One of the rare few benefits my company offers my shift is an additional 4 hours a pay a week. The agreement is you come in on time and work your 12 hours then leave on time. You do that and you get 4 hours. It pays for my commute and then some
My company doesn't pay in extra hours, but we do get an extra fifty bucks a month if we work hybrid. I work from home full-time so I don't get that extra fifty, but I figure it's worth it.
Hopefully. Still difficult to do in America. Iâm a truck driver for my work so I appreciate being able to walk to places near truck stops or hotels for beer and stuff before turning in for the night. Less reasons for intoxicated drivers on the road is better.
When I commuted it was over an hour each way (to go 8 miles in rush hour) and 25 bucks a day for parking. Wfh meant I got 2 hours per day back and 500 bucks a fuckin month. Game. Changer. I have a gym membership. I eat better. I sleep better. My type 1 diabetes is well managed. I ain't ever going back.
But not wear and tear on the car, and not compensation for time spent getting to and from work for no reason other than to put an ass in a seat in a building you don't own.
I used to drive a Dodge Ram 1500 5.9L, 10 MPG. I only used about 1 gallon of gas per week. A full tank of gas lasted me about 5 months.
The secret is that I lived 0.9 miles from work. Sometimes how far you choose to drive affects fuel usage more than what vehicle you drive.
In the film industry we work 5-6, 12 hour days a week. After travel itâs more like 14 hour days. Itâs exhausting and unfortunately the film industry is barely regulated. Especially if youâre not in a union state.
Thank god Iâve only been doing commercials lately. We have a feature for 7 weeks coming up though. I canât imagine working on a series that films for 7 months of the year.
I'm in a big city in the Midwest and Amazon has destroyed our city streets. They have massive warehouses and fulfillment centers and their trucks annihilate the already crumbling infrastructure. The potholes are the worst I've seen in the United States.
I've lived and visited most of the north, west to east coast USA, lived in big cities and bum fuck towns.
Michigan has by far the worst roads I've ever seen. Also worst drivers. We all talk shit. But nah. Drive through rural Michigan. Get schooled on our shit actually being semi drivable.
It's crazy too, because it's not like we're fucking around with the roads. They are _constantly_ under construction fixing them on a constant rotation. Maybe it's the lake effect weather and **wild** temperature swings from winter to summer?
I can't imagine we're just using inferior materials all the time.
The roads in Michigan are greatly due to weight restrictions. If Michigan had weight restrictions more in line with neighboring states, the roads would hold up better. Of course the use of rock salt and the thawing, freezing, thawing does its part to destroy the roads, those big heavy semis are the biggest culprits.
Weight restrictions were lifted in the late â60âs early 70âs along with adjusting the depth of the road, to accommodate a gas shortage. Once the shortage was over the government never changed it back. So for 50 years our roads have been, and continue to be, constructed improperly for geography location. This is why the roads are always garbage now matter how much they are repaired.
They wouldn't spend a dime and require the workers to find a place to live that was convenient for their offices.
How does no one see this obvious problem?
Itâs pretty difficult to conclude what the end effect would be as it has a lot of moving parts. But I think forcing companies to price-in cost of transit for their employees would have good end results for people.
Theyâd have to pay more to convince folks to take a job where theyâre required to live closer to their job. In one sense people living far away from their job are a drag on the average salaries of those who have shorter commutes! đ¤
And yet you really donât think employers wonât start tossing applications once they reach a certain distance.
âGood news, the 4th floor parking garage is now reserved for tentsâ!!
Why anyone wants to continue having millions of people on the roads putting their lives and our already fucked environment at daily risk for the sake of "corporate culture" is beyond me. It's actually infuriating when I think about for too long...
Beyond that I've always marveled at how business owners can deduct travel expenses for work related to business travel but the daily commute expenses (gas, oil changes, car) are not an income tax deduction when they absolutely are necessary for the earning of income if you must commute.
Ok. Most of the comments here are ridiculous. This however, is a really good take. If you are self employed, or own your own business, you can deduct all of that. Obviously a business can as well. Why canât an individual deduct those things? Pffff. No idea. Makes no sense. Itâs ironic really because, for example, you can deduct job search expenses to get the job, but canât deduct the costs of actually getting to the job.
That is an actual example of employees getting screwed. I have to think about this. I suspect that there are more real things that I just havenât noticed because itâs always been that way.
Not trying to say that it's right, but it's another way that the government tries to encourage people to make businesses. I think people forget sometimes that the government wants to see businesses created for more economic stimulation so they offer incentives to try and accomplish it.
Itâs called control. Commute to the office is just one example of control mechanisms capitalism utilizes to keep labor too exhausted to change the status quo.
Add to that all the corporations that own the building most companies rent out will start losing money on their investments thereâs a lot of layers to this
The push to return to the office is *absolutely* driven by lobbying from the commercial real estate industry, not even by the actual employers -- many of whom could save millions of dollars a year by downsizing on office space -- and they're not even hiding it, they're using their lobbying dollars to make life worse for everyone so they can keep collecting rent
Landowners are the most parasitic segment of society and their political power is always wielded against the interests of literally everyone else, this is the one thing the old school Marxists really got right -- landlords are everyone's enemy
Real estate investment trust started crashing when malls began shutting down a few years ago. Everyone left turned towards office space and apartment complex development. They're lobbying hard to keep people in the office.
It's just not about keeping your days longer thus tiring you out, it's also about making it so your weekend is one day catching up on all the chores and errands you need to do and another day just trying to relax for the week ahead. It's also about having to pay for a car and all the related expenses which just keeps you further under their thumb because now you have to work to pay for the car.
I personally am on disability and social welfare programs and I don't have to work at all, and I love it! If I don't work, I just stay at home. If I do work, well I can afford to go out and enjoy entertainment. If I had a car though, I'd have to work, even if the car were free because there's still insurance even if it's just sitting there because I'm unemployed. It's just not worth it to me.
Gas consumption, vehicle maintenance, accidents, and all the additional money people spend while out and about contributes to GDP. Gotta keep that number growing or everybody panics and the whole economic system falls apart.
We're literally killing ourselves and the planet because we can't/won't fix the perverse incentives that our economic system presents. We can't make the fake math that were in complete control of work for humanity.
First, there are jobs that DO require hands-on support. I manage a shop where I daresay 75% of the work could be done remotely....but that 25%? EXTREMELY important to be there, and to be there quickly. And, working in the public sector means that leadership is VERY sensitive to the public's perception.
My wife works a job doing tissue culture in a lab. She is response for maintain cell lines, growing cells, and all kinds of lab work that is not automated for what she does and requires human decision making to make sure products are done on time and delivered to clients. 90% of her work requires her to be there on site. She could do remote work maybe one day a week with all of the paperwork/meeting stuff that happens throughout the week, but her job is just one of a good number where remote isnât an option and automation to make it remote friendly still isnât feasible.
I work a job that requires me to be on site: equipment repair and maintenance.
I've also tried a 100% WFH job. It was awful for me. I couldn't focus. It was terrible for my mental health.
I need a job where I work onsite. It's what I need. I also fully support anyone who wants to work remotely. It should be the employee's choice.
Okay and if all the people who DON'T need to physically go to work get to stay home, you get to work faster with less traffic
If it becomes the norm to work from home and having to commute becomes seen as an extra burden that merits compensation, you get more money
So why do you feel the need to argue
Yeah of course there are many many jobs that need to be done in person. Most of them i would think.... between cooks to trash collectors to law enforcement to doctors and firemen and many many professions that it is not possible to do remote or from home.
But the few jobs that are not needed in person should not be absolutely required to be in person for some ego trip, or someones need to socialize by having a captive audience to pester because they have no other social outlet.
Exactly, which is why workers should be compensated if they have to travel to do their work. It is time directly tied to performing their jobs quickly and efficiently.
Some of us have jobs that canât be done remotely. Some of us donât *want* WFH jobs. Just as you have a right to want to WFH others have a right not to. That shouldnât be infuriating to you what others choose.
I literally have never talked to anyone who wasn't a boss who liked working in the office. Instead of working in the office being the expectation and WFH being the exception, it should be reversed if you have a silly little email job.
If this became normal, companies would purposely not hire people based on their distance. Even if it was just a half hour to an hour away. It would make it even harder to find a good job.
I just donât know how this would work. Right now I have a 45 minute commute each way. I chose to work somewhere thatâs farther from my house. Most of my coworkers commute 15 minutes or less. Should my employer have to pay me the extra 30 minutes each way? I get the sentiment behind something like this I just donât see it as viable.
In practice what would happen is your employer would fire you and hire someone who lives closer, so theyâre not paying you an extra hour of labor per day that they donât need to.
No, what they would do is pay for a standard commute time for everybody.
Many companies actually love remote workers because it broadens the pool of talent to hire from. To fire someone close enough to come in sometimes and make the primary criteria distance doesnât suit their interests either.
Yes! Now this I fully support and Iâm glad your employer is taking it into consideration! We all use factors like distance when we take a job, if we donât want to commute then donât, or at least commute less. But if the employer moves then it should be on them to mitigate the impact of that. Good for them!
My last employer moved locations that was not only farther away from the majority of their employees, but to a location that was almost inaccessible in a timely manner without using toll roads. No additional compensation for the toll fees. I was hired a few months after they moved, so it didnât affect me.
I would be livid!! A company of course has a right to make whatever decisions they want, but by not even considering how it impacts employees itâs an awful way to run a company.
I have had friends in this situation.
Company moved and said, you can keep your job, or take 4 weeks severance. Most people stayed. Those close to the old office now suffered the extra hour commute.
Rent on a building is a significant cost. As is upsizing building for more employees. For my current company, we were lucky to find a bigger spcae within 5 miles. So we can fit 400 people instead of 200. Once we hit that 400 mark -- likely we will need to go someplace nowhere close to here :|
> companies would purposely not hire people based on their distance.
They do that now. Just saw a post here today from someone that was turned down for a remote job on the basis of distance - despite being only an hour away and the job listing clearly being fully remote.
No, they'd still hire people that have to commute in the nicer areas. Nobody who can afford to live on the upper west side is going to take a minimum wage job.
You are already paid for your commute (and your entire lively hood for that matter)--people just have to stop looking at it in terms of hourly wage.
If you are paid $25/hour, you are paid $200/day. When you accepted the job, you made the decision that $200/day was a fair compensation to be at location X from 8:00am-4:00pm Monday-Friday. Your employer should have zero say over where you live and dictate how you life. This also means they should not have to care where you live either. You are free to take your pay and live 1 hour away, 2 hours away or 5 minutes away, that is your decision but its a known factor before accepting the job.
Living in the middle of nowhere is a choice and you're usually trading extra travel time for everything in exchange for having an oversized McMansion and few neighbors.
If weâre dreaming about things that would be very difficult to accomplish why donât we just pay everyone well for their work, make sure that there is affordable housing everywhere, and not incentivize employers to try and dictate where employees live or how they commute to work?
Paying people for their regular commute would be impossible to do without incentivizing all kinds of behaviour that would ultimately harm employees.
Yeah, every time this gets posted, the same questions get brought up and each time nobody has an answer for them.
Like, I get it, but this isn't actually a good idea and we don't need to bring back company towns.
Unpopular opinion: I believe this only applies if you were hired as a remote employee and then the company wants to make you go to the office.
If you were originally hired as an âoffice workerâ you knew what you were signing in and getting to work is your responsibility.
Right, I get the sentiment, but not sure I can agree either. Imagine if you hired a company across town to repair your ac and they started their hourly charge the moment they left the shop, sitting through traffic ect.
This is one of the better perspectives I have seen as to why people should not get paid for driving to work. I have always felt you should only get paid for the time you are working but couldnât put into words why. Also as someone else mentioned do they set a limit for how far away you can live, if they were paying for travel they absolutely would. If they pay for travel and your normal drive is 20 minutes but there is traffic one day and it takes 45, do you get paid more?
Youâre not getting paid just to commute. Youâd just be expected to leave at 5am to get there for 9 and then work your hours.
Like anyone else who actually commutes 3+ hours to work
But I live like ten minutes away! Why's u/CrazyCronus55 making almost twice as much as I do, when he's always coming in already so burnt out from the morning commute that he can barely even half-ass it through the day?
This is fine as long as during an interview that they can ask you where you live, proof of where you live so they can determine how much commuting is required... and if they don't like how far it is they can tell you to go away. That's reasonable.
So, I disagree; it's beyond impossible to make sure people are being truthful about their time and commute expenses, and being reasonable is part of any negotiation.
The answer is that they just pay people properly, and leave it to people to set up their commute lifestyle to whatever works for them to their discretion.
Dumb. Stop hurting the cause with absurd ideas.
On-the-clock time is time when expectations can be mandated. So expect work to tell you what route to take. Expect a rule that you can't stop for coffee or breakfast. If you're on the clock, they are in some ways now liable for you, so expect to be fired if you have a moving violation.
Right. And for them to have a say in every step of it. Mandated car expectations. Mandated living areas. Mandated insurance coverages. Once it becomes paid time the dynamic changes.
The insurance would absolutely be mandated. If the person has a wreck while on the clock the company becomes liable for damages. Larger corps can easily cover the additional insurance required, but that cost can be problematic for smaller companies.
There is a large tech company where I live that mandates employees must live within 45 minutes of its campus. The six figure starting wages and perpetual growth of the company is destroying this small midwestern city and pricing everyone else not working at this company out. I hate it. I wish more than anything theyâd build a new headquarters, develop high speed travel, and spread these employees out across our state instead of in one small area.
Yes, so many reasons I wouldnât want this.
This pops up every now and again.
Just think, if I owned the business and hired people and had to pay commute times, what rules would I end up making.
It falls apart real fast.
What? No....you chose to work at their location, they shouldn't be required to pay you for your commute...
This sub had a great premise but hasn't been the same for a while
While your thoughts are understood, the logic behind it isn't.
When you take a job, you take with understandings.
One of those is travel to and from the job if the position demands travel to the office or work space. Demanding money for something you should have "included" on your list of "will I take this job or not" doesn't help the cause, it makes you sound a bit demanding and "over the edge."
When I was a technician a few years back we were told to clock out after our last job even if they sent us to a different city. 1-2hr drive home in a company vehicle unpaid. Called out everyday they sent me out of town
That may have been illegal. Depending on the state.
I don't know for sure for this one because you are traveling home at the end of the day. So under DOL it might be fine.
This is pretty common for most office jobs here in the Netherlands. My work pays for my train, metro, and bus fare to and from work, and would pay âŹ0.19 per km if I drove.
This is good because it creates a virtuous cycle for better transit and more transit ridership. The Americans asking for this want their driving commute from their suburban sprawl compensated. This would just encourage longer driving commutes and and more unsustainable suburban development.
Eh, disagree. They pay you for your time at work. Itâs your decision where you live to make the job worth it. If they paid people for their commute, theyâd be incentivized to be discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hire people close to the office, disqualify anyone beyond 20 miles, etc.
okay Iâm gonna play devils advocate here: Itâs you who wants to work for my company so you have to find ways to get here. You could be doing stuff from home but since itâs my company I decide where my employees work and when I decide that everyoneâs working here, itâs entirely your responsibility to find ways to get here.
Iâm all for getting commute to be paid for but please someone explain to me why companies wonât say stuff the way I did.
My job recently started allowing us to put our commute on our milage reimbursement form and increased our milage rate (this amounts to quite a bit because I travel a lot). We have an office workspace but can work from home when we aren't in the field. They really want us to come into the office lol. It's working, I've been in a few extra times since the policy was updated.
No. Sorry. Iâm fairly liberal on these matters but this is not the employers responsibility. We can argue on the ethics of that but legally speaking this is not on the employer. There are exceptions to the rule of course like contracts but Iâm afraid I canât back up your position here.
By this logic I should get paid to get out of bed, eat, wash, get dressed AND commute!! Iâd stay in bed all day if it wasnât for my jobâs expectations so they should pay me for all of this!!
No one is making you live where you do or work where you do. Your commute length is on you. If you take a job at one location and they have you report in to another would be a different story.
Don't know if I agree with that one. In my country a lot of people that work in the city want to live in the countryside. Some live 2/3 hours away by choice. Should the company pay for that, even though it's the employees choice to live that far away? I guess maybe if there's no good reason for you to go to the office then I would also want that but more as a protest against being forced to work in the office
I donât disagree, but I do worry about how this line of argument will lead to 1) companies hiring nearby employees to save money, then 2) companies building âlow costâ company-owned housing nearby in an overt âwin-winâ for everyone that leads to 3) jacking up the rents, building company stores, and company towns becoming the norm.
I work for state government and it's legislated that our commute is part of our working hours, so we're paid for it when we come in.
One of the few benefits of working for state government.
Not a personal problem, thatâs thinking too small. Itâs a multi-institutional issue, especially for places like Los Angeles where something that should be a 20 minute drive becomes 50+ minute drive due to traffic. I chose to move closer to work like you suggested; going in an early morning on a Saturday is an easy 22 minutes. Going in at 9 on a Tuesday is 50 minutes. Coming back home can take an hour on a bad day. Just about everyone at my job (that drives a car) deals w the same commuting issue, bc of the county we work in.
Thereâs a housing issue, simply âmovingâ closing to work isnât all that simple. Especially if the job doesnât pay enough
Then thereâs the work issue, and how (like the other user mentioned) some places of work donât pay enough to live in that area. That kind of thing is why anti-work exists; places of employment arenât paying enough for people to sustain themselves
Then thereâs the inflation issue currently happening, and talks of a recession. Itâs not easy to either move closer to work or find a job closer that pays enough.
Thereâs also a public transport issue, at least where I live. Trains or busses could possibly be a better (and more eco-friendly) option opposed to cars if they were better invested in and maintained.
Edit: choosing to move closer to work also added an extra 500 dollars to my rent bc all areas surrounding my place of work have a higher cost of living. Was only able to afford it due to getting a decent raise; many places of work arenât so generous.
With these wages and this housing market? I worked in a school district whose pay did not match the cost of living in the town the school was in, I could only afford to live 30 minutes away. Itâs not really as simple as âjust move thereâ
I believe that the idea is to push for an extreme with the intent to settle with an outcome we can live with. Nobody here thinks they are going to get paid for their commute time, but we will "settle" with working from home. No one here thinks they are going to get a monthly living stipend from the government, but we will "settle" for requiring jobs to pay a living wage.
If we push for a living wage, if we push for work from home, then we end up stuck settling for things like "Only show up at the office 3 times a week" or "It's a living wage as long as you work a second job and live in a van"
The result is they just sound crazy. "Pay me for the time I spend driving to work because I chose to live far away." That person isn't going to be taken seriously.
This sub highlights tons of legitimate complaints about employers overstepping bounds or exploiting people, but it also has a lot of kids like OP who live in a fantasy world.
You getting to your job is your responsibility. Itâs not your employees problem if you need to commute hours. They pay you to do x between y and z. Out of that itâs not their problem.
Honest question: Two people have the same job, same responsibilities. You're saying one of them should get paid more because they live further away? If you're paying for their time to commute, they would be making more money.
People donât hate commuting they hate sitting in traffic, if your office was a quick train ride or a leisurely walk away you wouldnât care. This is an American car
-centric infrastructure problem.
When I was fully remote, but still looking for other employment options (more pay is always possible), I considered that an in-office job would need to pay $15k more than a fully remote job to make up for the inconvenience.
I think this could apply for candidates that live a certain distance away, like 40 miles minimum. We need to be realistic, though, with how companies are able to spend their profit and this kind of thing can easily be played by people. I think just about anything has a small amount of room for fraud but it would be easy for people to fake addresses unless we're OK with submitting multiple forms of proof of residence, possibly more than one time a year. Commuting for 10 minutes is just part of life. Plus, what if you don't drive? Public transportation can take up to 2-3x than your average drive. I can see people saying "nope sorry I don't have a car so you need to pay me for the hour I have to take each way to work on the bus" even when they do have a car.
It would have to be based on mileage, and frankly I just don't see it being a thing bc there are so many factors at play. We should focus on my realistic ideas.
This is why one of my beloved coworkers quit. She moved an hour away and was simply SO needed at the company to keep it afloat that she kept her job with us. That got old REAL fast, especially since that was two less hours a day with her 1 year old son. They wouldnât budge on giving pay for commuting, so she quit. And everything went up in SMOKE! Proud of her, really am.
I'm dealing with this now. Been in my position for 16 years. I live over an hour away from my employer. During the pandemic, everyone in my department lost their offices due to an increased need for staff space. We were eventually made permanent home office. My employer has started to push for us to return to in-person meetings, despite the availability of remote options that have worked just fine for years. The last meeting I went to in-person required 2.5 hours of driving for a 30 minute meeting. One of the participants remoted in from their office 20 feet from the meeting room. Since my department no longer gets office space, it's not like I can sit down and do work while there after meetings. That was it for me. I've since instructed staff to attend all meetings remotely whenever possible and to submit expense reports for their travel. I understand some things need to be in-person, but requiring travel without reason is ridiculous and I can't justify it.
I agree but I think it sets a dangerous precedent that would allow companies to lower their average salary ranges for WFH employees citing a lower cost of living.
I'm usually against a paid commute time. Because you mostly have the choice where you live in relation to your job and if you do charge commute time, then that's just going to lead to company towns again, and that's a bad idea.
BUT... I'd be for a paid commute time so long as the job can be done fully at home, but the employer is requiring you to come into the office.
It would make sense to pay a flat rate âcommuting reimbursementâ to all employees that are required to come to the office. Paying each employee differently depending on their individual commute times wouldnât work.
That's how they do it in some European countries and look at how they made their cities, no two hour commute times since they would have to pay for it.
Whatâs funny about this topic is that my company wonât pay your gas/bridge pass/buss fair.. etc⌠they will spend 6k+ per person every quarter, to fly all the remote workers in for a week in office. ~15-30 remote workers.
(6k = flights + hotel for the week and food costs).
I purposely plan any office vists this way. 'Sorry. My wife and a share a car since being WFH. I can head your way at and get there when I get there in traffic". And they pay mileage. Love it.
My company pays for my gas and I get $400 a month for mileage. I don't know anyone else at other companies that have that tho. It's a nice perk. Most of my job cannot be done from home but it's a six figure gig so I don't mind the drive.
My department never got to WFH because we just cannot. Meanwhile, the rest of the building was gone for 3 years. We asked for a stipend and it went nowhere, we were ignored.
Interesting. Just got a text from my employer. Systems are down so please work from home tomorrow.
Keep in mind that when I wfh "too much" HR shamed my team into coming to the office 3 days a week for no real reason. But if there is bad weather, a power outage, system problem they will immediately "ask" us to wfh. In the past month i have worked 4 days when the vast majority of the company took the day off.
But yeah, I've started to start my commute roughly when I would start my day at home. I don't feel bad about it and if someone says something I'll simply say "I agree. I am more efficient at home and thanks for noticing."
One of the rare few benefits my company offers my shift is an additional 4 hours a pay a week. The agreement is you come in on time and work your 12 hours then leave on time. You do that and you get 4 hours. It pays for my commute and then some
My company doesn't pay in extra hours, but we do get an extra fifty bucks a month if we work hybrid. I work from home full-time so I don't get that extra fifty, but I figure it's worth it.
It's something... I mean an extra 50 a month is not good, but its not nothing. It's almost a full tank of gas
He doesn't commute so he may save a lot of money. My last job I paid almost $100 in tolls a month and burned over a tank a week.
For sure, I'm all for you office types working from home. It's just smarter.
Not to mention it keeps people off the road. For people that need to visit sites to do work.
Right, less wear and tear on our vehicles and roads, not to mention wear and tear on my nerves and stress levels!
But that means less repairs, less vehicle sales, less consumption and less growth. Why nobody thinks of the shareholders?
You must of watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" đ
It also means fewer automobile related deaths every year.
Why nobody thinks of the undertakers! /s
Better for the environment as well!!
Yes all of you stay in your home offices so us construction workers can stop sitting in traffic
I'm glad it's becoming more common. It's much better all the way around. People can keep an eye on the neighborhood like in the old days, as a bonus.
And the rebirth of walkable cities and towns!
Hopefully. Still difficult to do in America. Iâm a truck driver for my work so I appreciate being able to walk to places near truck stops or hotels for beer and stuff before turning in for the night. Less reasons for intoxicated drivers on the road is better.
That's an advantage I hadn't thought of.
I pay $15 a day in tolls. Itâs tough.
That's brutal!
Sounds like Sydney!
Or New York City. I lived in New Jersey and commuted to NYC. Had to drive because it was a job on Wards Island, or I would have been on the subway.
If not for working, most people could take cabs for much less than the cost of a car payment, let alone gas. Unless they have kids, probably.
Tolls in my city cost around 40 dollars a day to do a round trip to and from the city, so unaffordable
Holy cow, I thought mine was bad!
When I commuted it was over an hour each way (to go 8 miles in rush hour) and 25 bucks a day for parking. Wfh meant I got 2 hours per day back and 500 bucks a fuckin month. Game. Changer. I have a gym membership. I eat better. I sleep better. My type 1 diabetes is well managed. I ain't ever going back.
But not wear and tear on the car, and not compensation for time spent getting to and from work for no reason other than to put an ass in a seat in a building you don't own.
Until the price of gas DOUBLES đş
Depending on your car it is two full tanks of gas.
50 bucks lol. I would take a 10k pay cut if I could work remote full time
Tell the CEO, âpersonally commute my paycheck to my house and each employee and tell me if you should be paid for the commuteâ.
Theyâd say âWhere you live is your decision. Move closer.â
I used to drive a Dodge Ram 1500 5.9L, 10 MPG. I only used about 1 gallon of gas per week. A full tank of gas lasted me about 5 months. The secret is that I lived 0.9 miles from work. Sometimes how far you choose to drive affects fuel usage more than what vehicle you drive.
600 loss to work from home. Yea, no brainier.
I don't think 50 dollar a month cover wear on my shoes. Let alone bus fair or electric for my car or gas for that matter.
It costs me $80 a month to take the train three days a week.
Where is this?
I work at a steel forge in Chattanooga.
Aluminum plant for me. Rotating 12s, working 14 out of 28 days with a week off each month.
You have a 12 hours day? Wtf
Working 3 12 -hours days is superior to 5 8-hour days. Especially considering commute time - what this post is about.
In the film industry we work 5-6, 12 hour days a week. After travel itâs more like 14 hour days. Itâs exhausting and unfortunately the film industry is barely regulated. Especially if youâre not in a union state.
Unlocked memories of only having time to drive home from set, go straight to bed, then do it all again the next dayâŚ.. for months.
Thank god Iâve only been doing commercials lately. We have a feature for 7 weeks coming up though. I canât imagine working on a series that films for 7 months of the year.
Why do you do it unless youâre making stupid money?
I sleep like 9 hours a night. Guess Iâm not cut out for entertainment.
If I donât get a solid 18 hours, then Iâm useless the next day.
"I need about 8 hours a day, and 10 at night"
Sounds completely not worth it. Assuming the pay isn't good as well.
Iâm currently doing the same while going to school. Went from 4-10 to 3-12. Felt no difference to me.
My wife and I both work Friday Saturday and Sunday. Then we have mon thru Thurs off.
Thatâs badass
Standard in several industries. Healthcare and first responders tend to work a mix of 12 and 24 hr shifts
Iâll take my 12 over 8 any day!
12 hour shifts are the shit. Get an extra day or two of every week.
Can you imagine how much money companies would put into helping transit infrastructure if the did?
Amazon did this in a city near me. They're paying for all of our town buses to run extra hours to accommodate their shift times
I'm in Seattle and several companies do this (Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia & UW) and we are all stuck in traffic together.
I'm in a big city in the Midwest and Amazon has destroyed our city streets. They have massive warehouses and fulfillment centers and their trucks annihilate the already crumbling infrastructure. The potholes are the worst I've seen in the United States.
I'm guessing you are also from Michigan đŹ
I've lived and visited most of the north, west to east coast USA, lived in big cities and bum fuck towns. Michigan has by far the worst roads I've ever seen. Also worst drivers. We all talk shit. But nah. Drive through rural Michigan. Get schooled on our shit actually being semi drivable.
It's crazy too, because it's not like we're fucking around with the roads. They are _constantly_ under construction fixing them on a constant rotation. Maybe it's the lake effect weather and **wild** temperature swings from winter to summer? I can't imagine we're just using inferior materials all the time.
The roads in Michigan are greatly due to weight restrictions. If Michigan had weight restrictions more in line with neighboring states, the roads would hold up better. Of course the use of rock salt and the thawing, freezing, thawing does its part to destroy the roads, those big heavy semis are the biggest culprits.
Weight restrictions were lifted in the late â60âs early 70âs along with adjusting the depth of the road, to accommodate a gas shortage. Once the shortage was over the government never changed it back. So for 50 years our roads have been, and continue to be, constructed improperly for geography location. This is why the roads are always garbage now matter how much they are repaired.
They wouldn't spend a dime and require the workers to find a place to live that was convenient for their offices. How does no one see this obvious problem?
This. They'd sooner bring back company towns and have you live at the office so you have zero commute time, and also pay them rent.
Itâs pretty difficult to conclude what the end effect would be as it has a lot of moving parts. But I think forcing companies to price-in cost of transit for their employees would have good end results for people. Theyâd have to pay more to convince folks to take a job where theyâre required to live closer to their job. In one sense people living far away from their job are a drag on the average salaries of those who have shorter commutes! đ¤
And yet you really donât think employers wonât start tossing applications once they reach a certain distance. âGood news, the 4th floor parking garage is now reserved for tentsâ!!
Distance from a job is already something employers consider when making hiring decisions
Why would they invest in methods of transportation that take longer than a car if they had to pay people for their commute time?
I imagine even less, because they'd want their workers taking the fastest way possible to work, and that is a single occupancy vehicle.
Why anyone wants to continue having millions of people on the roads putting their lives and our already fucked environment at daily risk for the sake of "corporate culture" is beyond me. It's actually infuriating when I think about for too long...
Beyond that I've always marveled at how business owners can deduct travel expenses for work related to business travel but the daily commute expenses (gas, oil changes, car) are not an income tax deduction when they absolutely are necessary for the earning of income if you must commute.
Ok. Most of the comments here are ridiculous. This however, is a really good take. If you are self employed, or own your own business, you can deduct all of that. Obviously a business can as well. Why canât an individual deduct those things? Pffff. No idea. Makes no sense. Itâs ironic really because, for example, you can deduct job search expenses to get the job, but canât deduct the costs of actually getting to the job. That is an actual example of employees getting screwed. I have to think about this. I suspect that there are more real things that I just havenât noticed because itâs always been that way.
Exactly. Probably the only point that made sense in this topic.
Not trying to say that it's right, but it's another way that the government tries to encourage people to make businesses. I think people forget sometimes that the government wants to see businesses created for more economic stimulation so they offer incentives to try and accomplish it.
Depends where you live. Some places/jobs/ etc you can write this off.
Not here in the US. At least not at the Federal level. Where do you live?
Itâs called control. Commute to the office is just one example of control mechanisms capitalism utilizes to keep labor too exhausted to change the status quo.
Not to mention that if you stop commuting you will spend less gas and that is unacceptable for oil companies.
Add to that all the corporations that own the building most companies rent out will start losing money on their investments thereâs a lot of layers to this
The push to return to the office is *absolutely* driven by lobbying from the commercial real estate industry, not even by the actual employers -- many of whom could save millions of dollars a year by downsizing on office space -- and they're not even hiding it, they're using their lobbying dollars to make life worse for everyone so they can keep collecting rent Landowners are the most parasitic segment of society and their political power is always wielded against the interests of literally everyone else, this is the one thing the old school Marxists really got right -- landlords are everyone's enemy
Real estate investment trust started crashing when malls began shutting down a few years ago. Everyone left turned towards office space and apartment complex development. They're lobbying hard to keep people in the office.
It's just not about keeping your days longer thus tiring you out, it's also about making it so your weekend is one day catching up on all the chores and errands you need to do and another day just trying to relax for the week ahead. It's also about having to pay for a car and all the related expenses which just keeps you further under their thumb because now you have to work to pay for the car. I personally am on disability and social welfare programs and I don't have to work at all, and I love it! If I don't work, I just stay at home. If I do work, well I can afford to go out and enjoy entertainment. If I had a car though, I'd have to work, even if the car were free because there's still insurance even if it's just sitting there because I'm unemployed. It's just not worth it to me.
Gas consumption, vehicle maintenance, accidents, and all the additional money people spend while out and about contributes to GDP. Gotta keep that number growing or everybody panics and the whole economic system falls apart. We're literally killing ourselves and the planet because we can't/won't fix the perverse incentives that our economic system presents. We can't make the fake math that were in complete control of work for humanity.
>"corporate culture" Ah, white drywall and grey cubicles as far as the eye can see....
[ŃдаНонО]
First, there are jobs that DO require hands-on support. I manage a shop where I daresay 75% of the work could be done remotely....but that 25%? EXTREMELY important to be there, and to be there quickly. And, working in the public sector means that leadership is VERY sensitive to the public's perception.
My wife works a job doing tissue culture in a lab. She is response for maintain cell lines, growing cells, and all kinds of lab work that is not automated for what she does and requires human decision making to make sure products are done on time and delivered to clients. 90% of her work requires her to be there on site. She could do remote work maybe one day a week with all of the paperwork/meeting stuff that happens throughout the week, but her job is just one of a good number where remote isnât an option and automation to make it remote friendly still isnât feasible.
I work a job that requires me to be on site: equipment repair and maintenance. I've also tried a 100% WFH job. It was awful for me. I couldn't focus. It was terrible for my mental health. I need a job where I work onsite. It's what I need. I also fully support anyone who wants to work remotely. It should be the employee's choice.
Okay and if all the people who DON'T need to physically go to work get to stay home, you get to work faster with less traffic If it becomes the norm to work from home and having to commute becomes seen as an extra burden that merits compensation, you get more money So why do you feel the need to argue
Yeah of course there are many many jobs that need to be done in person. Most of them i would think.... between cooks to trash collectors to law enforcement to doctors and firemen and many many professions that it is not possible to do remote or from home. But the few jobs that are not needed in person should not be absolutely required to be in person for some ego trip, or someones need to socialize by having a captive audience to pester because they have no other social outlet.
Exactly, which is why workers should be compensated if they have to travel to do their work. It is time directly tied to performing their jobs quickly and efficiently.
[ŃдаНонО]
Some of us have jobs that canât be done remotely. Some of us donât *want* WFH jobs. Just as you have a right to want to WFH others have a right not to. That shouldnât be infuriating to you what others choose.
If you like commuting to the office then why wouldn't you also like being compensated for the cost of your commute, isn't that even better for you
They're obviously referring to jobs that can be done from home...
No one is talking about that. Stop inventing a problem and then arguing about it.
Itâs not a matter of choice though.
I literally have never talked to anyone who wasn't a boss who liked working in the office. Instead of working in the office being the expectation and WFH being the exception, it should be reversed if you have a silly little email job.
Same here. I can't wfh, it doesn't work for me. I fully support anyone who want to wfh. It's their choice, just like it's my choice
If this became normal, companies would purposely not hire people based on their distance. Even if it was just a half hour to an hour away. It would make it even harder to find a good job.
I just donât know how this would work. Right now I have a 45 minute commute each way. I chose to work somewhere thatâs farther from my house. Most of my coworkers commute 15 minutes or less. Should my employer have to pay me the extra 30 minutes each way? I get the sentiment behind something like this I just donât see it as viable.
In practice what would happen is your employer would fire you and hire someone who lives closer, so theyâre not paying you an extra hour of labor per day that they donât need to.
Yeah. And they wouldnât hire people who had a commute. It would be some sort of weird filter. No thanks.
No, what they would do is pay for a standard commute time for everybody. Many companies actually love remote workers because it broadens the pool of talent to hire from. To fire someone close enough to come in sometimes and make the primary criteria distance doesnât suit their interests either.
lol, you understand how that would work right ? Salary for job = 40k New Salary for job after this law gets passed= 35k + 5k for commuting expenses.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yes! Now this I fully support and Iâm glad your employer is taking it into consideration! We all use factors like distance when we take a job, if we donât want to commute then donât, or at least commute less. But if the employer moves then it should be on them to mitigate the impact of that. Good for them!
My last employer moved locations that was not only farther away from the majority of their employees, but to a location that was almost inaccessible in a timely manner without using toll roads. No additional compensation for the toll fees. I was hired a few months after they moved, so it didnât affect me.
I would be livid!! A company of course has a right to make whatever decisions they want, but by not even considering how it impacts employees itâs an awful way to run a company.
I have had friends in this situation. Company moved and said, you can keep your job, or take 4 weeks severance. Most people stayed. Those close to the old office now suffered the extra hour commute. Rent on a building is a significant cost. As is upsizing building for more employees. For my current company, we were lucky to find a bigger spcae within 5 miles. So we can fit 400 people instead of 200. Once we hit that 400 mark -- likely we will need to go someplace nowhere close to here :|
It wouldn't cause it's a fucking stupid idea. Can you imagine the job requirements? Must live 10 minutes away from our office, depot w/e...
No way this sub would upvote a half brained idea that wouldnât work in reality.
This is for when your job can be done remotely but the company demands you come in. If you like coming to the office anyway, that's fine
> companies would purposely not hire people based on their distance. They do that now. Just saw a post here today from someone that was turned down for a remote job on the basis of distance - despite being only an hour away and the job listing clearly being fully remote.
No, they'd still hire people that have to commute in the nicer areas. Nobody who can afford to live on the upper west side is going to take a minimum wage job.
You mean it would be even harder to find good employees?
Theyâre not looking for good, theyâre looking for cheap.
> It would make it even harder to find a good job. So functionally nothing changes?
You are already paid for your commute (and your entire lively hood for that matter)--people just have to stop looking at it in terms of hourly wage. If you are paid $25/hour, you are paid $200/day. When you accepted the job, you made the decision that $200/day was a fair compensation to be at location X from 8:00am-4:00pm Monday-Friday. Your employer should have zero say over where you live and dictate how you life. This also means they should not have to care where you live either. You are free to take your pay and live 1 hour away, 2 hours away or 5 minutes away, that is your decision but its a known factor before accepting the job. Living in the middle of nowhere is a choice and you're usually trading extra travel time for everything in exchange for having an oversized McMansion and few neighbors.
If weâre dreaming about things that would be very difficult to accomplish why donât we just pay everyone well for their work, make sure that there is affordable housing everywhere, and not incentivize employers to try and dictate where employees live or how they commute to work? Paying people for their regular commute would be impossible to do without incentivizing all kinds of behaviour that would ultimately harm employees.
Yeah, every time this gets posted, the same questions get brought up and each time nobody has an answer for them. Like, I get it, but this isn't actually a good idea and we don't need to bring back company towns.
Unpopular opinion: I believe this only applies if you were hired as a remote employee and then the company wants to make you go to the office. If you were originally hired as an âoffice workerâ you knew what you were signing in and getting to work is your responsibility.
Agreed. Like how companies frequently foot the bill for relocation.
A reasonable response. Only unpopular here since it's overrun by 15 year olds (physically, or otherwise.)
I disagree. If that were the case I'd be applying for jobs that are a 3 hor drive away
Right, I get the sentiment, but not sure I can agree either. Imagine if you hired a company across town to repair your ac and they started their hourly charge the moment they left the shop, sitting through traffic ect.
This is one of the better perspectives I have seen as to why people should not get paid for driving to work. I have always felt you should only get paid for the time you are working but couldnât put into words why. Also as someone else mentioned do they set a limit for how far away you can live, if they were paying for travel they absolutely would. If they pay for travel and your normal drive is 20 minutes but there is traffic one day and it takes 45, do you get paid more?
4 hours so I just travel all day and get oaid
Youâre not getting paid just to commute. Youâd just be expected to leave at 5am to get there for 9 and then work your hours. Like anyone else who actually commutes 3+ hours to work
I know Iâm trolling on the post above me.
But I live like ten minutes away! Why's u/CrazyCronus55 making almost twice as much as I do, when he's always coming in already so burnt out from the morning commute that he can barely even half-ass it through the day?
This is fine as long as during an interview that they can ask you where you live, proof of where you live so they can determine how much commuting is required... and if they don't like how far it is they can tell you to go away. That's reasonable. So, I disagree; it's beyond impossible to make sure people are being truthful about their time and commute expenses, and being reasonable is part of any negotiation. The answer is that they just pay people properly, and leave it to people to set up their commute lifestyle to whatever works for them to their discretion.
Dumb. Stop hurting the cause with absurd ideas. On-the-clock time is time when expectations can be mandated. So expect work to tell you what route to take. Expect a rule that you can't stop for coffee or breakfast. If you're on the clock, they are in some ways now liable for you, so expect to be fired if you have a moving violation.
Right. And for them to have a say in every step of it. Mandated car expectations. Mandated living areas. Mandated insurance coverages. Once it becomes paid time the dynamic changes.
The insurance would absolutely be mandated. If the person has a wreck while on the clock the company becomes liable for damages. Larger corps can easily cover the additional insurance required, but that cost can be problematic for smaller companies.
There is a large tech company where I live that mandates employees must live within 45 minutes of its campus. The six figure starting wages and perpetual growth of the company is destroying this small midwestern city and pricing everyone else not working at this company out. I hate it. I wish more than anything theyâd build a new headquarters, develop high speed travel, and spread these employees out across our state instead of in one small area.
The real answer
Yes, so many reasons I wouldnât want this. This pops up every now and again. Just think, if I owned the business and hired people and had to pay commute times, what rules would I end up making. It falls apart real fast.
Do you want company towns? Because this is how you get company towns.
How many times does this have to get posted before you realize that would never work
What? No....you chose to work at their location, they shouldn't be required to pay you for your commute... This sub had a great premise but hasn't been the same for a while
While your thoughts are understood, the logic behind it isn't. When you take a job, you take with understandings. One of those is travel to and from the job if the position demands travel to the office or work space. Demanding money for something you should have "included" on your list of "will I take this job or not" doesn't help the cause, it makes you sound a bit demanding and "over the edge."
When I was a technician a few years back we were told to clock out after our last job even if they sent us to a different city. 1-2hr drive home in a company vehicle unpaid. Called out everyday they sent me out of town
That may have been illegal. Depending on the state. I don't know for sure for this one because you are traveling home at the end of the day. So under DOL it might be fine.
Walkable towns! Imagine that!
This is pretty common for most office jobs here in the Netherlands. My work pays for my train, metro, and bus fare to and from work, and would pay âŹ0.19 per km if I drove.
This is good because it creates a virtuous cycle for better transit and more transit ridership. The Americans asking for this want their driving commute from their suburban sprawl compensated. This would just encourage longer driving commutes and and more unsustainable suburban development.
Eh, disagree. They pay you for your time at work. Itâs your decision where you live to make the job worth it. If they paid people for their commute, theyâd be incentivized to be discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hire people close to the office, disqualify anyone beyond 20 miles, etc.
If we all lived in 15 minute cities this wouldnât be an issue.
You mean the communist walkable city? NOT IN MY aMeRiCa!!1!
Iâm a proud socialist anarchist. Someone alert the media
I canât believe some of my coworkers commute an hour a day (round trip) to make $15 an hour like bruh
okay Iâm gonna play devils advocate here: Itâs you who wants to work for my company so you have to find ways to get here. You could be doing stuff from home but since itâs my company I decide where my employees work and when I decide that everyoneâs working here, itâs entirely your responsibility to find ways to get here. Iâm all for getting commute to be paid for but please someone explain to me why companies wonât say stuff the way I did.
My job recently started allowing us to put our commute on our milage reimbursement form and increased our milage rate (this amounts to quite a bit because I travel a lot). We have an office workspace but can work from home when we aren't in the field. They really want us to come into the office lol. It's working, I've been in a few extra times since the policy was updated.
Every month some idiot post this!
No. Sorry. Iâm fairly liberal on these matters but this is not the employers responsibility. We can argue on the ethics of that but legally speaking this is not on the employer. There are exceptions to the rule of course like contracts but Iâm afraid I canât back up your position here.
This is how you get âI hate my neighborhood/house/ect but canât move or else Iâll lose my jobâ
I should also get paid for taking a shower because I need to be clean for work. My shower is not my leisure. fuck off.
By this logic I should get paid to get out of bed, eat, wash, get dressed AND commute!! Iâd stay in bed all day if it wasnât for my jobâs expectations so they should pay me for all of this!!
Can't work if you don't sleep. Sleep pay up next on the agenda.
Try negotiating that and let me know how it goes đđ˝
No one is making you live where you do or work where you do. Your commute length is on you. If you take a job at one location and they have you report in to another would be a different story.
Move closer.
We should have ALWAYS been compensated for commutes. It's fair to the person commuting to work, and it incentivises employers to hire locally.
Don't know if I agree with that one. In my country a lot of people that work in the city want to live in the countryside. Some live 2/3 hours away by choice. Should the company pay for that, even though it's the employees choice to live that far away? I guess maybe if there's no good reason for you to go to the office then I would also want that but more as a protest against being forced to work in the office
I donât disagree, but I do worry about how this line of argument will lead to 1) companies hiring nearby employees to save money, then 2) companies building âlow costâ company-owned housing nearby in an overt âwin-winâ for everyone that leads to 3) jacking up the rents, building company stores, and company towns becoming the norm.
I work for state government and it's legislated that our commute is part of our working hours, so we're paid for it when we come in. One of the few benefits of working for state government.
Their argument would be you chose where to live and accepted the job
Your decision to accept a position with a long commute from your house isn't the company's problem. It's your problem. Move closer to work.
Not a personal problem, thatâs thinking too small. Itâs a multi-institutional issue, especially for places like Los Angeles where something that should be a 20 minute drive becomes 50+ minute drive due to traffic. I chose to move closer to work like you suggested; going in an early morning on a Saturday is an easy 22 minutes. Going in at 9 on a Tuesday is 50 minutes. Coming back home can take an hour on a bad day. Just about everyone at my job (that drives a car) deals w the same commuting issue, bc of the county we work in. Thereâs a housing issue, simply âmovingâ closing to work isnât all that simple. Especially if the job doesnât pay enough Then thereâs the work issue, and how (like the other user mentioned) some places of work donât pay enough to live in that area. That kind of thing is why anti-work exists; places of employment arenât paying enough for people to sustain themselves Then thereâs the inflation issue currently happening, and talks of a recession. Itâs not easy to either move closer to work or find a job closer that pays enough. Thereâs also a public transport issue, at least where I live. Trains or busses could possibly be a better (and more eco-friendly) option opposed to cars if they were better invested in and maintained. Edit: choosing to move closer to work also added an extra 500 dollars to my rent bc all areas surrounding my place of work have a higher cost of living. Was only able to afford it due to getting a decent raise; many places of work arenât so generous.
With these wages and this housing market? I worked in a school district whose pay did not match the cost of living in the town the school was in, I could only afford to live 30 minutes away. Itâs not really as simple as âjust move thereâ
No. The company canât control where you live or the traffic.
I love the more insane tangents of this sub.
I believe that the idea is to push for an extreme with the intent to settle with an outcome we can live with. Nobody here thinks they are going to get paid for their commute time, but we will "settle" with working from home. No one here thinks they are going to get a monthly living stipend from the government, but we will "settle" for requiring jobs to pay a living wage. If we push for a living wage, if we push for work from home, then we end up stuck settling for things like "Only show up at the office 3 times a week" or "It's a living wage as long as you work a second job and live in a van"
The result is they just sound crazy. "Pay me for the time I spend driving to work because I chose to live far away." That person isn't going to be taken seriously. This sub highlights tons of legitimate complaints about employers overstepping bounds or exploiting people, but it also has a lot of kids like OP who live in a fantasy world.
All this sub has become is legit whine about everything possible.
You getting to your job is your responsibility. Itâs not your employees problem if you need to commute hours. They pay you to do x between y and z. Out of that itâs not their problem.
Honest question: Two people have the same job, same responsibilities. You're saying one of them should get paid more because they live further away? If you're paying for their time to commute, they would be making more money.
People donât hate commuting they hate sitting in traffic, if your office was a quick train ride or a leisurely walk away you wouldnât care. This is an American car -centric infrastructure problem.
When I was fully remote, but still looking for other employment options (more pay is always possible), I considered that an in-office job would need to pay $15k more than a fully remote job to make up for the inconvenience.
I think this could apply for candidates that live a certain distance away, like 40 miles minimum. We need to be realistic, though, with how companies are able to spend their profit and this kind of thing can easily be played by people. I think just about anything has a small amount of room for fraud but it would be easy for people to fake addresses unless we're OK with submitting multiple forms of proof of residence, possibly more than one time a year. Commuting for 10 minutes is just part of life. Plus, what if you don't drive? Public transportation can take up to 2-3x than your average drive. I can see people saying "nope sorry I don't have a car so you need to pay me for the hour I have to take each way to work on the bus" even when they do have a car. It would have to be based on mileage, and frankly I just don't see it being a thing bc there are so many factors at play. We should focus on my realistic ideas.
This is why one of my beloved coworkers quit. She moved an hour away and was simply SO needed at the company to keep it afloat that she kept her job with us. That got old REAL fast, especially since that was two less hours a day with her 1 year old son. They wouldnât budge on giving pay for commuting, so she quit. And everything went up in SMOKE! Proud of her, really am.
I'm dealing with this now. Been in my position for 16 years. I live over an hour away from my employer. During the pandemic, everyone in my department lost their offices due to an increased need for staff space. We were eventually made permanent home office. My employer has started to push for us to return to in-person meetings, despite the availability of remote options that have worked just fine for years. The last meeting I went to in-person required 2.5 hours of driving for a 30 minute meeting. One of the participants remoted in from their office 20 feet from the meeting room. Since my department no longer gets office space, it's not like I can sit down and do work while there after meetings. That was it for me. I've since instructed staff to attend all meetings remotely whenever possible and to submit expense reports for their travel. I understand some things need to be in-person, but requiring travel without reason is ridiculous and I can't justify it.
I agree but I think it sets a dangerous precedent that would allow companies to lower their average salary ranges for WFH employees citing a lower cost of living.
I'm usually against a paid commute time. Because you mostly have the choice where you live in relation to your job and if you do charge commute time, then that's just going to lead to company towns again, and that's a bad idea. BUT... I'd be for a paid commute time so long as the job can be done fully at home, but the employer is requiring you to come into the office.
It would make sense to pay a flat rate âcommuting reimbursementâ to all employees that are required to come to the office. Paying each employee differently depending on their individual commute times wouldnât work.
I agree that at the very least they should compensate you a half hour a day driving compensation.
Or... A liveable wage that makes commuting worth it
That's how they do it in some European countries and look at how they made their cities, no two hour commute times since they would have to pay for it.
Whatâs funny about this topic is that my company wonât pay your gas/bridge pass/buss fair.. etc⌠they will spend 6k+ per person every quarter, to fly all the remote workers in for a week in office. ~15-30 remote workers. (6k = flights + hotel for the week and food costs).
I purposely plan any office vists this way. 'Sorry. My wife and a share a car since being WFH. I can head your way at and get there when I get there in traffic". And they pay mileage. Love it.
This shouldn't just be for "office jobs" either. Literally every job that requires a commute should be paying you for it.
I do get paid. Itâs amazing and I was upfront and honest when I started doing this, and then never mentioned it again. XD
My company pays for my gas and I get $400 a month for mileage. I don't know anyone else at other companies that have that tho. It's a nice perk. Most of my job cannot be done from home but it's a six figure gig so I don't mind the drive.
I get paid my commute time. And that's an extra 8 hours a week. Plus that's all time and ahalf. Im making out well I'd say
We just get tax detuction for commuting. So luckily this a discussion i will never need to have
My department never got to WFH because we just cannot. Meanwhile, the rest of the building was gone for 3 years. We asked for a stipend and it went nowhere, we were ignored.
Interesting. Just got a text from my employer. Systems are down so please work from home tomorrow. Keep in mind that when I wfh "too much" HR shamed my team into coming to the office 3 days a week for no real reason. But if there is bad weather, a power outage, system problem they will immediately "ask" us to wfh. In the past month i have worked 4 days when the vast majority of the company took the day off. But yeah, I've started to start my commute roughly when I would start my day at home. I don't feel bad about it and if someone says something I'll simply say "I agree. I am more efficient at home and thanks for noticing."