- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Wasn’t quite sure what community to post this…
A recent EnhancV survey of 1,000 full-time U.S. workers subject to new or stricter return-to-office policies found that 72 percent suspect these mandates are really a voluntary attrition strategy — a strategy by their own employers to make them quit their jobs.
The damage is strategic, not merely emotional. Baylor University’s reporting on office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile.
Not only that. Travel time should count as work time, with full reimbursement of all travel costs: gas, tickets,…
If they really feel that added cost is worth it? Let them.
Takes you three hours of travel time to get to work and back? That counts into your 8h workday, so you’ll both be paid full salary for it and get to work “only” 5h at the office.
Most should quickly turn away from the idea.
My workplace requires everyone within a 50 mile radius to RTO. Because it’s a crowded metro area where a lot of workers had the same mandate at the same time, traffic is now absurd. At the outer ends of that radius, it could take well over 2 hours to drive in (and of course the further out you are, the less likely you are to be able to take public transit it). I bet paying an extra 4 hours a day would shrink that radius real quick.
The obvious effect this would have would be to make it so that employers stop hiring anyone living X distance away from the office, which I don’t actually think would be a good thing.
My initial reaction is the same, but I could also see it having the positive effect of making companies lobby for better mixed zoning.
On the other hand, you know good and well who’s going to “invest” in the property around their buildings. Then it’s just company towns with extra steps…
They can: hire locally (not a bad thing), move out of overpriced areas (also not a bad thing), pay/find closer housing for employees and negotiate better prices (also not a bad thing) or just make remoteable jobs remote.
All positive consequences of… Having to pay your employeea for their time spent for the company.
deleted by creator
Doubtful. If they live in an urban area, that means they need to up their compensation to compete with local talent in the city (because housing is more expensive). Whereas an employee in a suburb commuting might take a smaller pay. The extra few thousand dollars of stipend wouldn’t cancel this dynamic out.
In that scenario, the pay kind of shakes out to be the same between the worker living closer in the city and the suburban commuter, if the pay is going to be lower for the suburban commuter to have them remain competitive.
So are they even really getting paid for their commute time, in that case? It seems like extra steps to arrive at the same end result.
Pay is always about negotiation and leverage. This stipend won’t change those fundamental facts. If it’s a perk that would win over someone who’d otherwise walk, that’s a win for them, right?