Google may cut pay of staff who work from home
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Your mileage may vary, but to me that's NO-BRAINER trade off. When you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars, how is an extra 10% really worth the lifestyle downgrade of being trapped in transit for hours each day? To say nothing of the life quality downgrade of trying to do focused mental work in an open floor plan office all day.
I understand the gripes. But location, supply and demand, etc all factor into comp. Companies have to pay more to hire people in San Francisco than they do in Austin, TX because there are more people willing to work in Austin for less money. I imagine that long-term, WFH probably will result in lower comp than in-office work, simply because workers are competing against more people who want that lifestyle.
Personally, after the initial shock and anxiety of the pandemic's first few months, the past year+ has been the greatest and most satisfying period of my career and life overall. I feel anxiety from worrying about the possibility of battles ahead, if my current employer decides to pivot away from remote-first policy next year. I would absolutely, without a moment's hesitation, take a 10% cut to lock in my current lifestyle from now until retirement. If my current lifestyle remains permanent, then I may never retire.
If you believe this, the 10% trade-off doesn't matter and is simply a distraction from the real discussion.
Well this seems rather naive view of things. Do these folks also pay same SFO/NYC rates for all services and infrastructure that they consume in cheaper area.
Doesn't a beautiful home in mountains add same value that a million dollar condo in silicon valley offer? But remote promoters seem happy to pay 200K for a mountain home. Because of this real estate agent will get only 20 percent of potential commission on this deal as compared to expensive city.
Location-based cost of living adjustments (in both directions) have been the norm since time immortal. By all means, make the argument. But I don't think it's very convincing one. Regardless, from a purely practical standpoint, I don't think the market will ever see it that way either.
But if Google gives that person the ability to work from home as much as they want, but then Google chooses to cut their pay if they incidentally move, that's snooping on the employee's private life.
What other snooping behaviors are they going to start engaging in? One employee could eat out a lot more than another, or an employee could choose to stop eating out frequently to cut their expenses. Adult children of employees can get jobs and move out. People moving within cities can find drastically different costs of living. You could end up with a financial windfall from an inheritance.
You're arguing from the side of universal corporate surveillance of employees.
If you command a tech salary but someone can still convince you that your work is worth less because you have found a way to make your own costs lower, and that you are somehow obligated to pass on your savings to your employer...well, I should get into recruiting.
Sure, the company could offer you less when they hire you, but if you are actually physically remote, the discount isn't based on your discretion or circumstances, they're just making an excuse to offer you less, and you can take it or leave it. There is no principle at work.
plus I feel like it might create tension in teams, people doing the same work knowing other people are getting paid more only because of their area code. Google is swimming in cash, the decision really makes no sense unless they plan on becoming the next Amazon in terms of employee treatment. Most obvious explanation seems to be them essentially trying to prevent work from home without explicitly banning it
also, is there anything legality-wise stopping 20 people from "sharing" a 1 bedroom apartment and then forwarding their mail and to their actual homes in a cheaper place in California or wherever they live?
Then you have Investment funds that $invest nearby these locations (BlackRock) and ahem they want their profit.
Then the local govt wants to secure $vote$ because Tech workers tend to vote X. (check Austin vs Texas).
We can't have these pesky "recall" actions.
Peer companies to Google also adjust based on zip code. And companies that pay the same regardless of location still don't pay as well as Google, which offers top of market compensation and has one of the strongest performing stocks in our industry.
My point is the market reaction won't change the dynamics here.
I'm not sure that is accurate. Companies that pay the same regardless of location are likely to pay less than the going rate in high COL areas, and more than the going rate in low COL areas. As a general rule of thumb, a company can't unilaterally pay more for things than it's competitors and expect to compete; so paying the high COL rate to all employees, regardless of location, is not likely a long term viable approach.
sounds like the dispute is really about the value of in-person vs remote employees. i'm sure everyone has their own opinion on that, but Google being Google, they may be thinking of certain non-tangibles for in-person benefits. Collaborative creativity, for example.
How are they going to police this?
so by working from home the employer should be giving you more money (obv job dependant)
I have a couple of friends/ colleagues who live almost next to the city of london who walk in
having a proper home office takes space up - this will be a bigger inconvience for people in smaller houses or flats/ appartments
I generally work at least an extra hour a day when wfh - or more, since I'll just leave PC on while around the house, and I'll answer any important emails
The world had a real shot at making a huge impact on emissions. Really sad to see it slip away because people can't let go of their LinkedIn fantasies of collaborating in an office around the water cooler.
https://sustainability.google/commitments/
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/sharing-...
https://techblog.nz/2312-Do-Googles-zero-carbon-footprint-cl...
Google has also invested quite a lot in seamless video conferencing tech way before other companies allowing a large reduction in travel (and carbon footprint) despite a global workforce. These days it's common across tech companies, but it wasn't 10 years ago when they started rolling out GVC.
This is somewhat but not entirely aligned with cost of living, and there have always been clear examples of better and worse markets - eg engineers in London are not that well compensated compared to their cost of living.
The big losers here will be people who lived in a HCOL location and yet still had a long commute to an office. They have no tradeoff to leverage if they decide to leave the high-pay salary market.
There are cases when a company will have to pay more to have someone is a specific, high cost location, but that is salary + location bonus and the location bonus really depends on location costs. But when an engineer can be anywhere in the world working from home, different salaries for people in different countries is not justified other than the power companies have in negotiating.
> Bustards are omnivorous and opportunistic, eating leaves, buds, seeds, fruit, small vertebrates, and invertebrates.
I guess that’s one way to characterize the FAANG companies buying up startup-competitors to retain their various monopolies.
The narrative that "we need to go back".
No!
We don't need. The market is hot and we can choose.
Take the simple math. 1 hour commuting one way.
2 hours by day, 10 hours by week, 40 hours by month.
Working at home gives you back at least 40h.
Working at home GIVES you BACK AT least 1 Week!
And I am not even talking about better food, spresso machine and gym!
Now we are fighting climate change staying at home and reducing our carbon print not commuting.
My employer gets more labor. I feel more rested, so I engage more with my work. I’m interested in hearing perspectives where this is a bad thing.