jokes apart, if remote culture consolidates with different compensation and benefit packages compared with those in the office, we'll likely start to see lawsuits in that matter.
Here is how we can do it in 2021:
1. Poor people cannot afford to live close to the office (probably true)
2. Certain minority groups are poor (probably true)
3. Minority is likely to commute for longer time and distance
4. Commute kills people with road accidents
5. Accuse execs of racism and killing minority.
If employers feel employees working from home are less valuable, and employees prefer working from home, it sounds logical this will results in lower compensation for WFH employees. Not sure what laws they would be breaching here, it's just the market at work. It doesn't even matter whether they are right or wrong, the market should take care of that.
I think that's the take-away for employers here.
Intentionally make the default (come into work) option uncomfortable or inconvenient. Offer “upgrades” for more comfort (work from home) and convenience.
The question what price do people put on that convenience.
But on the other hand, WFH creates savings for employers so they are actually able to pay people more for the same overall cost as working from office, if they so wish (e.g. to attract top talents in a concurrential market)
Of course ofice vs home is often not like-for-like and it enables people to live in different locations.
Does it? When I'm working, I don't need that room during working hours for another purpose. I just work in it, tapping away and speaking into the microphone and so on, and when work is done, I use the room for sitting, reading, all that sort of thing; it's the lounge, I guess. Worked out fine so far.
Same argument as before, I guess. I could sit in there working away quite happily. No extra room needed.
Sure, it's not the case for everyone, and some people share bedrooms, but the blanket statement that "working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place" is a massive generalisation that doesn't apply to many households in which people have bedrooms and in which there is a lounge.
Sure, add a desk, change the furniture layout. I'm saving 25% of my rent by not having to commute. It's a two-bed flat; between us, we have 50% of the rent to spend again each month on furniture, rearranging things, or just renting a place with two extra rooms. Not that we need them, with three rooms available to work in during the day (two bedrooms and a lounge). My experience is not uncommon and in no way do we essentially need more rooms to work in.
But I think some people do not really envision a person in the tech industry with a family living in, like, a tiny studio apartment.
Where I live, that would suggest a household income of <$40K. Even if salaries are low here, entry level is more like $75K.
Are we talking about the SF bay area?