Bosses and workers still can’t agree on whether the commute is part of the work day, and it’s creating a $578 billion productivity problem
Bosses and workers still can’t agree on whether the commute is part of the work day, and it’s creating a $578 billion productivity problem
It's creating a $578 billion productivity problem
You're viewing a single thread.
Is a worker on the road for their own benefit or for the benefit of their employer? Do people voluntarily choose to drive in godawful rush hour traffic 5 days a week just for shits and giggles, or is it because times are mandated by their employer?
Fuck you. Pay me.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision? Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes, and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
It's a nuanced debate. In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don't have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer. Huh, just something else to think about.
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes,
If companies charge to have their workers commute to work locations to do jobs for them, then yes, they should.
Basically the flip side of the coin of, for example, a plumber coming out to your house to fix a leaky pipe charging you for him to actually come out to the house regardless of any work done when he gets there.
and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
Well a company should make sure compensation is satisfactory enough for the best talent to do the best work for them.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
This only seems like a difficult question if it's one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it's one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.
Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they'll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.
Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices... ugh.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
I don't think a company would want to restrict themselves by using that as a criteria, because someone who is much better for the position but lives farther away may be excluded for the person who lives closer who cannot do the job as well.
Cost to employer is calculated based on many factors, the capability of the worker doing the work is one of them.
Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Only if employees can dictate where employers have their offices at, to make their commuting life easier.
It’s a nuanced debate.
Actually, I'm big on nuanced conversations, but I really don't think it is in this case, I think what you been expressing is more strawmanning than actual real world scenarios.
In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer.
I don't think you can use this as a justification for the points you've been expressing, as a military and a corporation are two very different things, and the responsibilities of persons to each of them is very different, and not comparable.
Huh, just something else to think about.
Well, real conversations are always better than just attempts to redirect the narrative, that's for sure.
People don't choose to commute for "shits and giggles", but there is choice involved in how long your commute is, if it's a job that pays well enough that moving is an option. To be clear, if a job is changing from remote to in-office, I think it should absolutely come with a pay increase to compensate for that increased labor of getting to the office. But should you be paid for the time spent commuting as if they're working hours? That doesn't seem right to me.
I live in a city with ridiculous urban sprawl. However, I choose to live in a smaller apartment with a higher $/sq ft so that my commute is just a 10 min bike ride. I chose it both because it saves me time and reduces the amount of pollution I'm contributing every day. I have coworkers, though, that choose to live as far as 2 hrs drive each way, outside of the reach of the city's public transport. I've asked, and their reasons are: to be closer to their relatives, to be in a part of town they just like better, for lower cost housing so they can spend more elsewhere, or bc they want their kids to be raised in a suburb instead of the city. They all technically could live closer, but they choose not to because they have other priorities. Which is fine and valid, but still ultimately a choice.
So, should my coworkers be paid up to 50% more than me (4 hrs per day!) because of their choice? Or to say it another way, should I be paid less than them because of my choice that is already costing me more in rent? Wouldn't that actually incentivize longer commutes and the problems that come with it, like more road congestion and more pollution? Realistically, I think employers would stop employing those who live so far because they're not actually getting more value from the employee that's costing them 50% more.
"but there is choice involved in how long your commute is"
I can choose to live half an hour away, or I can choose to be homeless because wages are shit and rents are high.
That's why that sentence continues...
if it's a job that pays well enough that moving is an option
The transportation situation in the US is fully the failure of cities, states and the federal government to fund and plan for adequate land use and transport networks.
I could not agree more. The vast majority of American cities seem to have been thrown together ad hoc one development at a time with zero planning for mass transit with a few exceptions like Chicago.
In person work should be taxed to pay for the roads, transit, and congestion costs they cause if we really wanna get all 'let's measure productivity' about this.
Your commute is your own problem, I don't pay my employees for driving to work, they can always move closer to the office or sleep in their cars in the parking lot overnight if driving home and back is such a big deal.
So no, I won't be paying you to drive home and furthermore, at my businesses I have a swear jar policy; every swear word an employee says I take a dollar/hour off their pay for that day. So watch your potty mouth or you'll be the one who ends up paying me.
I have seen you thinking similarly on other posts. Are you actually a business owner or just a troll? Based on that second paragraph I have to believe you're just a troll.