does it really matter? How about you argue against my points. I work a job where I telecommute and make the same amount as I did before I moved. Even if I moved to a place where its cheaper I think I should still get the same pay for the same work.
As work from home increases, not only will they check your IP, but they will probably have other productivity monitors such as mouse and keyboard input and I wouldn't put it past companies to monitor employees from their laptop cameras.
This WFH is not going to be as good as people think it will be.
It would basically be like what the Government utilizes for its employees with a base pay + a locality pay.And someone else is getting more money for doing the same work as you, this would be like penalizing someones pay because they bought a cheaper house or car so your boss is like you don't need it
Can’t believe people are agreeing with these greedy ass corporations.
When they agreed to pay JaneDoe $150k it made fiscal sense based on the value that she brought in her position. If her WFH in West Bumblefukk doesn’t reduce the value she brings why justify reducing her salary? Especially since you’re likely saving money by not having her come into the office. I can see instituting this policy for new employees applying to WFH in West Bumblefukk since you’re hiring based on the job market, but for an existing employee it’s a major faux pas imo to reduce their compensation for any reasons other than poor employee performance (they no longer deserve the pay) or poor company performance (can no longer afford to pay)
Can’t believe people are agreeing with these greedy ass corporations.
When they agreed to pay JaneDoe $150k it made fiscal sense based on the value that she brought in her position. If her WFH in West Bumblefukk doesn’t reduce the value she brings why justify reducing her salary? Especially since you’re likely saving money by not having her come into the office. I can see instituting this policy for new employees applying to WFH in West Bumblefukk since you’re hiring based on the job market, but for an existing employee it’s a major faux pas imo to reduce their compensation for any reasons other than poor employee performance (they no longer deserve the pay) or poor company performance (can no longer afford to pay)
I literally addressed this in the post you quoted.Riddle me this... What is Jane Doe’s market value if she took a job in Arkansas?
...I can see instituting this policy for new employees applying to WFH in West Bumblefukk since you’re hiring based on the job market...
I literally addressed this in the post you quoted.
People think some rando tech dork will outsmart Facebook?
You're correct. But implicit in that comp package is paying you a wage that will allow you live a respectable life in the local market of that firm. So that $150K is likely $110K based purely off the work and value brought to the org. The remaining $40K is a COL adjustment depending on where the job is located.
It'd definitely suck to see your wages decrease just because you moved out of SF even though your output is the same.
Unless it was EXPLICIT in the comp package, I can’t rock with corporations reducing salaries other than for the reasons I stated.
There are also implicit (even explicit) benefits that the employee got/expected out of taking that job at FB that they’re no longer going to realize by working from home (ranging from free meals to being an environment where they’ll cross paths with other leaders in tech both internal and external to the company)