“we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from.”
This sounds shady as helI. Just sounds like a way for a company to say FU to their employees and save as much money as they can so the top brass can earn a few extra million from shares and bonuses. Just another way to cut down people to keep them from earning more and getting out of debt or living a better financially fit life.
Ain't capitalism just
GRAND?
I wonder if someone will find a way around this by bringing to light that they work for X company based out of X company location. And because X company does not own the person's dwelling, X company cannot claim that they work from an outside location because the company choose to allow the person to work from home without any prior knowledge given that pay would be hampered.
Sure but if Google refuses, how long do you think it will take for the legal proceedings to occur? For that matter, how much do you think that it will cost?
Ah, the Capitalist States of America, one nation under "Gawd", indivisible (
until it isn't), with liberty and justice for all (
who can afford astronomical attorney fees). The declaration of independence would no longer begin with "
We the people" but with "
We the multinational corporations" because after the "Citizens United" court case that gave US corporations all the rights enjoyed by a US citizen, those corporations are the only ones who are properly protected as citizens.
To be fair, if you work from home vs. in the office, you can save considerably both on costs for the commute itself but also on time.
That depends on the area, I.e. on the cost of transport vs. availability of affordable housing near the office.
Otoh, the employer also has considerable savings when employees work from home (office space, energy, networking, amenities..... so I really don't see the point of reduced pay.
That's because you're not a rich and soulless capitalist who would do
anything to screw over their employees in an attempt to kiss up to corporate shareholders.
NAFTA? I think you mean Nixon's normalization of relations with China.
You're both right. Nixon's normalisation of relations with China was good for promoting peace at the time but it was catastrophic for the American worker. (you know, the people that the Republicans claim to value the most) because China is where their jobs went as a result. NAFTA only helps the already rich extract even more money from the economy at the expense of the average person in all three countries involved.
While there may be plenty of people who have the luxury of abusing such a relationship, there are studies out there that show that working from home increases productivity.
https://www.apollotechnical.com/working-from-home-productivity-statistics/
Not everyone is a low-life who F's off when working from home.
This is just a BS move on gagme's part - sure, one of the richest employers in the world cannot be bothered to pay those employees who contribute to their bottom line. After all, paying those employees less means more on the bottom line of gagme's balance sheet.
I wondered who it was who was on Google's side and realised that it's someone I put on iggy long ago. Good call, eh?
Take your talent elsewhere. That is the only way to combat horrible policies like this one.
What I think is that the heads of Google, Apple, Oracle, IBM, etc. got together in one of their "secret society" meetings (aka hookers and blow parties) and agreed that all companies will do this across the board eventually. That will take away the choice that people
think that they have but really don't because the whole system is rigged against them.
It's because the rich are in control and so of course set everything up to benefit
only them. The wealth increase that the uber-rich have seen in the past two years while everyone else is fighting to not get evicted should have been a pretty good evidential case-in-point.
You know what Google employees need? A worker's union to force Google to *increase* the pay of telecommuters since it *saves* Google money and they should pass those savings to the employee.
Yeah but you know how averse Americans have become to unions. Unions are *gasp!* "
SOCIALISM!!!", or at least, that's what the Patricians have programmed the plebeians to believe through their control of corporate media. I sometimes wonder if Americans ever actually give consent for something or if it's always manufactured for them. Look what happened at Amazon in Ala-f'n-bama. Amazon
blatently broke the law with their obvious interference in the process, the decision to join the union was shot down and the Red Republican state government didn't even give Amazon a slap on the wrist because obviously Amazon is above the law. I'm sure that this is also true in more states than just Ala-fn-bama.
To be fair, anyone who willingly works for google fully deserves to have their pay cut, although it should be more to the tune of 80%.
I would say that's true about the executives but not the people who actually work for a living instead of getting drunk on the golf course every day.
"Don't Be Evil" couldn't me more dead.
A few percent would be reasonable, depending on the commuting costs saved for the employee vs the costs saved for Google. But I can't help thinking Google is just taking the piss.
The bolded part makes no sense. Why would the employee's savings on commuting costs be relevant? You're literally suggesting that a company should reduce your pay if they decide that your commute isn't expensive enough. Since Google surely doesn't pay employees more if they have longer or more difficult commutes, they are not entitled to drop an employees pay simply because the employee's commute costs have dropped or have disappeared. It is patently absurd to suggest otherwise.
The only thing here to consider is Google's savings. There is literally no reason for Google to do this except to take advantage of its employees and needlessly soak them. Google already has a licence to print money so what they're suggesting is Amazon-level jacka$$ery.
Of course, by working from home the employee saves the companies a lot of money so perhaps the best defense is a strong offense .... when the employee gets a pay cut they need to submit a bill to the company for their estimate of "fair value" for saved rent, utilities, etc. AND they need to demand they be put on an hourly rate since most estimates show work at home employee's tend to put in more hours than at work and are not paid for it.
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Unfortunately, my second reply in this post (to Neatfeatguy) still applies.
<- Are we there yet? 
