Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Is this a good solution?

Google is planning to pay remote employees less than those who work at the office, with those who commute longer distances most likely being hit with higher pay cuts. Not sure how much yet, but I've read everywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent. Is this something you'd be willing to accept to continue working from home? I know the company wins this way, but I still would. The loss in pay would be worth it for everything that I'd gain (time, more than anything.)

by
| 1870 views | | 12 replies (last August 13, 2021) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1ci4bpHK

12 replies (most recent on top)

google and many other companies are paying wfh folk less when they move to an area with less cost of living. as already stated wells has allowed folks on the past to move to areas with higher differentials and not lowered salaries but from what I have seen with that, while they didn't get a pay decrease their salary was now over 100% mrp and thus are no longer getting yearly raises.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qfl+1ci4bpHK

Costs of working in the office are many. Costs are not simply dollars. Assuming you have to travel one hour, you lose sleep and that's aggravation, another non-monetary intangible. Also, you miss the availability to be there when the repair man comes over. Or to attend the first meeting of the day not yet showered and in your pajama bottoms. Or to remain in your pajama bottoms all day. Obvious dollar expenses of clothes, lunch, gas or train ticket, car repairs, tolls aside, I would at least review any offers. If not enough, then back to the office.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @csb+1ci4bpHK

Google is saying to employees - you can't leave an expensive area and still get paid as if you live in the expensive area. Other tech companies have done the same. Wells Fargo has area differentials, but so far they haven't cut pay when someone moves from an expensive location to a less expensive one. That's probably on someone's list somewhere as something else to consider.

The other part of the google article is that if you live in the metro area and in commutable distance, if you want to work remote, you get paid less - they are in essence taking back the savings on your commute. the example in the articles are for someone riding the train into NYC for an hour. that is a long and expensive commute. from a quality of life overall, you end up with net the same amt of $$ (and a lot more hours/less wear and tear) even with a pay cut since you don't have to pay the commute expense, buy lunch in the city, etc.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qsz+1ci4bpHK

I thought Google was woke? So they’ll give workers the chance to shrink their carbon footprint but charge them for doing it? Nice.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mdv+1ci4bpHK

@yxo The only issue with WFH is bad for these institutions is the commercial real estate investments. This company and its peers are heavily invested in the commercial real estate market. If they dont "hold the line" with this RTO mantra. It could be disastrous for the market. If all the smaller shops figure out they can wfh more efficiently it could cause a ripple effect. Im sure the CRE market will suffer regardless though.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jqv+1ci4bpHK

I saw the same article. Also, they are talking about making those who work at home contract workers, not employees which is a whole different category for compensation, retirement benefits, 401k and healthcare.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @xyc+1ci4bpHK

I smell HR here with this question.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @smh+1ci4bpHK

No I would not; they already save money and get more hours out of me. If I get told I have to RTO, I’ll be working the literal 8-5 and nothing more.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wai+1ci4bpHK

I already took a paycut working here, so why should i get 2 paycuts?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kog+1ci4bpHK

Ditto. I’d take the cut in pay to avoid the commute and dealing with office politics that WFH has afforded us. It’s a small price to pay for sanity and self respect.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ulb+1ci4bpHK

It saves the company zillions to WFH. Leases, taxes, janitorial, building management, repairs, electricity, water, higher HR costs (a little harder to se-ual harass or fight someone via email), etc.

The only thing that potentially goes up in price is tech related.

In any case, paying less for the same work sounds like something they will try to do.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yxo+1ci4bpHK

I would take a pay cut to WFH, bit it doesn’t make logical sense for the company to do this. I would think the reverse should occur. It is more expensive for companies to own/rent office space and maintain it, pay utility costs etc.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nrs+1ci4bpHK

Post a reply

: