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

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#351

Post by lumost » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

erinan wrote: post #217

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…

2-hour commute? I'll take the pay cut anytime, like is too short... (and maybe start looking for another job, easier to do with all that "extra" time)

Some individuals have routines built into the commute that aren’t necessarily swapped when working from home.

I read my email/catch-up on slack/read the newspaper during my 45 minute commute in the morning. While wfh I spend the time doing something pretty similar.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#352

Post by sdevonoes » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

ant6n wrote: post #277

sdevonoes wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's quoted ("sane"). I meant: most successful companies maximize for profit, they usually don't care about employees. So the context here is "sane: from an economic point of view".

> Sounds short sighted at best.

I would say so, but history says otherwise (e.g., Amazon)

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#353

Post by tialaramex » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #222

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…

The majority of people do need a car even in Europe. In France, unless you live in central Paris you do. In the UK, unless you live in central London yo do. Now, if you live around Paris or London you may be able to commute to work by public transport, and many people do, indeed, but many also commute by car, and the vast majority do outside of these areas. I'm sure the same applies to many other countries. Edit: By…

It's not just London. I live in a city on the UK's south coast, I can drive but I don't, and I have never owned a car. Many people I know here also don't own cars, some of them can't drive. I've worked for outfits in London, in Nottingham (visiting about once a fortnight, train, hotel, train back) and here in Southampton, not a problem.

London is better because the Tories weren't able to abolish its public transport network and sell it off piecemeal - because the government's own workforce lives there and can't get anything done without that transport system, but even in a city with a dysfunctional semi-privatised mess of a transport system it's still just better than trying to turn everything into highways stacked upon highways forever so everybody can use private cars. There's actually a 70s-80s division of my city that was built with that approach, over the river, and it's awful there. But it's nice here and further into the city.

> perhaps the way forward is to reduce the global population to a point where that everyone can enjoy life

I definitely think people who believe this should agree which of you will die so that the others can "enjoy life". Are you volunteering? Because if not you don't have an actual proposal here, just ordinary selfishness.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#354

Post by dagw » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #140

boplicity wrote: post #99

The cost of commuting on the environment is extremely high. We should be offering incentives to companies to switch to remote work. If 20% of jobs permanently switched to remote, the impact on carbon emissions would be immediate, and extremely positive.

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…

much less true for European cities with good public transportation.

I live in a "European city with good public transportation" and looking out my living room window I can see the main motorway into town, and it is bumper to bumper to traffic every single morning and evening. So obviously someone here is using their cars to get to and from work.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#355

Post by igetspam » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

washadjeffmad wrote: post #274

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?

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 wo…

Came here looking for this. Back in my G days, before they were the high paying behemoth they are now, there were regular complaints about compensation. The first corporate response was absolutely tone-deaf. They created a tool for you to see your total compensation that included all-in values like on-site amenities. The natural response was one of unhappiness and people requesting to opt out of eating at work and promising to never use the laundry facilities or the gym or many of the other bits of bait they use to lure new grads. The next response came much later and it was a broad leveling of pay. Obviously the second pass was better.

Alphabet will save a lot of money by not having so many warm bodies in the office. They eat less, they poop less, they generate less heat and make the AC work better, they require fewer support staff to be in the buildings, etc. Reducing pay because you're using fewer company paid resources is just as tone-deaf as that first try.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#356

Post by rexreed » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #319

rattlesnakedave wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the logic is "We entered this agreement with the understanding that you would be in the office x% of the time. We would like you to return to the office at that original capacity. If you would not like to do so, we need to renegotiate our agreement." Not that I agree with any of this, nor am I sure that any of this is even written, but that's probably what it is. All of these gigs being at will employment cer…

Many/most contracts--to the degree they're even contracts in this case--embody common understandings. In the case of employment agreements, they usually assume that, absent agreements to the contrary, you're usually coming into some particular office 5 days per week, between the hours of whatever, unless you're traveling.

Sounds like the common understanding about location of work is about to change / already changed and is no longer a common understanding. The benefits of getting stuff in writing.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#357

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:09 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.

You get the best of both worlds. Google made like $200,000 in profit per FTE in 2021.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#358

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #272

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.

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.

Yet pay is not based on COL. Google pays people in London less than they pay people working remotely in Montana.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#359

Post by mrweasel » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

maweki wrote: post #237

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people in Europe also take the car to work. At my work I would say definitely more than 50%.

As other people pointed out: this varies wildly by city or region. In urban areas cars are really not incredibly common. In Berlin you'll find that only 1/3 of people even own a car. Of course, even fewer go to work by car. In Munich, you'll find 1/2 of people owning a car.

Yep, even larger cities may not have public infrastruture that matches the requirement of all. I’ve had all kinds of jobs in the same area. One job was perfect for bus, another had biking as the fastest option. Current job and geography means that I can drive 15 - 20min, bike 60min or bus for 90min.

Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money

#360

Post by glenneroo » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #250

bennyp101 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess in a purely commuting way, perhaps. But if 100 employees are all at home and are heating/cooling their houses all with different levels of insulation and efficiency, how does that compare to an office building that is controlled and built to be efficient? Or the amount of electric they use to power their home workstation and radio, rather than a shared office radio? Or lower power machines. Or the more shoppi…

Home temperature is fairly consistent over the day. Not having an office to heat or cool more than compensates for the difference. Commuting costs completely dominate in terms of energy costs. As to getting delivery for lunch, that’s well outside of most peoples price range. The vast majority of people are going to simply buy more food on their normal shopping trips. The running the same computer hardware at home or…

I think both of you are making a lot of assumptions without providing any sources to back up your own anecdotal experiences. Also related, but HN could really use an optional country-flag next to each user's name so that we could at least see what country people are referring to respective their experiences which they state as "the way it is".

> Home temperature is fairly consistent over the day.

You must live in a mild climate where the outside temperature doesn't change much because everywhere I've lived in the world, you constantly turn on/off heating/fans/air-conditioning depending on the season and time of day.

> Commuting costs completely dominate in terms of energy costs.

Assuming usage of cars. Leave the US and generally public transportation is a thing used by most people. The trains/trams/buses still travel the same routes and times as before-pandemic times.

> The running the same computer hardware at home or the office

Why is that? My PCs at work each use ~150W and I never turn them off because Wake-On-Lan doesn't always work. I presume it's the same for most of my 700 co-workers who also WFH. That's a lot of KW and not to be scoffed at.

> Radio’s use minimal electricity ~25w

You are taking the minimal example of radio. I would guess that more than a negligible amount of people have something more substantial at home which uses more than 25w (including amp/speakers/wifi to connect to Alexa, etc), granted it's probably still not much and could even balance out with people who don't listen to radio while working? Who knows, IMO it's futile to even try to calculate this value globally.