- 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.
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?