Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

> A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase

So if inflation goes up by 10%, rent can only go up by 4%? Does that mean rent will be nearly free in 100+ years?

This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week. Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?

> I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn.

I see where you're coming from and to answer one of your later question: I work in one of the most dog eat dog industries, which is finance.

That said, I don't see myself as a charitable extension of my employer. I'm well paid and fairly treated and as long this is the case my employer can expect me to deliver the best possible performance and my loyalty as long we're in a contractual relationship.

Let me qualify loyalty, becasue it touches exactly into the neither regions you're outlining (I was loyal all my life and now I get the boot. And while that gripe may be justified it's not really helpful). Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.

I expect decent treatment, supplying of all the tools, information, training and resources required to perform my job, human decency in general and a certain amount of fairness.

That's while the contract lasts and partially beyond, confidentiality being a good example for that.

I understand that it's a transactional agreement, which lasts as long the contract lasts and doesn't imply a job guarantee.

But one part of the deal and as long it's reasonably balanced is that I just wouldn't seek out ways how to squeeze a couple hundred francs a month extra, which I don't believe I have coming. I feel fairly and well enough paid so that I don't really factor in the use of a bit of power and my personal laptop, which is essentially the whole cost I incur.

For what it's worth my employer provides a laptop, but it's far more comfortable and convenient to work on my own system within their secure setup with a real keyboard and a 24" screen. That's my choice and if I have that option and chose to use it I don't see why that's my employers problem.

> Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?

Actually it's harder to fire employees in most European countries. Switzerland has comparatively liberal employment laws compared to a lot of other (western and southern) European countries. Liberal as in a contract can be terminated from both sides under respect of a notice period without a reason specified.

This is much harder in, for example France or Spain, which has the drawback that companies very much prefer temporary employment, which in turn leads to a two class employment system.

I think it's a bit of an attitude thing. Companies, whenever possible, prefer to hang on to their employees, even during downturns, since they consider it cheaper than to re-hire and retrain a lot of employees in the next upswing.

Differences in social security arrangements also make that more palatable for companies. And it's not only a cost thing, it's also the loss of important institutional knowledge, which is irreplaceable.

> I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).

I hope not. As I could hopefully illustrate I'm not in the corporate wellfare business. I don't believe in dumping and the one thing that bugs me so much with our race to the bottom capitalism we now have, best illustrated by the gig economy, is the "how can we squeeze out more and more, while treating vital partners (employees) like crap" attitude you see so much nowadays.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.

It's not about giving away the shop, but about fairness and trust.

Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.

> Have you ever browsed HN at work? Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5?

I have to admit: Guilty on both counts.

But there's of course the other side. Where I went above and beyond to solve critical issues.

And while we're at it: You succinctly explained so much better what I mean than me in my long diatribe.

Thanks!

Unless there's no physical office at all, and the employees are told to work from home (the article mentioned this), I think it's a hard sell for employers to pay their employee's share of rent.

If I were an employer and have rented an office space, whether the space is full or empty or half empty, I'm still paying more or less the same. Yes, there are coworking spaces where I can pay per headcount, but it's much more expensive (because the problem is now passed to the operator).