Are the corporate board members getting paid based on the place they live
No they get paid a flat dollar fee and flat stock amount. It's publicly reported in every def-14A filing
Mark Zuckerberg planning to localize Facebook salaries as WFH increases
- Thread starter Rell Lauren
- Start date
No they get paid a flat dollar fee and flat stock amount. It's publicly reported in every def-14A filing
Voice of Reason
Veteran
Mr Hate Coffee
Veteran
Company asking me if im willing to take a pay-cut :
In reality those that have it like that will still be able to command the salary they want. That’s never changed. If you’re a top tier engineer you can tell FB you want $400k and you ain’t moving from Nesbraska. Guess what? They’ll comply.
BUT you gotta have it like that. And most people don’t. And in times like this plenty of people are taking a paycut just to keep a job. My homie is at a startup in SF and is taking a 30% paycut just to stay employed and he has to stay in the bay.
I have friends at Delta taking a paycut just to keep their job. The economy is hanging by a thread... trust, the average person is taking a paycut if they have to.
I'm on the west coast making executive director software biz money. Which honestly isn't all it's cracked up to be with SoCal beach city prices.
My plan was to head to work remote into my next contract update and head to NC and live large. fukk this bullshyt. Hope it doesn't catch on.
My plan was to head to work remote into my next contract update and head to NC and live large. fukk this bullshyt. Hope it doesn't catch on.
So to the people who decry localized salary, should the solution then be for companies to have "flat" salaries that are indifferent to COL markets? So a job posted in NYC and NoLA go for the same $80K a year irrespective of location? I'm genuinely curious.
I'm looking at this policy from FB also as a way to disincentivize their workers from leaving the main campus.
I'm looking at this policy from FB also as a way to disincentivize their workers from leaving the main campus.
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
Nobody is decrying localized COL. We’re decrying instituting a policy to decreases folks’ salaries in the middle of pandemic which has closed offices and FORCED people to WFH simply because they choose to do so from a cheaper location. Why should the corporation be justified in seeking savings but not the employee?
Zuckerberg’s comments seem to suggest the opposite...that FB, in the future, will be looking to acquire more talent that is distant from the main campus and using the WFH protocols proven during this pandemic so they can stay distant. So this policy is more about bringing existing employee compensation in line with future hires in these different markets.
You Win Perfect
bow down
at people thinking these CEO's wanna see you live good
The policy starts Jan 1st, 2021. So there's plenty of time for people to adjust. 6 months is more
From what we can assess, if someone worked at FB corporate, then they were located in the SF Bay area. So WFH should mean working from their home/apartment in the SF bay area I'd presume. All these companies factor in COL in the salaries they offer people.
A salary of $200K for a software engineer in SF has a base value of what the job is actually worth say $120K. Throw in may $40K for COL in SF and then another $40K premium so the engieer isn't poached by Google, Apple etc.
Correct on the bolded. However, the salary paycut for people who choose to live elsewhere and WFH still acts as a disincentive due to the financial cut. For some though, the upside of living in say Houston and working remotely would outweigh their paycut.
For new employees, it won't really matter.
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
But none of this answered my question. Why should FB get to realize a savings instead of the employee?
Because US laws are pro business since there is belief that businesses are engines of growth and jobs (which in honesty, they are) there are certain laws in place to ensure a pro-business environment.
FB did only what is logical. It was also fair with it (6 months advance notice).
And WFH, employees still do see cost savings. Gas from not driving, city parking (if not subsidized) etc.
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
Ftr, I’m not questioning the legality of it, I’m questioning the morality of it.
I guess you’re cool with it, but I think it’s unjustified corporate greed. As long as they’re getting the same production from that employee, and the business is turning the same profits, then reducing someone’s pay because they’ve been FORCED to work from home (and wisely chose to trim some fat in their spending in these uncertain times by moving to a cheaper locale) is foul to me.
Ftr, I’m not questioning the legality of it, I’m questioning the morality of it.
I guess you’re cool with it, but I think it’s unjustified corporate greed. As long as they’re getting the same production from that employee, and the business is turning the same profits, then reducing someone’s pay because they’ve been FORCED to work from home (and wisely chose to trim some fat in their spending in these uncertain times by moving to a cheaper locale) is foul to me.
But see that's the thing. People aren't going to be forced to WFH outside of the SF bay area. They have the choice to stay in the Bay and collect their full salary, or go elsewhere and simply get localized salary like all other corporations do.
I think FB took a reasonable and measured approach to the whole situation.
Where do consumers get their income from though.....