This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week.
Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?
Right, we generally have terrible housing policy, but I still don't see an articulated theory of how employers should compensate workers that make different choices.
Like, the low paying jobs that don't have nearby housing options probably do have to increase compensation to make up for the lack of housing options. Why is it good policy to force the employer to treat the commute as part of the work day vs working to improve the generally available housing and transport options?
We aren’t talking about WFH vs working in the office. We are talking about the argument made that companies should reimburse employees for any time spent commuting.
IMO, there needs to be some kind of compensation for folks who have to go into office. Not all jobs can be WFH. At a minimum, if you have to travel in to work, that time should be paid/count towards 40.
EDIT: On average, WFH folks save 5 hours a week by not having commute. That means folks going into a workplace work 5 hours more. That's not even including all of the other perks/flexibility/cost savings WFH provides.
It makes you wonder. Why isn't commute included? At the very least, shouldn't it be compensated 50% since it is activity done partly for work while not work itself?
But why not then demand that your employer cover your [reasonable] commuting costs, and even pay you for [reasonable] time spent commuting? That would greatly exceed your WFH costs, no doubt.
It's trivial to add demands like this. Employers have more pull in the legislatures than employees, so be careful what you wish for.
Friendly reminder that if you work an 8 hour day and you have a 24 minute one-way commute (average US commute is 27.6), WFH is equivalent to a 10% raise just from the elimination of commute time. Realistically, with the various conveniences and avoided expenses, it's likely closer to a 20% raise for most people.
That employers aren't jumping for joy that they can offer such a massive benefit for essentially free (if not save money themselves) is astounding.
I think most workers factor in the commute when they are looking for and choosing a job (I know I do). Now, we can argue that workers undervalue the time and money they spend commuting, but it is still not 'free' for the employer.
Also, not all of the commute cost is the fault of the employer. For example, my commute is a lot shorter than many of my coworkers, because I place more importance on a short commute than a cheaper, bigger house further away. My coworkers value having a bigger house more, so they live where the housing is cheaper but the commute longer.
How would your price this in? Would the people who commute further get to work shorter hours, just because I chose to sacrifice for a closer commute?
Could we not retitle this: "Employees Are Accepting Lower Net Income for Going into The Office"?
That is, time is a cost. Commuting takes time. An hour in and an hour out is a 25% increase in time devoted to work.
Commuting also has direct cost: fuel and/or transportation, risk of accident, stress, etc. Commuting also limits where you can live, and the taxes you pay. WFH does not.
For some people, less is in fact more. To fame it as an absolute "lower pay" is naive, if not irresponsible.
Why not do a piece that walks people through the hard and soft considerations? That's more beneficial than parroting a shallow - and perhaps false - narrative?
Intuitively, this makes sense to me. Material costs of working from home vs commuting are highly variable, but considering time costs: if you value your employee's time, and they're spending more of it to get to work each day, shouldn't they receive more money?
Because you have considerable influence over how long your commute time is. I can choose to live in a tiny apartment across the street from my job and walk to work, or I can choose a large house and drive 50 minutes to work. That's a personal decision. The worker who chooses the 50 minutes isn't entitled to anything more than the one who lives close by.
> 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.
If commuting is going to be compensated, then the compensation needs to be flat. If it costs more to employ people with longer commutes, those candidates will invariably be discriminated against in regards to hiring/firing, and the candidates most effected will invariably be lower income, as longer commutes is such a common feature of lower cost housing. It would become an anti-social-mobility mechanism if not done right.
Office costs are easily 10x that. Meanwhile, should employers also reimburse employees for commuting costs? Why not? Those costs probably exceed the wfh costs to the employees.
Does CA require the reimbursement of commuting costs? If not, is it not fair to view this new requirement as a backdoor way to increase return-to-office pressure?
Truth. Would employers be ok with long commutes if they had to subsidize the cost of the commute from the time and fuel/wear and tear cost? Suddenly under that hypothetical scenario WFH becomes a lot more attractive
OTOH, your employer used to compensate you for using your car, your gas, your time to commute. Now they know you are not doing that. I would be surprised if the average FAANG car commuter spent more at home than commuting.
My feeling is that things should be left the same, but I think your POV is definitely valid. The _space_ at home becomes a problem especially for those in expensive cities and lower compensations. Affording an extra bedroom is not always possible.
reply