> A company basically pays you for your cost of living. That's why pay is high in the Bay Area or NY, and why you take a massive pay cut when you move out.
That's the essence of another issue companies are forcing with remote work. It puts the lie to any claim that compensation is based on business value. Do I not provide the same value to the business if I live in Omaha, Nebraska rather than San Jose, California?
But, the company has offices in Menlo Park, you're more valuable because you're closer to them, you say? But the company also has offices in Omaha, and a dozens other places around the world.
This isn't theoretical: companies have already said that pay scales for remote work will be tied to location, regardless of the contribution a person makes to the company.
Employers are going to have to reckon with the fact that if I can chose to live more comfortably, I can also choose to expect to compensated for my contributions rather than my postal code. Am I worth a six-figure salary or not?
any company that told me the value of my work is tied to the location at which i accomplish it would immediately hit a wall with me being willing to work there.
it simply is bonkers they've tried to pull that line out.
Agreed! Employees have to realize this is a very unique opportunity where the Companies have lost much of the strong arm wrenching used by what Human Resources has become. (basically, a way for companies to remind employees they are number and replaceable at any second.)
Companies are terrified that employees will flex some of these desires and flexibilities as not benefits, but open to as many jobs as possible. It removes their ability to keep employees focused on groveling in appreciation to be allowed to be in their presence.
If they let this go, employees may begin looking around and realizing why are the top 1% being paid ridiculous salaries with millions of shares given annually while whinning to unions, employees and anyone who can hear they have to continually cut benefits, pensions (what are those?) to barely keep profitable. (Question how can foreign companies continue to pay good benefits, have employee long term retention, etc. and not have it cause such damage to company profits?)
Employees have been trained and brainwashed for so long that only a scant few find the behvior described above as bonkers. Rather most have grown numb and believe it is normal for companies to tell them they deserve only what the company decides to toss their way.
It is bonkers they are pulling that line out, unfortunately it works very time.
That's the essence of another issue companies are forcing with remote work. It puts the lie to any claim that compensation is based on business value. Do I not provide the same value to the business if I live in Omaha, Nebraska rather than San Jose, California?
But, the company has offices in Menlo Park, you're more valuable because you're closer to them, you say? But the company also has offices in Omaha, and a dozens other places around the world.
This isn't theoretical: companies have already said that pay scales for remote work will be tied to location, regardless of the contribution a person makes to the company.
Employers are going to have to reckon with the fact that if I can chose to live more comfortably, I can also choose to expect to compensated for my contributions rather than my postal code. Am I worth a six-figure salary or not?