Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 27 2020, @04:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the working-my-way-back-to-you dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 27 2020, @03:09PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday July 27 2020, @03:09PM (#1027124)

    The problem with the University town was that everybody was running on grant money. When it came to getting things that they wanted to happen, me at $115K was easily worth three of (most of) their $45K hires, but when it came to writing grants, my headcount of 1 couldn't bring in $115K of funding.

    The startup I moved to town for didn't die, but it moved to Ohio (no thanks), I found three other employers and they all "paid my rate" but none of them lasted even 3 years. During one of my searches, I bumped into a manager when I was dropping off a resume cold call style - he gave me an interview on the spot, after a few minutes he said "o.k. you can stop, I want you here, but I have to ask: what was your salary?" I told him, he nodded, "yeah, I thought so... that's twice what I make, and I'm the highest paid guy here... there's just no way I can hire you for anything near that."

    Another thing I ran into was these sweatshops that had an average of 3 month turnover didn't even want to hire me at their lower rates... I think they're used to "a certain type of employee" and don't like the idea of somebody different coming through.

    I started my career in Miami at an unusual startup, that job ran for 12 years, and when it imploded I searched for work ANYWHERE in Florida for 4 months, nothing. Opened the search nationwide and had my new position (in Houston) within 2 weeks. This was post-911, all of Florida was suffering financially, especially my industry - but... the Bush's backyard was still booming, go figure.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2