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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by bussdriver on Monday July 27 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)

    by bussdriver (6876) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2020, @04:03PM (#1027148)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 28 2020, @05:01AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 28 2020, @05:01AM (#1027509) Journal
    I suggest you learn the concept of sarcasm. If you had ever read anything from ikanreed, you would have realized that he can imagine quite a bit more than he claims here.

    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.

    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?