica end of the train. (Like literally right next to the train stop.) Sadly it no longer is. Even then, a coworker decided to take the train once from his place in Pasadena. His normally 45-60 minute commute increased to an hour and 50 minutes taking public transport. Sorry, but he'll just drive instead.
> Might ask for 20, 25 grand more if I have to go back to the office.
Here's a source you can use for hard numbers[1].
Commutes are responsible for a 9.91% drop in wages. They're also responsible for an average of nearly 10 entire days of driving a year, or 30 full 8-hr work days of driving each year.
> makes you mostly sit in traffic while going to work
Cherry picking this part of your argument: the last time I switched jobs this is what I told myself to rationalize commuting 50 mins one way (plus 15 mins last mile stuff). It works out _terribly_ if the mode of transport is not super reliable.
> So unless you have a job that requires minimal communication on a day-to-day basis, an office is superior for productivity.
If that’s the standard then the commute time should be billed to the employer. That way they can weigh the full benefits of the productivity gain of in person communication, against the dramatic efficiency loss of 100 employees commuting to work.
If employers want the productivity benefit of in office communication, they can pay employees for their drive/walk/transit time.
> if you give an inch, your employees will take a foot.
Employers have been eating up to 10 hours (2 hours per day) of unpaid commute time of employees for ages. Is it then really surprising that no one wants to waste time coming to work. If that time was paid, if commute time was paid, then maybe you would consider it. But it's a very simple economic calculation. It's like why am I paying for that time. I don't have to, so I won't. That 10 hours is 20% extra salary that is not paid.
And if your argument is that you could live closer, then the counter argument is that employers should have their offices in affordable areas where any employee can afford to easily live because rent is cheap. Not in the middle of downtown because that's what their peers or customers expect.
> for those who happen to live in an environment that allows them to commute by foot or by bicycle, working in the office is already much more appealing than for others
I take the bus, but otherwise yeah, agreed. I hate WFH, so I choose to go in every day even though my company doesn't require any office time. I love my time on the bus, gives me a short walk to & from the bus stop, and 45 minutes each way to be offline and read books.
On the other hand, if I had to drive, I'd go insane. Driving for a commute is awful.
> Do you charge your company for your commute to the office?
Travel expenses for your commute are pretty standard. My employer offers either a per-kilometer amount (if you travel by car) or a train subscription, if you travel by public transport.
> For those of us who have to commute, it's not exactly the norm to be saving money while commuting
This is true. I choose to live within walking distance of my office, and it has vastly improved my life - prior to this job, I commuted 2.5 hours a day, and that was awful.
These choices of course have complex tradeoffs, but you don't have to commute, it is a choice.
> Is it worth the price of mass daily commuting on the wealth and mental health of employees, and on the planet?
That's very context specific. In many cities, employees commuting by public transport to a central location, rather than all individually heating/cooling their houses, is a plus for the planet and wealth of employees. For many people (including me) it's also good for mental health.
> I can wake up later since I don't have a commute. I don't lose two hours a day due to the commute.
Commutes are also dangerous if they're by car. Not only are roadway congested, everyone is in a rush, and people are driving after just waking up and then again after a full day of work.
From a purely economic standpoint, commutes are responsible for a 10% drop in hourly wages[1].
I used to live a 10 minute drive from work, and I never took the bus because it would take close to an hour.
Now I live a 10 minute nonstop bus drive from work, but the fare is the same, which means it's several times the cost of gas for my vehicle even at 16 mpg. And it still takes about 15-30 minutes by bus, net, because of the time waiting for it.
I can walk home after work before the bus even arrives, but the only way to get there is across 3 highways with no crosswalks and people going 50+ mph.
I'm not happy with any of my choices, but driving my gas guzzler kind of seems rational after I've tried all the options and weighed them.
For the moment, it may make sense to not use my car because if I don't commute in it, I'm less likely to go somewhere after work, but that's more of a psychological trick than a logical consequence.
...and while I'm not in a mega-city, I'm in the middle of a medium to smallish city that's part of an area with a million people or so.
The problem that I usually see when someone brings up this idea is that the employee's "cost" is ignored. I used to live in the Washington, D.C. area, where I could walk or take the bus to the subway. One way, the total time was 30 minutes longer than driving. Between the cost of the subway and my time, it was cheaper to drive.
For 18 years, I commuted year-round by bike, rather than drive. It took as long as the bus-subway combination from my last apartment. While it took more time, I did not have to pay for gas and my maintenance costs were minimal.
reply