Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

Employers do not force people to work for them, and they also do not have an unlimited choice of employees. Certain commute lengths make sense at certain payrates at certain commute costs. If the commute costs change, then the other two variables have to change too, and the employer will have to pay more to incentivize people further away to work for them.

And if living closer to work costs more, then the employer is going to have to pay more to have their employees afford to live closer.

View on HN

The choice of who to hire and who to work for is limited on both sides... but in this case it's the employer who is making the mandate that people should commute into the office - the employer should bear the cost of that mandate.

Should the employer also pay for the costs of clothes and water to bathe oneself since they mandate being presentable?

Should the employer pay for someone to commute 4 hours? How about a 2 hour flight everyday? This is all arbitrary, but it is much simpler to just let the market sort it out.

Employer offers $x for employee to be in y place at time z. Employee figures out if $x is enough to incentivize them to be there at the time, and otherwise asks for more money or seeks other employment.

If employer does not find sufficient employees at $x, then they have to increase.

Outside of things considered mandatory for normal life - yes, I think so. I absolutely loathe companies that make you purchase a company uniform (if they want a consistent employee appearance the company should pay for that benefit) and when it comes to bathing yourself that's a general social expectation so I don't believe it's valid to try and offload on a company - but if you are required to use certain high grade soaps (i.e. some expensive brand of hypoallergenic soap since you work at a health-care provider) or the like then I think the company should provide it.

In terms of commutes I think you're thinking too much with programmer brain - when it comes to laws of society we have the reasonable person/common sense standard. Companies should reimburse a reasonable commute to the office - if you're thirty minutes by car then gas reimbursement is reasonable... but if you choose to make that commute in a helicopter the costs of operating that helicopter are not reasonable.

I would bet most people consider showing up to a regular place of work mandatory for “normal” life. I cannot even think of an example where it is not the expectation.

And why is an environment damaging car considered be reasonable instead of a 30min bicycle? Or a Prius instead of an F250? What about variances? Road closures? Dropping kids off on the way? All unnecessary complications and arbitrary classifications.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions, not subsidize individuals’ living preferences.

The IRS currently sets a cap on employer commute benefits of $300 a month, which probably needs to be adjusted for inflation a bit, but generally establishes a reasonable standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com