Google (and other tech firms) looking into paying employees less if they work from home

[Dwarvenhobble]

Google may cut pay of staff who work from home

The tech giant has developed a calculator that lets staff see the effects of remote working.

www.bbc.co.uk

The technology giant has developed a pay calculator that lets employees see the effects of working remotely or moving offices.
Some remote employees, especially those with a long commute, could have their pay cut without changing address.

Silicon Valley firms, some of which are keen to get employees back to their desks, are experimenting with employee pay structures.
Big tech companies including Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter have offered less pay for employees based in locations where it is more inexpensive to live.

A Google spokesperson said: "Our compensation packages have always been determined by location, and we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from.

One Google employee, who works in Seattle but has a two-hour commute, complained to Reuters of being faced with a 10% pay cut for choosing to work from home full-time.
"It's as high a pay cut as I got for my most recent promotion," the employee said. "I didn't do all that hard work to get promoted to then take a pay cut."

Welcome to Google where you will be expected to do the same amount of work as your colleagues for less pay because you refuse to sit in their fancy offices doing it.

Seems really weird considering you'd incur extra costs working from home and take some of the burden off the company, cost wise (electricity, food as some tech firms provide that, coffee / tea, deks and equipment etc etc). Sure you don't have the commute costs but working from home doesn't suddenly mean you should be getting a paycut as though you're just working in an office in said locations normally when there are no offices actually there for the company.

 

[Cheetodust]

Reminds me of a piece some CEO wrote about workers being careful what they wish for in regards to working from home because when you're physically in the office you can end up doing more tasks that aren't necessarily in your job description or contract and if you don't do those things you could get your salary cut. Like, ***** just admitted in print that her company exploits workers. We really need to start culling a few CEOs.

If your productivity doesn't drop there is no justification for Google cutting your salary. You're making them just as much money and likely saving them money. These policies are always hilariously one way as well. They claim it's because you don't have to commute (none of their fucking business) but do they increase your pay when your rent goes up? Or if you have to move for some reason and your commute becomes more expensive?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

This is absolute bullshit.

Their justification is that people are saving money by working from home, but it's not like the company isn't saving money by having people work from home. If half your workforce works from home the company can downsize office space, or rent out half the space to another company and make money off it. Google wants to cut employee salaries while at the same time saving money on their property and the amenities they provide their employees.

And they're basing their pay cuts on the fact that they now choose to live in less expensive areas? How is it any of google's business where they live? If those employees decided to move to a more expensive area it's not like Google would suddenly pay them more. If they bought houses in Beverly hills their salaries wouldn't suddenly increase because their cost of living went up, why should their salaries decrease because their cost of living went down?

It's such a colossal scam and I hope the employees sue over this.

 

[tstorm823]

You're all acting like salaries are businesses calculating what you deserve for your work. Nobody but you can decide what you deserve for your work. Businesses attempt to figure out what pay will be sufficient to attract necessary talent, and have decided that people allowed to work remotely can be convinced to work for them for less salary than it takes to convince them to live locally and commute. Yes, that probably saves google money twice. No, that's not a bad thing.

 

[tippy2k2]

It's easy to say when I'm not the one looking down the barrel but if my company held this particular gun to my head, I'd be updating my resume and looking to leave ASAP. If anything, these assholes should pay me more for WFH with the money I'm saving them for not needing space or office supplies or electricity/air conditioning/heat, etc.

It's irksome as it is that my company still insists on doing this 3 on 2 away hybrid bullshit but that's just more of a convenience thing for me, not them screwing with my livelihood...

 

[MrCalavera]

U-nio-nize.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Google may cut pay of staff who work from home

The tech giant has developed a calculator that lets staff see the effects of remote working.

www.bbc.co.uk

Welcome to Google where you will be expected to do the same amount of work as your colleagues for less pay because you refuse to sit in their fancy offices doing it.

Seems really weird considering you'd incur extra costs working from home and take some of the burden off the company, cost wise (electricity, food as some tech firms provide that, coffee / tea, deks and equipment etc etc). Sure you don't have the commute costs but working from home doesn't suddenly mean you should be getting a paycut as though you're just working in an office in said locations normally when there are no offices actually there for the company.

I imagine the logic might be that if someone is working from home then management has less ability to know how much they are actually working. What results is that, from their perspective, a person could get paid for 8 hours of work but spend 2 of those looking at cat videos for all they know. So someone from on high looks at this situation, crunches some numbers and with a cold and dispasionate attitude concludes, "such and such working from home without supervision represents x potential 'wasted' hours of time so we should reduce their pay by y amount to prepare for such a possibility."

You might counter with the fact that people can and do do that when at their jobs in person, but then the burden of risk is put on the employee who is more likely to be caught or ratted out in such a setting.

 

[Cheetodust]

I imagine the logic might be that if someone is working from home then management has less ability to know how much they are actually working. What results is that, from their perspective, a person could get paid for 8 hours of work but spend 2 of those looking at cat videos for all they know. So someone from on high looks at this situation, crunches some numbers and with a cold and dispasionate attitude concludes, "such and such working from home without supervision represents x potential 'wasted' hours of time so we should reduce their pay by y amount to prepare for such a possibility."

You might counter with the fact that people can and do do that when at their jobs in person, but then the burden of risk is put on the employee who is more likely to be caught or ratted out in such a setting.

Productivity. If I'm getting the same amount of work done pay me for it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're all acting like salaries are businesses calculating what you deserve for your work. Nobody but you can decide what you deserve for your work. Businesses attempt to figure out what pay will be sufficient to attract necessary talent, and have decided that people allowed to work remotely can be convinced to work for them for less salary than it takes to convince them to live locally and commute. Yes, that probably saves google money twice.

Marx: It's true!

No, that's not a bad thing.

Marx: *laughs*

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Marx: It's true!



Marx: *laughs*

Marx: Haha, yes! Be like me and mooch of your friend and mother instead of working. Gives you plenty of time to fuck your maid too!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Productivity. If I'm getting the same amount of work done pay me for it.

I agree, but this is how it goes. I'm not condoning, just explaining.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Marx: Haha, yes! Be like me and mooch of your friend and mother instead of working. Gives you plenty of time to fuck your maid too!

Imagine this being what you know about Marx

 

[MrCalavera]

No, that's not a bad thing.

For whom?

 

[tippy2k2]

I imagine the logic might be that if someone is working from home then management has less ability to know how much they are actually working. What results is that, from their perspective, a person could get paid for 8 hours of work but spend 2 of those looking at cat videos for all they know. So someone from on high looks at this situation, crunches some numbers and with a cold and dispasionate attitude concludes, "such and such working from home without supervision represents x potential 'wasted' hours of time so we should reduce their pay by y amount to prepare for such a possibility."

You might counter with the fact that people can and do do that when at their jobs in person, but then the burden of risk is put on the employee who is more likely to be caught or ratted out in such a setting.

But that's the thing, that's not what is happening here

They are lowering your paycheck IF you are a certain distance away from the office. So it's not "Anyone who works from home is losing 10% of their pay", it's "We will pay you less if you're X distance away"

From the article:
A Google employee in Stamford, Connecticut, which is an hour away from New York by train, would be paid 15% less working remotely, while there were 5% and 10% differences in the Seattle, Boston and San Francisco areas.
Google will not change employees' pay if they work fully remotely from the same city.

The "productive" argument would still be a load of horse shit either way but even that argument is super horse shit in this case...

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Imagine this being what you know about Marx

Imagine looking to such a person for wisdom about the economy when they can't even manage their own finances and have to constantly dodge debt collectors. I've read about the rest of Marx as a person and it doesn't matter when the thing everyone uses him as a prophet for is the thing he had no ability or knowledge about. Or that he knew a damn thing about the working man when he never worked a day of hard labor in his life, instead sitting on his ass and doing the 19th century equivalent of blogging.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Imagine looking to such a person for wisdom about the economy when they can't even manage their own finances and have to constantly dodge debt collectors.

Putting aside whether this is even true, it's not an argument against the accuracy of his analysis of capitalism.

 

[tstorm823]

For whom?

Everyone. Efficiency is the gain that benefits all stakeholders.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Everyone. Efficiency is the gain that benefits all stakeholders.

"We're paying you less. You can thank us later."

 

[Cheetodust]

Everyone. Efficiency is the gain that benefits all stakeholders.

... Are you going to argue that a pay cut benefits workers. Fuck me sideways.

Edit:anyone who bothers arguing wihh this will lose all of my respect

 

[MrCalavera]

Everyone.

Unfortunately, that's a wrong answer.