But you’re getting there to go to work. Literally everyone complains about the commute. Stop licking boots of people who literally don’t see you as human
I mean driving too and from work is apart of the job. It's taking away your free time and you're selling those hours of your life to the company you work for.
But they'll push it and hope you don't question it. My company did that, "You need to come in 15 minutes early to power up your system and get connected to all your tools."
I told them if I come in 15 minutes early, they're paying me for the 15 minutes, it's not my fault their systems are slow to start up. They pushed back that I wasn't being a team player. I asked if they had spoken to legal about having us do unpaid work on the systems, they just kind of dropped it after that. But so many other people had been cowed into this policy before I pushed back. Even after there were people coming in early unpaid because they wanted to be "Team players" and have better chances at promotion.
This would cause companies to discriminate based on commute times of workers.
To make this legislation successful, companies should pay 1 hour a day flat rate for commute time. (30 minutes each way). That would be a smart way to go about this.
Right.... which brings down the productivity metrics the company uses to generate the profit on which you are paid, and that can't possibly negatively affect the Financials of the organization
I like how you capitalised Financials. We put figures above people having a balanced day. I get politicians chase productivity but we’re doing some emperors clothes moments when it comes to keeping the status quo.
Office workers are productive for 3 hours here. 4.8 hours for the average employee. So 5 hours seems fine to me.
I'm not arguing how many productivity minutes a worker averages in a day but I am going to laugh at you if you believe that you can reduce the workday and only remove non productive minutes from it.
So 5 hours seems fine to me.
Only if you assume you can isolate the productive minutes from the non productive ones when you reduce the minutes spent present in total by a % from the beginning or end of the clock.
I do think you’re underestimating the effect more free time would have on an average person, and their relationship with work/how motivated they are
I think you've never been in the military yourself, or particularly close friends with someone who currently is?
There wasn't a time in my life where I had LESS personal time and MORE motivation to do my job- to the point where me and alot of the guys in the unit would spend what little time off we did get doing things not wholly irrelevant to our day jobs, camping, hiking ,skydiving, hunting, fishing ect ect. The management also treated us like dog shit, so it's not like the time factor was made up for on that end
While I understand that happy workers are productive workers, the company itself requires a minimum number of productivity units just to break even before it can turn a profit in a given period--- its not as if your expenses work out neatly to a profit of 10% per productivity unit from the first unit to the last in a cycle. Your profit margin for your first 60-80% of productivity done is 0%, until you are holding enough profits to cover all those fixed costs
When reducing productivity windows, that lost output will come from the profit producing units that are produced last.
Like the logic works in the reverse where extra hours don’t correlate to productivity, people just end up checked out for the majority of the day.
Clearly you can't have your worker standing around 24 7 and expect them to be productive.
But my shelf stocker can't make deliveries show up on time or get things done continuously while present and on the clock - they are no less needed to be present and on standby waiting for that truck to show up and get it's goods out on the floor. As annoying as that is- just because there is 20% or so of their shift spent doing nothing doesn't mean that 20% of their time is not needed on site. They're paid for that nothing they do just the same as they are while working. It's part of the deal.
No and I don’t think military employment structures can be wholly applicable to wider society. You’re forming way closer bonds with colleagues than usual, your work adjacent activities have physical and outdoor characteristics which is what a lot of modern jobs lack, imo making people more depressed. Your contracts are way different, obligations too etc.
Yeah I get there’s a min threshold of productivity, I’m saying the status quo has us believing we can’t meet that threshold and still improve our work-life balance, which I think is wrong. This isn’t an optimised way to run things, it never was, it just sounded reasonable ages ago.
There are also other data informed ways to address this with remote working, which for some jobs solves the commuting time issue, reduces the need for expensive office property which can be put back into business operations. But we’ve created a fucked up system where that’s baked in. You think Henry Ford would have done everything exactly the same if he could telecommute to a meeting, send mail instantly or collaborate in real time across an ocean?
Your shelf stocker can get a delivery window which should be scheduled. They shouldn’t be waiting at the loading dock for their shift, they should have enough actions in that 5 hour window to bring net productivity to the cost of his shift. If a drivers running late whoever’s on the rota next can get it.
What we’re arguing over is if a shift is reduced to say 5 hours, there’s opportunity cost to not having that staff member sitting around for however long. In some cases this will happen, but I think there’s enough areas that just don’t have that issue. We’re not even getting into the software, sales, or whatever office jobs where task completion is way more important than any on call capability.
No and I don’t think military employment structures can be wholly applicable to wider society.
Oh God no neither do I, but making the point - motivated workforce is not tied to how much free time they have as a hard rule, otherwise it would be exceedingly hard to motivate most soldiers
Yeah I get there’s a min threshold of productivity, I’m saying the status quo has us believing we can’t meet that threshold and still improve our work-life balance, which I think is wrong. This isn’t an optimised way to run things, it never was, it just sounded reasonable ages ago.
I think the issue here largely is up to individuals failing to order the rest of their lives - not that some part the norms of work is causing us a problem that we just somehow didn't notice before. Nothings changed with work- but plenty has changed with how we approach entitlement and how we spend our time
There are also other data informed ways to address this with remote working, which for some jobs solves the commuting time issue, reduces the need for expensive office property which can be put back into business operations
While this can work for some workers indeed it does little to address the majority of workers who have hands on physically and geographically located tasks as their work. I'm all for remote work when it's appropriate because from my perspective "you mean I don't have to pay the rent on 80sq feet of office space for you to occupy for 25% of the time?" Fantastic.
But my drivers and maintenance guys can't do that. It only benefits one of the 10 people or so I might be employing at any given time
Your shelf stocker can get a delivery window which should be scheduled. They shouldn’t be waiting at the loading dock for their shift, they should have enough actions in that 5 hour window to bring net productivity to the cost of his shift. If a drivers running late whoever’s on the rota next can get it.
It should be, I don't actually work in warehousing I work with the trucking that moves between them. Sometimes shit happens on the road and not all freight carriers or drivers care as much about schedules as I do so trucks show up when they show up and there isn't anything that can be done about that.
The unloader can't go home when 1 truck misses window and he finds himself with 30 minutes down time before the next truck shows up at the same time as the first truck finally arrives. The work is still there to do, but the idle time found its way in either way--- which is kind of my point about being wholly unable to separate productive time from unproductive time when analyzing every individual minute of someone's day for dead space. You're paid for that dead space already - and it has to exist, sometimes just as a buffer of the schedule so that IF there is a delay the rest of the schedule isn't affected
You think Henry Ford would have done everything exactly the same if he could telecommute to a meeting, send mail instantly or collaborate in real time across an ocean?
I think you are correct as it pertains to his c suite,and engineers. But probably not as it related to his assembly line workers...
If a drivers running late whoever’s on the rota next can get it
Right, so a new employee needed to cover the same 24 hour clock with insurance and benefits which raises those fixed costs again in order to maintain prior productivity, bumping into that same problem again
What we’re arguing over is if a shift is reduced to say 5 hours, there’s opportunity cost to not having that staff member sitting around for however long. In some cases this will happen, but I think there’s enough areas that just don’t have that issue. We’re not even getting into the software, sales, or whatever office jobs where task completion is way more important than any on call capability
For the majority of jobs that do require one's presence on site this argument is entirely worth having.
In your latter half you refrence job types that are almost entirely off site capable - I'm all for remote work remember. There's no great reason not to have that benifit where appropriate
I do agree this isn’t a one size fits all solution.
I agree with a lot of your points, particularly concerning logistics because a company can’t single handily fix crumbling infrastructure and shit going wrong sometimes. The bottle neck is there but sometimes your only option is to throw availability and factor in the cost. I think that is a temporary fix and the true solutions aren’t capitalised on because implementation is seen as too difficult.
I guess the frustration is, we’ve built this system that has no room for optimising free time and resources even with the data and circumstances of roles would support it. I do think there’s a sizeable percentage of the workforce who are sedentary, mentally and physically unhealthy, without sufficient social ties beyond their work.
If you gave them more free time I think we’d have more healthy cooking (when paired with societal norms), physical activity, meaning friendships and partnerships, birth rate would go up, mental health would be improved.
You do it to the areas which allow easy implementation first, solve industry bottlenecks later because that’s good anyway. Freight and trucks can be reliably tracked with modern technology, for example. 50 years ago you might have a warehouse full of guys sitting around playing cards wondering what’s going on with the deliveries. Now you can have notice and send them home, or work on a backlog issue.
I get a normal business might not be able to do that in some areas. Or it would cost more to cover the same amount of shifts. It would be crazy to expect profitably to be lowered below functional levels, but we don’t properly try cut into the leeway since the 8 hour became the norm. We just let the real productivity to salary gap grow. Then you’re working an extra job anyway because your spending power is fucked.
I guess the frustration is, we’ve built this system that has no room for optimising free time and resources even with the data and circumstances of roles would support it. I do think there’s a sizeable percentage of the workforce who are sedentary, mentally and physically unhealthy, without sufficient social ties beyond their work
I can largely agree with most of this, but in the first part I don't think it's so obvious that it's plausible or reasonable to expect to cut out the idle time from a workers shift by lowering the shift just because of the nature of schedules,time,safety buffers of time innthe schedule that will inflict a certain amount of idle time to prevent infliction of backlogs when a problem does arise.
If you gave them more free time I think we’d have more healthy cooking (when paired with societal norms), physical activity, meaning friendships and partnerships, birth rate would go up, mental health would be improved
If one caters to laziness one only encourages it. Why is it that some workers can manage to work 60+ hours a week and still take care of themselves while others working 30~ don't bother cooking their own dinners, it's not a time function. Somewhere In there choices are made and we cannot constantly cater to the slowest members of the flock without eventually impacting the entire flock. Especially when it's not clear the problem is not self inflicted
You do it to the areas which allow easy implementation first, solve industry bottlenecks later because that’s good anyway. Freight and trucks can be reliably tracked with modern technology, for example. 50 years ago you might have a warehouse full of guys sitting around playing cards wondering what’s going on with the deliveries. Now you can have notice and send them home, or work on a backlog issue.
I recently bought my way into a trucking business. And on the very first load booked under new ownership we showed up exactly on time, in an area of Tennessee that had recently been hit with snow and ice storms which caused dozens of trucks to show up late with us aswel as a bunch of workers to not show up at all. The trucks are usually tracked through the drivers phone but that's between us and the broker I think. If the customer wants our physical location at any given time they have to call and get it from the broker because they don't get access to where my driver shits. Just where their load is, and any given warehouse might have 70 to a hundred or more trucks coming and going in a day- tracking all of that live in order to live adjust and update the schedules of workers who are gonna get super pissed about short notice changes.....seems like a real win for the workers just to get a slightly shorter shift day to day
I get a normal business might not be able to do that in some areas. Or it would cost more to cover the same amount of shifts. It would be crazy to expect profitably to be lowered below functional levels, but we don’t properly try cut into the leeway since the 8 hour became the norm. We just let the real productivity to salary gap grow. Then you’re working an extra job anyway because your spending power is fucked.
Specifically in jobs where you have to be there in order to achieve productivity. Factory, construction, welding,cash registers (while we still have them) wait staff,cook staff
All the jobs that are min wage or near it- they're usually not the kinds of jobs that are readily adaptable to remote work
And how do companies usually deal with the math problem of not enough money to maintain current employee counts when presented with that problem? It shouldn't require even a room temp iq to solve that dilemma.
Corporations have boasted record profits in the past few years while doing layoffs and not giving raises.
Only a handful of specific named ones have. And while they might be some of the biggest individual employers, they aren't employing a majority of the workforce.
So let's limit this discussion to the average experience, and if you have specific issue with a specific corporation I'm more than down to start a separate discussion to roll down that lane.
Are you specifically referencing during covid when food could not be obtained from restaurants and cafeterias that usually get their food from wholesalers- which naturally increased the flow of goods through grocery chains
Or do you mean over the previous 24~ months now that the flow of goods and services has somewhat normalized again?
All of these freeloaders are taking money out of the corporations mouths. Did you know that mcdonalds missed their revenue forecast by .73%? It's all because of those damn freeloaders.
I thought we were most concerned about the min wage type workers who largely cannot stock shelves,work cash registers, or change your cars oil remotely.
Office staff do not make up the dominant share of the lowest earners, nor do they make up the dominant share of workers in industries that run the narrowest margins.
So it's not really a win.... I'm all for bringing back remote work for those who it applies to- but that doesn't help most people in the slightest. And it's selection bias tends towards better earning industries over shit like your fast food or gas station workers and the like
Plenty of supermarket jobs won't give more than 20 to 25 hours to most of the low skill retail staff. It would make more sense to offer prorated benefits for part timers. And get healthcare away from employers and single payer.
What do you mean how that worked for France? Studies are showing that French employees are the most productive per hour they spend at work. And for having worked in France and other countries, I can confirm that cadences and pressure on employees for being productive is high in France. And if I compare to US, employees are much more productive in France overall even with less official hours per week
From what I gather, France has been struggling for some time to keep up enough economic productivity to meet its domestic obligations - which is resulting in things such as raising the retirement age recently which has caused some months of rioting as a result.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. That lowered output will manifest itself somehow and you can't just ignore it when it does
Not really, strikes are cultural and if anything, there are less now than 20 or 30 years ago. Just more media coverage. The reason is the current president willing to follow the American model of everything private instead of current public system, and austerity. Also the high unemployment rate. Not that they have problem with productivity.
What is now in the news is farmers going to Paris, it has to do with increase of regulations and the fact they are now asked more and more paperwork. Their job changed a lot in the last 2 decades.
The retirement age topic has always been present. It's used by every government as a threat; here is the strategy: they say they will increase it, cut salaries and fire people. People riot. In the end, they will settle down to just fire people and people go back to work
The reason is the current president willing to follow the American model of everything private instead of current public system, and austerity. Also the high unemployment rate. Not that they have problem with productivity
Was the current model not PRODUCTIVE enough to make ends meet? Why make changes to a system that's running well already
The retirement age topic has always been present. It's used by every government as a threat; here is the strategy: they say they will increase it, cut salaries and fire people. People riot. In the end, they will settle down to just fire people and people go back to work
So it sounds like the government says "we have to reduce costs" (which would only be because they cannot afford to maintain costs) which causes the public to give them excuses to fire a bunch of people which seemingly reduces the costs right?
The recurring issue seems to be that France is unable to maintain its spending habits, and has been over the past 20 years or so reducing the work week and work obligations of its workforce while increasing benifits spending simultaneously- and you don't thinknthe 2 are tied ?
You would be earning the same amount, just the first and last 30 minutes of your day would be spent traveling to and from the office instead of at your desk.
Im on fix salary, being paid for 35 or 40 hours is the same and in any case I always end up doing more. Also, for having worked in countries at 35h and 40h full time, the pressure on employees being on the 35 is much worse than for those on 40. Between 40 more relax and 35 stress all the time, i take the 40.
It’s because real estate is expensive. For instance, if I wanted a studio in downtown Toronto, I could likely expect to pay $3,000 CAD+/month rent. If I live 30 minutes outside downtown, I might only pay $1800 CAD/month rent for a studio.
as someone who lived in Vancouver until this January, I understand that concern.
the way I see it is that it would put more pressure on the local governments to fix policies that are causing the housing crisis in our cities (mainly the ludicrous amount of low-density housing) as well as create more demand for faster, higher quality public transit.
I also believe that with stores needing to pay for their employees' commutes, they will whenever possible set up shop where their employees are. That means for convenience stores no more 10 to 15-minute drive at 2 am because it will be a 2-minute walk (which hey more people walking in general is good for public health even).
and well yes in the short term there will be growing pains I think long term we will come out better for it.
Not necessarily. Counting toward working hours also reduces amount worked, considering how many laws exists around work week length. It also requires companies pay more if they want in office works (remote workers wouldn't get commute pay)
These laws were created without commute being counted, they'll just be adjusted.
It also requires companies pay more if they want in office works
In theory, in practice companies that force RTO will continue to and will pay the exact same saying it includes commute pay. It might even have a negative effect that some companies that allow remote work will reduce these remote employees salaries and ask them to RTO if they wanted the full pay.
You can't just expect that companies would be able to fire all the people that live farther away and replace them with people that live closer.
The houses that are closer are already occupied by people who work at better paid jobs which allow them to afford the more expensive housing.
At best, the company would be able to hire people that live in a small band where cost of living is low enough to attract people for the lower wage, but close enough that the commute time doesn't overtax the company's bottom line. But, pretty soon, cost of living in that band would start to increase as it becomes a more desirable location for employees of the company.
All the people saying “yes” probably have long commutes. Those are the same people who would be fired immediately if this law ever took effect. Companies simply wouldn’t want to pay more for employees who live hours away. They’ll replace them with closer (therefore cheaper) workers. This would also open companies to choose your commute method, since you’re technically “on the clock”. You wouldn’t be allowed to stop for coffees or breakfast, on the clock. I personally like taking a slightly longer, but much more pleasant commute. I’m sure my company would rather me fight through backroads in a bad part of town to save 15min of pay. If your commute is killing you, it means you took a job too far away, that’s not on the company.
People have long commutes because they can't afford to live closer to their workplace. Companies would discover that they can't hire people with short commutes unless they pay them more. Either way, companies are going to have to pay more.
Lol. You think if this was implemented, the hundreds of thousands of people stopping for coffee every morning would just.... Stop?
Your workplace would figure out how long it takes you to get to your job(on average), then just pay you that automatically, as opposed to putting you on the clock every day when you leave for work.
Here in Venezuela there is a similar law that rules that.
It's called "Transportation bunus" and covers the cost of the commute, but not the salary as if that time were spent working. Most companies do not discriminate over commute times, but employees naturally do (most people would avoid wasting 2 or 3 hours if given the choice). That bonus is waived if the company provides transportation, and a lot of companies do so.
They wouldn't because they would take on the liability of what happens on the commute. If you're in an accident commuting "on the clock", then the company would end up being involved.
I never understand these kinds of posts. Nobody is forcing you to take a specific job. If you don't like the combination of job, hours, commute, pay, etc, then don't take it.
It's different if the company wants you to do unpaid work, because you didn't agree to that. But you did agree to be at the office for 40 hours, and knew committing to and from the office is on you.
The world effects them, they don’t effect the world. All problems are externalized, nothing could possibly be their own doing or responsibility
You voluntarily applied to a job to have money, you’re not assigned a job. For some reason people forget this and think the company should pay them for simply breathing
Apparently, the total pay for the job is worthwhile enough that people will travel in from wherever they live to do X job. If the organizations get this wrong, they just can't fill the positions.
It also means people who say "X commute isn't worth it" are not the majority of people. It is literally worth it to the people who take the jobs with the associated commute.
I'm in the Mid-Atlantic and a lot of people commute between 1.5-2hrs one direction. It's apparently still worthwhile.
Not in US but worked with a company that paid an additional bonus if you lived within a certain radius of the office in order to offset for the higher home costs of having a shorter commute. It was to encourage people to have shorter commutes and more time for other things.
As an employer…fuck off. I dont choose where you live. But you know where my office is when you came to the interview. If thats a dealbreaker, whyd you come in? I dont get paid to drive there every day either
I factor in the time of my commute billed at half my hourly rate when job hunting. Managed to negotiate a healthy increase on the starting offer at my most recent job which more than covers travel & lunch for the few days I'm at the office.
In Austria they already do that. It's called "Pendlerpauschale"
It's not that much, but if you live more than 60 km (like 37 miles) away from your workplace they have to pay you a bit more.
It's dependent on how long the shortest "reasonable" trip between your home and workplace is (distance and time) but ranges from about 1000€ to 2000€ a year.
It can be reversed: thinking about companies in France that may force you to take their bus, which has stops in Paris for instance, but it will take you longer to go to the bus stop and take the special bus than if you were taking the regular public transportation. Plus you can't choose your schedule anymore.
In France, some people make the choice to live far from their job to have a bigger house, but they are not the poor who can't afford to live close to work, they are the upper middle class who is doing it by choice and prioritize having a bigger place versus a smaller appartment
And it's just based on miles? There's no adjustment for if you have to drive through heavy traffic or take an extended bus ride? Meaning it's a subsidy for car drivers who live in the countryside?
in the us there is something for if you need to go more than a certain distance from the normal place of work. all the hollywood alien planets (before cg was the default) look the same because they were the same place. there was a place that was a few hundred ft short of that distance.
Thank you! I was going to mention that this is not unheard of in some parts of the world that isn't the States, so all the hypotheticals bouncing around in the comments can check the actual data of it already being in place...
No you choose where you live. You also choose how you commute. They pay your salary already. Im not hired for my driving or "taking the bus" skills, but for what I do at work
Technically true but moving based on your job is impractical in the best of situations. And sometimes, you can't find a good place to live that is near your good job.
Yep. It would incentivize the companies to ensure their workers can live close and/or get to/from work easily. It would further incentivize compromises like working from home. All around, it would be a positive shift.
Negotiate your pay to accommodate your commute. If your commute cost is too much then find a place to live closer to work or a place to work closer to home
And in some cases, they have niche jobs that aren't necessarily found in the city, but in bumfuck nowhere because it's manufacturing and can get real estate on the cheap. Nah I'd rather commute than live in the drive by city that has a population of 1,000 and a factory
Based on your current income cap (generally low across the US)
Based on current housing/rent prices (generally high across the US)
Most major city centers have a significantly higher cost of living than their surrounding suburbs and rural areas. Meaning to actually afford a fucking roof over your head you need to live farther away, meaning you add a half hour of travel time either way. Turning your 9 hour(8 work plus forced hour lunch) into a 10 hour work day. And you don't get reimbursed for the gas you used along the way. And this does not necessarily include traffic implications.
And this doesn't even include that the majority of these jobs are perfectly viable to be done from home. The only reason they aren't is because these businesses have to clench their death grip on these unnecessarily massive office buildings they've purchased or built and to continue big brothering the fuck out of employees.
They can't even pay us well enough to buy a first time home now, even though rent is often higher than a mortgage payment right now(in my area atleast).
So yeah. I want a bigger salary. And I want travel compensation too.
Yes, don’t we all? Having a flat rate 1 hour commuters pay stops companies from discriminating long commuters and allows people to get paid for commuting time.
No. It incentivizes driving which is a bad thing. We need to be driving less, so working closer to (or from) home is ideal. And it has the opportunity to be gamed immediately, no company is going to take that risk.
What we need is companies to start paying a reasonable wage so this isn't something we even need to consider. You choose where you live, you choose where you work, commute time is in the equation for both. And if we would just start investing in proper public transport it would lower the costs and probably time of a commute, negating the problem.
Ah yes, almost every trade you hire, either a plumber or electrician ect. They all charge their hourly rate when they leave the shop headed to your home.
This is a good argument, it's also a good argument for telecommuting.
Never having to leave your home, if they don't want to pay for your time and expenses to travel to their business.
oli_ramsay@reddit
Companies should pay for your work. If you choose to work on the train on the way to work then that should count towards your week's work hours.
No-Finance1454@reddit
But you’re getting there to go to work. Literally everyone complains about the commute. Stop licking boots of people who literally don’t see you as human
jish5@reddit
I mean driving too and from work is apart of the job. It's taking away your free time and you're selling those hours of your life to the company you work for.
SGI256@reddit
Many people working on the train are likely salary and not hourly workers.
Asmos159@reddit
as far as i'm aware, that is a thing... ish. they get in trouble if they want you to do that, and don't pay you.
Kerensky97@reddit
But they'll push it and hope you don't question it. My company did that, "You need to come in 15 minutes early to power up your system and get connected to all your tools."
I told them if I come in 15 minutes early, they're paying me for the 15 minutes, it's not my fault their systems are slow to start up. They pushed back that I wasn't being a team player. I asked if they had spoken to legal about having us do unpaid work on the systems, they just kind of dropped it after that. But so many other people had been cowed into this policy before I pushed back. Even after there were people coming in early unpaid because they wanted to be "Team players" and have better chances at promotion.
oboshoe@reddit
Be a consultant.
A double digit % of my income is travel time and waiting for the customer.
abundantwaters@reddit
This would cause companies to discriminate based on commute times of workers.
To make this legislation successful, companies should pay 1 hour a day flat rate for commute time. (30 minutes each way). That would be a smart way to go about this.
frygod@reddit
That's already allowed. Place of residence isn't a protected class.
EVOSexyBeast@reddit
Then the company will just have you work 5 hrs less. Or if salary, deduct that amount from your pay.
abundantwaters@reddit
Sounds like a win to me, a 35 hour work week, what’s not to like?
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Yeah, say goodbye to those full time benefits to lol
Derkylos@reddit
You still 'work' full time, just 5 hours of that work time is spent commuting.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Right.... which brings down the productivity metrics the company uses to generate the profit on which you are paid, and that can't possibly negatively affect the Financials of the organization
Interesting_Bottle40@reddit
I like how you capitalised Financials. We put figures above people having a balanced day. I get politicians chase productivity but we’re doing some emperors clothes moments when it comes to keeping the status quo.
Office workers are productive for 3 hours here. 4.8 hours for the average employee. So 5 hours seems fine to me.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
My auto text did that it wasn't a conscious thing
I'm not arguing how many productivity minutes a worker averages in a day but I am going to laugh at you if you believe that you can reduce the workday and only remove non productive minutes from it.
Only if you assume you can isolate the productive minutes from the non productive ones when you reduce the minutes spent present in total by a % from the beginning or end of the clock.
Interesting_Bottle40@reddit
I agree that it’s not simple isolation of productivity once you cut away the additional time.
I do think you’re underestimating the effect more free time would have on an average person, and their relationship with work/how motivated they are.
Like the logic works in the reverse where extra hours don’t correlate to productivity, people just end up checked out for the majority of the day.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
I think you've never been in the military yourself, or particularly close friends with someone who currently is?
There wasn't a time in my life where I had LESS personal time and MORE motivation to do my job- to the point where me and alot of the guys in the unit would spend what little time off we did get doing things not wholly irrelevant to our day jobs, camping, hiking ,skydiving, hunting, fishing ect ect. The management also treated us like dog shit, so it's not like the time factor was made up for on that end
While I understand that happy workers are productive workers, the company itself requires a minimum number of productivity units just to break even before it can turn a profit in a given period--- its not as if your expenses work out neatly to a profit of 10% per productivity unit from the first unit to the last in a cycle. Your profit margin for your first 60-80% of productivity done is 0%, until you are holding enough profits to cover all those fixed costs
When reducing productivity windows, that lost output will come from the profit producing units that are produced last.
Clearly you can't have your worker standing around 24 7 and expect them to be productive.
But my shelf stocker can't make deliveries show up on time or get things done continuously while present and on the clock - they are no less needed to be present and on standby waiting for that truck to show up and get it's goods out on the floor. As annoying as that is- just because there is 20% or so of their shift spent doing nothing doesn't mean that 20% of their time is not needed on site. They're paid for that nothing they do just the same as they are while working. It's part of the deal.
Normal_Advice_4746@reddit
Yep, idgaf if you're watching Dragonball, or sorting your proxy MTG deck during downtime, just be ready to go when something happens.
Interesting_Bottle40@reddit
No and I don’t think military employment structures can be wholly applicable to wider society. You’re forming way closer bonds with colleagues than usual, your work adjacent activities have physical and outdoor characteristics which is what a lot of modern jobs lack, imo making people more depressed. Your contracts are way different, obligations too etc.
Yeah I get there’s a min threshold of productivity, I’m saying the status quo has us believing we can’t meet that threshold and still improve our work-life balance, which I think is wrong. This isn’t an optimised way to run things, it never was, it just sounded reasonable ages ago.
There are also other data informed ways to address this with remote working, which for some jobs solves the commuting time issue, reduces the need for expensive office property which can be put back into business operations. But we’ve created a fucked up system where that’s baked in. You think Henry Ford would have done everything exactly the same if he could telecommute to a meeting, send mail instantly or collaborate in real time across an ocean?
Your shelf stocker can get a delivery window which should be scheduled. They shouldn’t be waiting at the loading dock for their shift, they should have enough actions in that 5 hour window to bring net productivity to the cost of his shift. If a drivers running late whoever’s on the rota next can get it.
What we’re arguing over is if a shift is reduced to say 5 hours, there’s opportunity cost to not having that staff member sitting around for however long. In some cases this will happen, but I think there’s enough areas that just don’t have that issue. We’re not even getting into the software, sales, or whatever office jobs where task completion is way more important than any on call capability.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Oh God no neither do I, but making the point - motivated workforce is not tied to how much free time they have as a hard rule, otherwise it would be exceedingly hard to motivate most soldiers
I think the issue here largely is up to individuals failing to order the rest of their lives - not that some part the norms of work is causing us a problem that we just somehow didn't notice before. Nothings changed with work- but plenty has changed with how we approach entitlement and how we spend our time
While this can work for some workers indeed it does little to address the majority of workers who have hands on physically and geographically located tasks as their work. I'm all for remote work when it's appropriate because from my perspective "you mean I don't have to pay the rent on 80sq feet of office space for you to occupy for 25% of the time?" Fantastic.
But my drivers and maintenance guys can't do that. It only benefits one of the 10 people or so I might be employing at any given time
It should be, I don't actually work in warehousing I work with the trucking that moves between them. Sometimes shit happens on the road and not all freight carriers or drivers care as much about schedules as I do so trucks show up when they show up and there isn't anything that can be done about that.
The unloader can't go home when 1 truck misses window and he finds himself with 30 minutes down time before the next truck shows up at the same time as the first truck finally arrives. The work is still there to do, but the idle time found its way in either way--- which is kind of my point about being wholly unable to separate productive time from unproductive time when analyzing every individual minute of someone's day for dead space. You're paid for that dead space already - and it has to exist, sometimes just as a buffer of the schedule so that IF there is a delay the rest of the schedule isn't affected
I think you are correct as it pertains to his c suite,and engineers. But probably not as it related to his assembly line workers...
Right, so a new employee needed to cover the same 24 hour clock with insurance and benefits which raises those fixed costs again in order to maintain prior productivity, bumping into that same problem again
For the majority of jobs that do require one's presence on site this argument is entirely worth having.
In your latter half you refrence job types that are almost entirely off site capable - I'm all for remote work remember. There's no great reason not to have that benifit where appropriate
Interesting_Bottle40@reddit
I do agree this isn’t a one size fits all solution.
I agree with a lot of your points, particularly concerning logistics because a company can’t single handily fix crumbling infrastructure and shit going wrong sometimes. The bottle neck is there but sometimes your only option is to throw availability and factor in the cost. I think that is a temporary fix and the true solutions aren’t capitalised on because implementation is seen as too difficult.
I guess the frustration is, we’ve built this system that has no room for optimising free time and resources even with the data and circumstances of roles would support it. I do think there’s a sizeable percentage of the workforce who are sedentary, mentally and physically unhealthy, without sufficient social ties beyond their work.
If you gave them more free time I think we’d have more healthy cooking (when paired with societal norms), physical activity, meaning friendships and partnerships, birth rate would go up, mental health would be improved.
You do it to the areas which allow easy implementation first, solve industry bottlenecks later because that’s good anyway. Freight and trucks can be reliably tracked with modern technology, for example. 50 years ago you might have a warehouse full of guys sitting around playing cards wondering what’s going on with the deliveries. Now you can have notice and send them home, or work on a backlog issue.
I get a normal business might not be able to do that in some areas. Or it would cost more to cover the same amount of shifts. It would be crazy to expect profitably to be lowered below functional levels, but we don’t properly try cut into the leeway since the 8 hour became the norm. We just let the real productivity to salary gap grow. Then you’re working an extra job anyway because your spending power is fucked.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
I can largely agree with most of this, but in the first part I don't think it's so obvious that it's plausible or reasonable to expect to cut out the idle time from a workers shift by lowering the shift just because of the nature of schedules,time,safety buffers of time innthe schedule that will inflict a certain amount of idle time to prevent infliction of backlogs when a problem does arise.
If one caters to laziness one only encourages it. Why is it that some workers can manage to work 60+ hours a week and still take care of themselves while others working 30~ don't bother cooking their own dinners, it's not a time function. Somewhere In there choices are made and we cannot constantly cater to the slowest members of the flock without eventually impacting the entire flock. Especially when it's not clear the problem is not self inflicted
I recently bought my way into a trucking business. And on the very first load booked under new ownership we showed up exactly on time, in an area of Tennessee that had recently been hit with snow and ice storms which caused dozens of trucks to show up late with us aswel as a bunch of workers to not show up at all. The trucks are usually tracked through the drivers phone but that's between us and the broker I think. If the customer wants our physical location at any given time they have to call and get it from the broker because they don't get access to where my driver shits. Just where their load is, and any given warehouse might have 70 to a hundred or more trucks coming and going in a day- tracking all of that live in order to live adjust and update the schedules of workers who are gonna get super pissed about short notice changes.....seems like a real win for the workers just to get a slightly shorter shift day to day
Specifically in jobs where you have to be there in order to achieve productivity. Factory, construction, welding,cash registers (while we still have them) wait staff,cook staff
All the jobs that are min wage or near it- they're usually not the kinds of jobs that are readily adaptable to remote work
CowBoyDanIndie@reddit
Pay isn’t based on company profit. Corporations have boasted record profits in the past few years while doing layoffs and not giving raises.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
It's not based on, it just comes from.
And how do companies usually deal with the math problem of not enough money to maintain current employee counts when presented with that problem? It shouldn't require even a room temp iq to solve that dilemma.
Only a handful of specific named ones have. And while they might be some of the biggest individual employers, they aren't employing a majority of the workforce.
So let's limit this discussion to the average experience, and if you have specific issue with a specific corporation I'm more than down to start a separate discussion to roll down that lane.
CowBoyDanIndie@reddit
Most grocery stores have had record profits the past few years.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Are you specifically referencing during covid when food could not be obtained from restaurants and cafeterias that usually get their food from wholesalers- which naturally increased the flow of goods through grocery chains
Or do you mean over the previous 24~ months now that the flow of goods and services has somewhat normalized again?
ge123qazw@reddit
Won’t somebody think of the corporations!
noyga@reddit
All of these freeloaders are taking money out of the corporations mouths. Did you know that mcdonalds missed their revenue forecast by .73%? It's all because of those damn freeloaders.
The_Real_Dotato@reddit
Sounds like a great reason to embrace remote work to gain back that productivity! It's a win-win!
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
I thought we were most concerned about the min wage type workers who largely cannot stock shelves,work cash registers, or change your cars oil remotely.
Office staff do not make up the dominant share of the lowest earners, nor do they make up the dominant share of workers in industries that run the narrowest margins.
So it's not really a win.... I'm all for bringing back remote work for those who it applies to- but that doesn't help most people in the slightest. And it's selection bias tends towards better earning industries over shit like your fast food or gas station workers and the like
abundantwaters@reddit
Make the law state that full time benefits have to be given out for all employers with employees working more than 25 hours a week.
Megalocerus@reddit
Plenty of supermarket jobs won't give more than 20 to 25 hours to most of the low skill retail staff. It would make more sense to offer prorated benefits for part timers. And get healthcare away from employers and single payer.
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Yeah.... how's that worked for France of late lol
MerberCrazyCats@reddit
What do you mean how that worked for France? Studies are showing that French employees are the most productive per hour they spend at work. And for having worked in France and other countries, I can confirm that cadences and pressure on employees for being productive is high in France. And if I compare to US, employees are much more productive in France overall even with less official hours per week
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
From what I gather, France has been struggling for some time to keep up enough economic productivity to meet its domestic obligations - which is resulting in things such as raising the retirement age recently which has caused some months of rioting as a result.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. That lowered output will manifest itself somehow and you can't just ignore it when it does
MerberCrazyCats@reddit
Not really, strikes are cultural and if anything, there are less now than 20 or 30 years ago. Just more media coverage. The reason is the current president willing to follow the American model of everything private instead of current public system, and austerity. Also the high unemployment rate. Not that they have problem with productivity.
What is now in the news is farmers going to Paris, it has to do with increase of regulations and the fact they are now asked more and more paperwork. Their job changed a lot in the last 2 decades.
The retirement age topic has always been present. It's used by every government as a threat; here is the strategy: they say they will increase it, cut salaries and fire people. People riot. In the end, they will settle down to just fire people and people go back to work
Choice_Anteater_2539@reddit
Was the current model not PRODUCTIVE enough to make ends meet? Why make changes to a system that's running well already
So it sounds like the government says "we have to reduce costs" (which would only be because they cannot afford to maintain costs) which causes the public to give them excuses to fire a bunch of people which seemingly reduces the costs right?
The recurring issue seems to be that France is unable to maintain its spending habits, and has been over the past 20 years or so reducing the work week and work obligations of its workforce while increasing benifits spending simultaneously- and you don't thinknthe 2 are tied ?
EVOSexyBeast@reddit
They would still also reduce your hourly pay bc you’re only working 35hrs.
Junior-Question-2638@reddit
I work a 35 hr work week and am salaried, and stick to 35 hrs.
They pay me more than my previous job where I was expected to work 50 hrs
Tedrabear@reddit
You would be earning the same amount, just the first and last 30 minutes of your day would be spent traveling to and from the office instead of at your desk.
Junior-Question-2638@reddit
This is what my company does.. I have a 7 hour work day, 5 days a week, salaried. Making more than I did at my last job. Still have full benefits
MerberCrazyCats@reddit
Im on fix salary, being paid for 35 or 40 hours is the same and in any case I always end up doing more. Also, for having worked in countries at 35h and 40h full time, the pressure on employees being on the 35 is much worse than for those on 40. Between 40 more relax and 35 stress all the time, i take the 40.
Megalocerus@reddit
More remote work. 0 commute time.
j1r2000@reddit
or let them discriminate based on commute time?
like honestly I don't see why that's an issue.
abundantwaters@reddit
It’s because real estate is expensive. For instance, if I wanted a studio in downtown Toronto, I could likely expect to pay $3,000 CAD+/month rent. If I live 30 minutes outside downtown, I might only pay $1800 CAD/month rent for a studio.
j1r2000@reddit
as someone who lived in Vancouver until this January, I understand that concern.
the way I see it is that it would put more pressure on the local governments to fix policies that are causing the housing crisis in our cities (mainly the ludicrous amount of low-density housing) as well as create more demand for faster, higher quality public transit.
I also believe that with stores needing to pay for their employees' commutes, they will whenever possible set up shop where their employees are. That means for convenience stores no more 10 to 15-minute drive at 2 am because it will be a 2-minute walk (which hey more people walking in general is good for public health even).
and well yes in the short term there will be growing pains I think long term we will come out better for it.
alkhatim7@reddit
If it's not variable based on commute time/distance then that's just your salary. I'm not saying it should be I'm saying this idea is ass.
its_a_gibibyte@reddit
Not necessarily. Counting toward working hours also reduces amount worked, considering how many laws exists around work week length. It also requires companies pay more if they want in office works (remote workers wouldn't get commute pay)
alkhatim7@reddit
These laws were created without commute being counted, they'll just be adjusted.
In theory, in practice companies that force RTO will continue to and will pay the exact same saying it includes commute pay. It might even have a negative effect that some companies that allow remote work will reduce these remote employees salaries and ask them to RTO if they wanted the full pay.
Derkylos@reddit
You can't just expect that companies would be able to fire all the people that live farther away and replace them with people that live closer.
The houses that are closer are already occupied by people who work at better paid jobs which allow them to afford the more expensive housing.
At best, the company would be able to hire people that live in a small band where cost of living is low enough to attract people for the lower wage, but close enough that the commute time doesn't overtax the company's bottom line. But, pretty soon, cost of living in that band would start to increase as it becomes a more desirable location for employees of the company.
druidofnecro@reddit
A flat rate? You mean the salary you already get paid?
robotmonkeyshark@reddit
they would just build cheap apartments right next to the office/factory and prioritize employees who want to live in company housing.
YourBonesHaveBroken@reddit
They should pay for housing, and transportation, and vacations and children's education too..
Oh wait, that's called a salary.
WillieIngus@reddit
And mental health
J-Dabbleyou@reddit
All the people saying “yes” probably have long commutes. Those are the same people who would be fired immediately if this law ever took effect. Companies simply wouldn’t want to pay more for employees who live hours away. They’ll replace them with closer (therefore cheaper) workers. This would also open companies to choose your commute method, since you’re technically “on the clock”. You wouldn’t be allowed to stop for coffees or breakfast, on the clock. I personally like taking a slightly longer, but much more pleasant commute. I’m sure my company would rather me fight through backroads in a bad part of town to save 15min of pay. If your commute is killing you, it means you took a job too far away, that’s not on the company.
Derkylos@reddit
People have long commutes because they can't afford to live closer to their workplace. Companies would discover that they can't hire people with short commutes unless they pay them more. Either way, companies are going to have to pay more.
Thereelgerg@reddit
Not necessarily.
Madmanmelvin@reddit
Lol. You think if this was implemented, the hundreds of thousands of people stopping for coffee every morning would just.... Stop?
Your workplace would figure out how long it takes you to get to your job(on average), then just pay you that automatically, as opposed to putting you on the clock every day when you leave for work.
Jesus christ.
laserdicks@reddit
No they would pay someone who lives closer.
teknogreek@reddit
It’s all in the wage, my beige!!!
AwfulUnicornfarts20@reddit
You should start your own business with these great ideas!
Happyjarboy@reddit
I know guys who would live 4 hours each way drive, so they could just listen to music in their cars instead of actual do work.
CheezeBurgersAreGood@reddit
Well, no.
If you have a 1hr commute each way, then work 6 hrs, and I live next door, you're getting paid to do nothing for 2 hrs
Fik_of_borg@reddit
Here in Venezuela there is a similar law that rules that.
It's called "Transportation bunus" and covers the cost of the commute, but not the salary as if that time were spent working. Most companies do not discriminate over commute times, but employees naturally do (most people would avoid wasting 2 or 3 hours if given the choice). That bonus is waived if the company provides transportation, and a lot of companies do so.
briefadventure411@reddit
They wouldn't because they would take on the liability of what happens on the commute. If you're in an accident commuting "on the clock", then the company would end up being involved.
Thefallen777@reddit
Well, if there is an accident while you go to your work then its consider a laboral accident either way (if you are not specially responsable)
r0b0tAstronaut@reddit
I never understand these kinds of posts. Nobody is forcing you to take a specific job. If you don't like the combination of job, hours, commute, pay, etc, then don't take it.
It's different if the company wants you to do unpaid work, because you didn't agree to that. But you did agree to be at the office for 40 hours, and knew committing to and from the office is on you.
onduty@reddit
The world effects them, they don’t effect the world. All problems are externalized, nothing could possibly be their own doing or responsibility
You voluntarily applied to a job to have money, you’re not assigned a job. For some reason people forget this and think the company should pay them for simply breathing
El_mochilero@reddit
I’m as big a supporter of the r/antiwork movement as anybody, but this is a stupid idea.
lofisoundguy@reddit
They do.
Apparently, the total pay for the job is worthwhile enough that people will travel in from wherever they live to do X job. If the organizations get this wrong, they just can't fill the positions.
It also means people who say "X commute isn't worth it" are not the majority of people. It is literally worth it to the people who take the jobs with the associated commute.
I'm in the Mid-Atlantic and a lot of people commute between 1.5-2hrs one direction. It's apparently still worthwhile.
kcorinda@reddit
Not in US but worked with a company that paid an additional bonus if you lived within a certain radius of the office in order to offset for the higher home costs of having a shorter commute. It was to encourage people to have shorter commutes and more time for other things.
TheBonusWings@reddit
As an employer…fuck off. I dont choose where you live. But you know where my office is when you came to the interview. If thats a dealbreaker, whyd you come in? I dont get paid to drive there every day either
superalpaka@reddit
Most people don't choose where they live.
Dan_706@reddit
I factor in the time of my commute billed at half my hourly rate when job hunting. Managed to negotiate a healthy increase on the starting offer at my most recent job which more than covers travel & lunch for the few days I'm at the office.
edi2ly@reddit
In Austria they already do that. It's called "Pendlerpauschale"
It's not that much, but if you live more than 60 km (like 37 miles) away from your workplace they have to pay you a bit more.
It's dependent on how long the shortest "reasonable" trip between your home and workplace is (distance and time) but ranges from about 1000€ to 2000€ a year.
MerberCrazyCats@reddit
It can be reversed: thinking about companies in France that may force you to take their bus, which has stops in Paris for instance, but it will take you longer to go to the bus stop and take the special bus than if you were taking the regular public transportation. Plus you can't choose your schedule anymore.
In France, some people make the choice to live far from their job to have a bigger house, but they are not the poor who can't afford to live close to work, they are the upper middle class who is doing it by choice and prioritize having a bigger place versus a smaller appartment
edi2ly@reddit
huh lol, that sounds interesting, do you have any reading I can do to find out more?
SconiGrower@reddit
And it's just based on miles? There's no adjustment for if you have to drive through heavy traffic or take an extended bus ride? Meaning it's a subsidy for car drivers who live in the countryside?
edi2ly@reddit
Pendlerpauschale basically means "commuter lump sum"
It changes a little, yeah, but it's pretty much a "x Euros for less than 60km and y Euros for more than that"
backfire10z@reddit
If you take the bus (in the U.S. at least) you can apply for Commuter Benefits to get your fare covered
edi2ly@reddit
Pendlerpauschale basically means "commuter lump sum"
Asmos159@reddit
in the us there is something for if you need to go more than a certain distance from the normal place of work. all the hollywood alien planets (before cg was the default) look the same because they were the same place. there was a place that was a few hundred ft short of that distance.
DNKE11A@reddit
Thank you! I was going to mention that this is not unheard of in some parts of the world that isn't the States, so all the hypotheticals bouncing around in the comments can check the actual data of it already being in place...
MerberCrazyCats@reddit
No you choose where you live. You also choose how you commute. They pay your salary already. Im not hired for my driving or "taking the bus" skills, but for what I do at work
Tedrabear@reddit
That argument is the same as saying they choose where you have to go to do the work.
laserdicks@reddit
... Which is also obviously true?
starwarsyeah@reddit
Technically true but moving based on your job is impractical in the best of situations. And sometimes, you can't find a good place to live that is near your good job.
laserdicks@reddit
Well yes of course. That's one of the criteria for a "good" job. It's a market
faz712@reddit
Mine does
brennanfee@reddit
Yep. It would incentivize the companies to ensure their workers can live close and/or get to/from work easily. It would further incentivize compromises like working from home. All around, it would be a positive shift.
Sleepdprived@reddit
I had an old boss that would pay us for one way commute. You HAD to go to work to keep the job you didn't necessarily have to go home afterwards.
Chemical_Enthusiasm4@reddit
So people who live closer should get paid less?
WolfWomb@reddit
It should be handled through your taxation somehow.
PoeJam@reddit
I'd be taking the long way home every day, lol
siandresi@reddit
"Honey, I think I'm going to start walking to work "
Hello_iam_Kian@reddit
It would be a pre-determined amount based on the length of the fastest way from your home to your work
Fly0strich@reddit
I would move really far away from my work-place after getting the job. Then buy a self-driving car with all the profits.
theedgeofoblivious@reddit
Not only should they pay for commute time, but they should be REQUIRED to.
hooe@reddit
Negotiate your pay to accommodate your commute. If your commute cost is too much then find a place to live closer to work or a place to work closer to home
Derkylos@reddit
Most people would rather live closer to their jobs, but their jobs don't pay enough for them to do so.
_IA_Renzor@reddit
And in some cases, they have niche jobs that aren't necessarily found in the city, but in bumfuck nowhere because it's manufacturing and can get real estate on the cheap. Nah I'd rather commute than live in the drive by city that has a population of 1,000 and a factory
Olley2994@reddit
Me applying to jobs in Alaska, "See you in 2 weeks boss"
Raignelol@reddit
This is not crazy, they absolutely fucking should.
jdp111@reddit
You choose where to live. This would just encourage people to live far away so they can get paid to drive.
Madmanmelvin@reddit
LOL. ur returded.
Raignelol@reddit
You choose where to live, sure.
Based on your current income cap (generally low across the US)
Based on current housing/rent prices (generally high across the US)
Most major city centers have a significantly higher cost of living than their surrounding suburbs and rural areas. Meaning to actually afford a fucking roof over your head you need to live farther away, meaning you add a half hour of travel time either way. Turning your 9 hour(8 work plus forced hour lunch) into a 10 hour work day. And you don't get reimbursed for the gas you used along the way. And this does not necessarily include traffic implications.
And this doesn't even include that the majority of these jobs are perfectly viable to be done from home. The only reason they aren't is because these businesses have to clench their death grip on these unnecessarily massive office buildings they've purchased or built and to continue big brothering the fuck out of employees.
They can't even pay us well enough to buy a first time home now, even though rent is often higher than a mortgage payment right now(in my area atleast).
So yeah. I want a bigger salary. And I want travel compensation too.
abundantwaters@reddit
I disagree, make it a flat rate 1 hour a day salary for “commuters pay”.
If you live 5 minutes from your job or 30 minutes from your job, you still get paid regardless.
mrmoosebottle@reddit
So basically you just want a salary increase
abundantwaters@reddit
Yes, don’t we all? Having a flat rate 1 hour commuters pay stops companies from discriminating long commuters and allows people to get paid for commuting time.
gc3@reddit
Gee, I'm going to move and have a 6 hour commute to get time and a half
CokeHeadRob@reddit
No. It incentivizes driving which is a bad thing. We need to be driving less, so working closer to (or from) home is ideal. And it has the opportunity to be gamed immediately, no company is going to take that risk.
What we need is companies to start paying a reasonable wage so this isn't something we even need to consider. You choose where you live, you choose where you work, commute time is in the equation for both. And if we would just start investing in proper public transport it would lower the costs and probably time of a commute, negating the problem.
PublikSkoolGradU8@reddit
They already do. If you wanted it documented on your paycheck it would just reduce the amount you’re paid while at work.
BothZookeepergame612@reddit
Ah yes, almost every trade you hire, either a plumber or electrician ect. They all charge their hourly rate when they leave the shop headed to your home. This is a good argument, it's also a good argument for telecommuting. Never having to leave your home, if they don't want to pay for your time and expenses to travel to their business.
anothercorgi@reddit
They'll favor employees that work close, and if bad enough they'll do on site minimalist company housing... get fired, get evicted...
ShuffKorbik@reddit
Company towns all over again.
Sacrifice_Starlight@reddit
Just ask my salaried co-worker who is 20 minutes late every single day. She is dialed in..
NedWretched@reddit
They definitely should. The commute sure as hell ain't free time