But also, the company is saving money by not paying for an office, so I can argue that they need to pay me the same salary as rent for my office space.
Like, say I can work from home but I don’t have the space. Now I need a more expensive place with an extra room that I can dedicate for an office.
I don’t have the option of working from home, I’m just saying don’t let those fuckers hoodwink you in to less than you’re worth.
That office will be there in that building whether you are in it or not.
The only thing you’re saving is the power your computer would use and the miniscule amount of energy that it took to cool down your body heat and maybe an elevator if you go up at all by yourself
That’s absolutely valid but still isn’t an argument against being paid more to work from the office. If anything it shows you understand compensation for working from a specific location you’re just grandstanding for WFH.
No, I’m saying companies will say anything to justify paying you less. Don’t fall for it.
I’m saying you should be paid the same for the work you do whether you work from home or the office. If they’ll compensate you extra for travel, good, but without a union, good luck on that one.
I get what you’re saying now though, you’re speaking on less pay for the same work. If my boss offered me less pay for WFH I’d jump on it but my responsibilities would also be reduced and a number of other reasons it’s different for my current job.
Yeah I can see how that’s appealing, but it sets a precedent that will further enshittify the job market.
I understand that people have to do what’s best for them and their families and without a union making a stand like that would be damn near impossible. I’m just some guy on the internet but these are my thoughts on it.
The simple fact is that if you were wasting $100 a month on fuel you were working for $100 a month less already.
Just be real, benefits are part of your pay and your commute can either be a good part of your benefits or a negotiation in higher pay.
But also, the company is saving money by not paying for an office, so I can argue that they need to pay me the same salary as rent for my office space.
Like, say I can work from home but I don’t have the space. Now I need a more expensive place with an extra room that I can dedicate for an office.
I don’t have the option of working from home, I’m just saying don’t let those fuckers hoodwink you in to less than you’re worth.
That office will be there in that building whether you are in it or not.
The only thing you’re saving is the power your computer would use and the miniscule amount of energy that it took to cool down your body heat and maybe an elevator if you go up at all by yourself
That’s absolutely valid but still isn’t an argument against being paid more to work from the office. If anything it shows you understand compensation for working from a specific location you’re just grandstanding for WFH.
No, I’m saying companies will say anything to justify paying you less. Don’t fall for it.
I’m saying you should be paid the same for the work you do whether you work from home or the office. If they’ll compensate you extra for travel, good, but without a union, good luck on that one.
I get what you’re saying now though, you’re speaking on less pay for the same work. If my boss offered me less pay for WFH I’d jump on it but my responsibilities would also be reduced and a number of other reasons it’s different for my current job.
Yeah I can see how that’s appealing, but it sets a precedent that will further enshittify the job market.
I understand that people have to do what’s best for them and their families and without a union making a stand like that would be damn near impossible. I’m just some guy on the internet but these are my thoughts on it.
They’re solid thoughts thanks for letting me pick your brain.