Google employees who work from home could lose money • Hacker News Board

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#271

Post by agnosticmantis » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

vitus wrote: post #89

If anyone's curious about the underlying details: Each state has an associated salary band. For certain metropolitan statistical areas (defined by the OMB to encompass certain counties), as noted in the article, there is an overriding (typically higher) salary band. This leads to quirks like someone in Milford, PA (~70 miles northwest of NYC) being paid top dollar, as part of the NYC metro area, but someone in Bethle…

Is there a public data set of these salary bands? Combining that with housing data would allow one to optimize the salary-to-expense ratio. I think that’d be a valuable service.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#272

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #210

UncleMeat wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it makes it plain to see that we need collective action. All the people who say "I bring a ton of value to a company and therefore can negotiate to capture that value" are fooling themselves, because no company willingly pays people based on the value they provide.

Huh? I don't see how the need for collective action follows? Why would I or should I sabotage a trend that spreads wealth to poorer parts of the world? > ..., because no company willingly pays people based on the value they provide. That's what competition is for.

Because if you live in a richer part (=higher costs), you'll lose a job, lose your house and end up on the street, because you'll be replaced by someone from middleofnowhere.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#273

Post by rexreed » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

jffry wrote: post #243

rexreed wrote: post #71

Does this mean employee agreements are up for renegotiating? Salary / compensation for work is the key element to an employee agreement. If employers can change compensation at will without employee consent then the employee agreement is truly meaningless and simply a tool for the employer to wield against the employee. I'd imagine a few employee lawsuits on breach of contract that will test that.

Barring specific states or specific circumstances (e.g. negotiated terms with a union), yes that is the way it works in most of the US. Your employer cannot retroactively change your compensation for work already performed, but they can, at any time, tell you that your compensation is changing and all future work will be paid at a new (usually lower) rate. Depending on jurisdiction, if you were to quit in the face of…

If employers have the right to make arbitrary compensation changes for future work, they they should lose any rights to enforce non-competition clauses in employee agreements. Non-competition introduces asymmetric decision-making since the employee cannot arbitrarily decide to leave for a matter as straightforward as a compensation change because they will no longer be able to work in their desired industry or market or job role.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#274

Post by washadjeffmad » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #185

mumblemumble wrote: post #156

> One Google employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, typically commutes to the Seattle office from a nearby county and would likely see their pay cut by about 10% by working from home full-time, according estimates by the company's Work Location Tool launched in June. > The employee was considering remote work but decided to keep going to the office - despite the two-hour commute. This seems…

It’s also awful timing. After what, 18 months of productive WFH now they want to cut salary?

People collectively don't seem to know how to value their labor. If anything, they should argue for a pay increase to offset the costs Google is externalizing in utilities, on-site benefits, need for security, food, space, etc.

If Google is progressive, they should buck the trend and do something like build sound-proof office-apartments that employees can hotel in for a few days at a time, and allow children. That would be worth a 10% "pay cut" to at least some of the people they want to remain on site.

We're in a new world. There's no reason to make employees suffer because someone did things a certain way a generation or two ago.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#275

Post by throwaway0a5e » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #204

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

22mpg sounds like fleet average. I don't think the average commuter who could work from home is getting 22mpg, probably close to 30 average. I don't think the frequency of trucks and vans relative to cars and crossovers is not high enough within those demographics to drag down the average that far. I'd pad the estimate for carbon saved and say like 3.5ton/yr per work from home employee.

My Honda gets about 20mpg. My BMW about 25mpg. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule, but I seriously doubt 30mpg is remotely close to average (for office workers) in the US. Edit - The Ford F-150 is the best selling "car" in the US by a long shot. That isn't all fleet sales - a significant number of normal people own trucks for one reason or another (myself included - Honda Ridgeline).

Practically every ~10yo or newer sedan, wagon and "wagon pretending to be a crossover" you see is going to get nearly 30mpg (or more).

You need a heck of a lot of 10-15mpg vehicles to drag the fleet average down to 22. Most white collar employees who own trucks aren't commuting in them and even then there's more people commuting in 40+mpg subcompacts and hybrids so it should more than balance out.

Look at a high class parking garage, 22mpg just doesn't pencil out. 28-30mpg sounds believable.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#276

Post by HumblyTossed » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #232

chitowneats wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google felt that WFH had no negative effect on productivity, they could go the route of Twitter and others. The C-level clearly disagrees that this arrangement is ideal for the company, and are disincentivizing it with pay cuts.

I think that the c suite makes these decisions on a much more emotional basis than they let on. Honestly, I think they’re sad seeing their big, expensive office spaces not being fully utilized, and want to be able around and physically see workers working.

Current management practices are very inefficient. When not actively engaging with subordinates, most of the rest of their time is finger fiddling (meetings and what-not with other managers and such take up the remainder of their time, but those meetings themselves are usually not as productive as they would let on). They need subs in seats or they'll have to admit how inefficient their job is.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#277

Post by ant6n » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

sdevonoes wrote: post #226

ashtonkem wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also awful timing. After what, 18 months of productive WFH now they want to cut salary?

Why wouldn't they? Any "sane" company out there will cut your salary as soon as they find a good excuse to do so. Working from home VS working from the office is the perfect excuse. Productivity doesn't matter because if you go below the minimum bar, you are lay off.

Pissing off your employees and finding excuses to cut salary is what a "sane" company does? Sounds short sighted at best.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#278

Post by eru » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

norov wrote: post #247

eru wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I don't see how the need for collective action follows? Why would I or should I sabotage a trend that spreads wealth to poorer parts of the world? > ..., because no company willingly pays people based on the value they provide. That's what competition is for.

The rest of the world does not necessarily have decent labor laws. What if you end up cheering on a terrible employment standard & reward anti-worker countries and economies?

Letting people in less fortunate countries work for foreign multinationals would give them more alternatives.

Compare also https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#279

Post by eru » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #195

eru wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on where people want to live and work. But a big part of why lower density is bad is because it leads to lots of commuting.

Commuting is no doubt a large contributor to carbon emissions. But, suburban and rural living lead to car-centric lifestyles in general. Driving to school, to the grocer, to entertainment and dining, etc. Plus all the infrastructure to support that - more roads, giant parking lots, etc.

Yes, perhaps. So a carbon tax is still a good idea. (And so is removing things like minimum parking requirements.)

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#280

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #151

purple_ferret wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it? Remote work might incentive overall less density, which, on the whole, leads to a bigger carbon footprint per capita.

Depends on where people want to live and work. But a big part of why lower density is bad is because it leads to lots of commuting.

I live in NYC and don't own a car. All my errands are done on foot and by bike, and I'm using relatively little power because I live in a big apartment building.

If I lived in the suburbs and had to use a car for most trips, then my carbon footprint would be substantially higher, even without having to commute. This map gets to the heart of the issue: https://twitter.com/TheJakeSchmidt/status/142478272240963174...