SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There's been some recent speculation about the effects working from home will have on various parts of the economy, particularly the commercial real estate market. If companies can figure out how to keep employees productive, coupled with the desire for some to relocate to more rural areas (and consequently, farther away from the office), it's possible some companies may reconsider continuing to carry all the overhead associated with having an office.
Which leads to the question: should remote workers accept a pay cut for working remotely?
A recent survey of 600 U.S. adults found 66 percent willing to take a pay cut for the flexibility of working remotely.
To what degree varied, however.
- Fourteen percent would take a one to four percent cut;
- Twenty-nine percent would take a five-to-14 percent cut;
- Seventeen percent would take a 15-to-24 percent cut;
- Seven percent would take a 25 percent or more cut;
- Thirty-four percent would not take a lower salary for flexible remote work.
The survey, taken from July 5 through 7 from Fast, a start-up specializing in online checkout, found COVID-19 safety concerns part of the current appeal of remote working. Thirty-nine percent were less comfortable returning to their physical office compared to 30 days before. However, 65 percent preferred a workplace that gives employees the flexibility to choose where and when they work remotely.
[...] The concept of "localized compensation" or paying someone less for the same work because of where they live is being hotly debated in human resources circles. In May, Facebook drew some backlash after announcing that employees choosing to permanently work remotely will receive salary cuts if they move to less expensive areas.
Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedGreen on Monday July 27 2020, @04:25AM (35 children)
you save them a pile of money on expenses, in reality it should be a pay raise in the amount saved per employee. But in the world of parasite corporations only the CEO and their cronies get the benefits of screwing the workers over and of course the shareholders..
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday July 27 2020, @04:39AM (20 children)
I was with you until the very last word.
It's unimaginable to me you think that shareholders and CEOs are enemies of any kind.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @04:56AM
how's the tastes of those boots?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:16AM (5 children)
it really is golden rain trickling down your back. keep on telling yourself that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @07:49AM (4 children)
To be fair many capitalist enterprises are not as completely fucked and the CEO and shareholders actually run a pretty good show.
Sadly unfettered capitalism steadily normalizes the greed and urinary arrangement.
The real problem is that propaganda has made Capitalism synonymous with competition and efficiency. In reality it costs a LOT to break into most markets so the vaunted competition == efficiency become a lie. Pair that with collusion between "competitors" without a strong government to police and regulate and you end up with feudalism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday July 27 2020, @02:17PM (3 children)
>In reality it costs a LOT to break into most markets so the vaunted competition == efficiency become a lie.
I think you mean capitalism=efficiency has become a lie. Competition promotes efficiency, but competition is an enemy of profits, and capitalism will eliminate it wherever possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:09PM (2 children)
Maybe psuedocapitalism. IP law and the stricture of its enforcement is a substantive problem insofar as the global market is concerned, it is the singular mote most duopolies (or to be fair monopolies) are constructed on. It can take decades to usurp competition in certain domains, consider INTC v. AMD, and even that wasn't a guaranteed outcome, but rather fortune erring on the side of AMD.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 27 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)
"IP" (there is no such thing - no *property* is involved) is just one of many tools. Vertical and horizontal monopolies. Collusion. Regulatory capture. That's what capitalism *is* - the wielding of capital for profit, NOT for efficiency. Efficiency is just a side effect when competition can't be avoided.
Its proponents however are very successful at improving its image by equating it with its fictional cousin, "free market capitalism", which is (supposedly) far more honest and efficient, and distributes wealth far more equitably, but requires (even in theory) that all markets are sufficiently large that no individual actor (or conglomerate) is responsible for more than a percent or two of the total production or consumption of any given good or service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:04AM
You couldn't possibly evidence any other system that produces any fewer decremental divergence of outcomes, though. Ultimately it stems from stagnation, and to that end you must correct it by inducing fluidity in the underlying systems, specifically the civic platforms that enhance the conglomeration and concentration of power into the artificially cultivated conglomerates formed therein. By what means do we achieve that end? That's the golden ticket.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Monday July 27 2020, @07:38AM (2 children)
"It's unimaginable to me you think that shareholders and CEOs are enemies of any kind."
Yes they are such kind loving people know for magnificent generosity to workers and their needs. How could I have overlooked that????
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @01:39PM
I checked their twitter profile that had a black image with white text saying they are for good things. Why would they lie about being for good thing?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday July 27 2020, @02:19PM
I think they may have meant that CEOs and shareholders are not enemies *of each other* - the comment they replied to could easily be read that CEOs are the enemies of both employees and shareholders.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 27 2020, @01:01PM (3 children)
That depends entirely upon the corporation... smallish struggling companies (say: less than $1B in annual revenues) make all sorts of Faustian bargains to gain access to larger markets. Often, a smallish company will accept a CEO who might open doors for them - paying a high price for the chance to grow. As these relationships grow, they grow ever more adversarial between the shareholders who no longer benefit from the CEO's connections and the CEO who is milking the relationship for as much personal gain as possible before hitting the golden parachute. The CEO will pack the board and C-level executive offices with allies to extend the ride on the gravy train, this cadre of parasites usually leaves the company reeling for years after they finally exit and the shareholders - well aware of the poison pills - accept the bitter relationship for fear of collapse on the parasites' exit.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @01:49PM (2 children)
Not just CEOs, this sounds exactly like a couple of places I worked. There's a honeymoon period at the beginning where you're getting fucked and enjoy being the most productive guy on the team, then you realize nobody is doing anything for you in return. Now you're just being fucked.
You enter the mid-stage where you "get" why everyone is so unproductive and nobody talks to eachother. You find the chirpy new hires are _the_ most annoying people as they remind you of your hopes when you started this shit job.
It's misery - this can last for the rest of your career if you choose. Or you can use the experience to feel very precisely exactly it is that causes that misery and work around it in the future. Work in progress - e.g. how to pick out an abusive narcissist from a short interview.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday July 27 2020, @10:53PM (1 child)
I wish I could have done that when I was in my twenties. I would not have wasted years working for a couple those sorts.
I have learned however, and if the top person at the company I am interviewing with came out of the finance department I don't take the job.
If the person my manager reports to is the company accountant, I don't take the job.
I explained that once to a very nice HR lady when I said "thanks, but no thanks" and she didn't sound surprised at all.
Oh, also, if the boss is the offspring of the founder, be careful. If the boss is the grandchild of the founder, don't bother.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 28 2020, @02:07AM
I took a job working for Napoleon incarnate - short, Jesuit educated - spoke 6 languages, rich (in the 10s of millions net worth class) and rubbed elbows with richer. I put in an app on the website and he personally phoned me 4 hours later, spent all of Friday interviewing with him and the team, mostly him, 70 miles from where I lived. Maybe 40 employees total, over half of the 10 person R&D department was getting emigration benefits in lieu of competitive pay. I knew what I was getting into, but wanted a job in the bigger town and had nothing going where I was - we found a house over the weekend and I accepted the job on Monday.
6 months later he had a really bad day with the sales guys, came over to R&D and took it out on us - strutting, threatening firing, shouting about how much we cost him and how little we did for him, etc. Coincidentally, a lead for a WFH position fell in my lap later that night: sign from God if ever there was one. The bad day blew over and he was "normal" again - during the 6 months he would normally keep his nose out of R&D, meet with us every 3 to 6 weeks, listen to what I had to say, dump on everything I suggested, then run around behind my back and order 9/10 things that he dumped on in the meetings to be done by his Ops guys. Once I showed up at 10am (driving from 70 miles away, I normally got there around 8:30, but had a couple of unavoidable errands...) and he made a point of calling me into his office and explicitly trashing everything I had suggested over the past 2 months - I reminded him we had an arrangement that I would be coming in late on Mondays... he completely denied that it had anything to do with that... yeah.
So, it was with extreme glee that I crafted the two weeks written notice with claim to all of my unused PTO accrued to-date, particularly the extra week off I negotiated with him at the start. In the exit interviews I made it clear: this opportunity came to me the day after his little hissy fit - I can take the heat, but the other offer is better than he ever will come through with and why should anyone put up with that? He pitched a lame stock plan, going public, offering shares to the employees - how could I turn that down? Well, sir, first you would have to tell me that's coming in order for me to value it, wouldn't you? Maybe you want to tell your other employees about it? He did, the next day. Within 3 months, the place I moved to handed out bonuses all around - 15% of annual salary in my case - and within 6 months more, they were bought out by a big company and another 6 months pay bonus came my way. Zero regrets.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @01:07PM (2 children)
Then you must not be aware of the principal-agent problem, and shouldn't be investing in stocks.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 27 2020, @01:53PM (1 child)
Yeah, that's a real problem in a country where less than half of anyone owns any stock at all.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @02:34PM
That's why we need a capital gains tax holiday. Only applies to stock held outside retirement accounts BTW. So let's modify that "less than half" to "less than 1%" of people that benefit.
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/30/about-75-of-trumps-proposed-coronavirus-capital-gains-tax-cut-would-go-to-the-top-1-of-earners/ [salon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @03:03PM
CEOs do not care about the employees. If they did, they would be finding ways to keep them employed instead of doing layoffs to meet that quarterly 1 cent below expectations number. You don't see a C-suite saying "we should cut salaries and expenses at the C-suite level". The priority goes C-suite > parasitic investors > shareholders > institutional shareholders > customers > employees.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bussdriver on Monday July 27 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)
I suggest you learn the concept behind "Little Eichmanns". Furthermore look into experiments such as the Milgram experiment.
Basic truth of human behavior, the more you remove a human from the consequences of their actions the more you can get them to do that they wouldn't do (or even think of doing) directly.
The CEO positions STRONGLY attract sociopaths; who often lack insight into their workers or customers' lives but the investors are almost totally clueless by comparison.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 28 2020, @05:01AM
Which is why we have regulations. The tool could work better and is not as strongly enforced as it should be, but that is stuff we can fix. Which brings up the obvious question: what is the point of the pop psychology?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday July 27 2020, @04:46AM (3 children)
I would actually expect an allowance for equipment (like 4k display) and office chair/desk.
With the WFH arrangement with the current employer, on top of the office-issued laptop, we did get reimbursements for the part of the cost of monitor/chairs ($500 limit for both of them)
(even more, we're now starting to receive face masks paid by employer and sent by courier. Well made and branded - if they're meant to be used in public, why waste an ad opportunity?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:15AM (2 children)
It's kinda like Uber, where you use your own car, your own (non-commercial liability) insurance, and your own health insurance and your own clothes and grooming products, but you only get paid some pathetic flat rate. If it were me, and my Heartless Corp(tm) were to want to move me permanent work from home, I would need: Office space rent, at going rates per square foot; Infrastructure, including computers, routers, scanners, internet access and Cable TV (because, bundled, cheaper for them!), and coffee maker; Heating, cooling, home cooking expenses, per diem costs of domestic companionship, costs of sanitary services (toilet), security services (from cams to fencing to actual personnel); and serverance pay, equivalent to 10 years salary, in the event of a termination on ethical grounds. That ought to cover it!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 27 2020, @06:24AM (1 child)
Not for me, not gonna stay with them in such conditions.
No office rent, it's called work from home.
All the remaining in the list above are:
1. tax deductible in Australia, based on the percentage you are using for work
2. starting July, my employer included monthly allowances to pay for comms - Internet and phone ($250/mo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by gawdonblue on Monday July 27 2020, @08:14AM
ATO allows a flat $0.80/hr work-at-home during COVID-19 tax deduction. Just keep a journal.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Media-centre/Media-releases/New-working-from-home-shortcut/ [ato.gov.au]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @09:15AM (1 child)
I think you mistake that CEOs are working for shareholders. They are working to make money based on fake targets they set themselves to achieve. Pump and dump is the invention of the CEO class. No one thinks what is good for shareholders 10 or 20 years down the road. Sell assets and lease them back so your ROA is better - a target you set to maximize number of vested options. Company health long term? Fuck that!
Describes about 90% of the S&P 500 CEOs.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday July 27 2020, @11:58AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday July 27 2020, @02:26PM (4 children)
At the risk of having a Marie Antoinette* moment I have to ask...If the shareholders are the gilded class, why don't we all become shareholders?
* - "The peasants have no bread, let them eat cake" ... she didn't actually say this, but it's one of the more infamous quotes attributed to her.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday July 27 2020, @09:45PM (3 children)
1. A strong majority don't have spare cash for *any* expense. As in, if someone gets a speeding ticket, that may screw them over financially, permanently.
2. Trading isn't happening at a slow-enough pace to where a shareholder with any kind of day job can compete.
3. Insider trading, while illegal, is extremely common.
4. If everyone puts their entire wealth into the markets, they still will be outvoted by about 10 billionaires on any corporate election.
So, for a large percentage of people, getting into the stock market is a recipe for losing money they can't afford to lose.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday July 27 2020, @10:49PM
Don't forget the insurance rate increase for being caught driving at a reasonable speed. That's also very helpful in keeping the poor as poor as possible. Also late to work. Or out of work.
Fact: Once you're near the bottom, for the vast majority, it becomes more and more difficult to climb. This is not an accident, IMO.
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a thumb
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:35AM (1 child)
Most people are shareholders, even if they don't know it.
401K? Unless you have it in an all cash setup, it's invested in stocks, even if indirectly, through a mutual fund for example.
Pension plan? Definitely invested in stocks, though often conservatively.
Employee-owned or profit sharing company? Same as stocks, except you can't sell them. These are almost always union jobs.
Sure, there are some people who work at very low wage, non-union jobs. Excluding the ones who don't really need to care about wealth accumulation (students, for example), you have a small fraction of the population. Not zero, but hardly a "strong majority." Most people are middle class, and middle class people have at least some disposable income available.
Insider trading and high frequency trading don't really affect the small time investor much. High frequency trading probably actually helps, so long as you invest your money for long term and aren't trying to be a day trader. And voting control doesn't really make any difference to whether you make money or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @09:06PM
Most people are middle class only by the definition used for levying taxes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday July 27 2020, @04:40PM
If working from home saves the company $X, then how about we split the savings, and I get a raise of $X / 2?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @07:23PM
Exactly what I came in here to say. People are willing to take a pay cut to help their employer save money?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 27 2020, @09:59PM
The obvious reasons workers are considering pay cuts in exchange for not being an office:
1. Commuting to work isn't free. It can easily cost 1-2 hours per day, plus either gasoline and wear-and-tear on a vehicle, or fares on public transit. It's also not risk-free: Every day, commuters wind up injured for life or dead because somebody was being stupid on the road. Oh, and this is reflected in your car insurance rate.
2. You're far less monitored at home, so that gives you more options for what to do when you aren't being productive. In the office, people are still unproductive, but have to work harder at looking busy whenever a boss comes by.
3. You can easily step away to handle things that you previously had to take time off to handle, e.g. someone coming to your house to fix something.
4. If you have kids, you no longer have to pay for someone else to be home with them while you and any other parent they may have are at work. Ditto for any elderly parent you may be caring for at home.
5. If your office has a culture of going out to a restaurant for lunch, or employees paying for food to be delivered, eating food from your own kitchen is much cheaper.
Or, to summarize, the employees' expenses are going down, not just the employer's expenses.
And also relevant here is that you're being naive if you think that salaries have ever had much to do with rational evaluation of costs and productivity. There are lots of businesses where useless employees make a lot more money than useful ones.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.