51–60 of 699 posts
It's weird how directly the incentive is to increase your carbon footprint. They'll essentially pay you more for contributing to congestion and pollution.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
Yeah I think we've been through this. Your salary isn't purely a function of how much value you bring to the company. It also depends on how much other people are willing to work for. That's how markets work.
Also, no market is perfect. There are (well-paid) employees that bring zero or even negative value without anyone noticing.
I can see why you’d pay a remote staff member differently from an on-prem staff member. As others have said if you’re hiring remote then your talent pool is effectively the whole world, so price competition is fiercer. But if everyone is remote or everyone is on-prem, then location-dependent pricing is complete nonsense. The employees are all still providing the same value to the company. Claiming that you can’t pay…
Isn't Google pushing for a return to on-prem though? So it's the first situation that you mentioned.
I don’t argue with the concept of saying “we want you back in the office, if you don’t want to come to the office then take a pay cut” like is going on here.
Don't forget, to the CEO and their cronies you are all just peons. If they could pay you nothing at all they would absolutely do so.
10% paycut in place of 10 hours of commute seems a good deal to me.
It's weird how directly the incentive is to increase your carbon footprint. They'll essentially pay you more for contributing to congestion and pollution.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
So fuck productivity. We can manage.
We must sacrifice the inconvenience of wasting our time commuting because of some arbitrary productivity definition to stop the surface of the planet from being engulfed in flames.
There's also a pandemic that's killed 4.3 million people because productivity is apparently more important than containing the outbreak of a deadly disease.
Really, to hell with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
Thats quite the leap of judgement, and I'd say its almost certainly not true (and quite possibly the opposite, I know thats been the case for me).
It's weird how directly the incentive is to increase your carbon footprint. They'll essentially pay you more for contributing to congestion and pollution.
Because employees in the office are more productive.
In a vacuum this isn’t a trend, but remote work does work well for so many people that the jobs that offer fully remote options are going to capture the lion’s share of the talent. There’s not a whole lot (if any) of competitive disadvantage in doing so, but there’s a whole lot of competitive disadvantage in not offering remote work to all employees. The Nash equilibrium is to offer remote work for all those who want it, so that’s what most companies will do.
Class A office space in Manhattan is about $70/sqft, and the average office employee gets 150 sqft allocated (desk, hallway, conference room, supply closets...) Google is probably 170. That's $11900 annually that they save by not having an employee take up office space. No, it's not fungible on a small scale, but it's certainly fungible on a large scale: reduce your office needs by 100 people and you can rearrange de…
Since Google already pays the most, where do you threaten to leave to while bargaining?