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

[Dwarvenhobble]

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

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

As long as they get the required work done I don't see a reason to care.

Though this comes from the teacher training stuff I did where it was pointed out it actually demotivates pupils where if they finish the set work then the extension activities given basically to keep the busy is just yet more work. Instead you have to give them either some unique but fairly enjoyable activity or give them planned homework tasks early so they can get them done in lesson and avoid having to do homework.

From a purely cynical business perspective trying to maximise the work you get from an employee and working them every moment might seem good as a way to increase profits but in the end it just reduces productivity as the employee learns to stretch out tasks to fill the time because there is no incentive to finish quicker or if they don't and do keep having work piled on with no reward they become disheartened in the company and disloyal such that they'll potentially jump ship to rivals.

Edit: Spulling and Gamma

 

[Specter Von Baren]

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

Do you think a man that was born blind can tell you the finer points of shooting a sniper rifle? Yet your'e going to say, "This guy who knows nothing about working, managing workers, or managing his own finances is totally capable of analyzing an economic system." A man who neither works nor associates with workers totally speaks for them. A man who's lively hood regularly depended on the handouts from his bourgeoise friends totally wasn't a gigantic hypocrite whenever he then railed against the bourgeoise in his writings. A man that kept begging his mother to send him his inheritance early was totally against inherited wealth. Yes a person this inconsistent and uneducated is a beacon we should follow. Fucking hell, don't give me this gaslighting bullshit, at least use fucking Lenin as your socialist figure, at least he did something in his life and his hypocrisy was a cold calculating kind instead of blattent stupidity.

 

[Kwak]

Is google completely a faceless corporation or does it have a Bezos or Elon equivalent?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yet your'e going to say, "This guy who knows nothing about working, managing workers, or managing his own finances

Nothing you've accused him of indicates this. You transparently just want a reason to dismiss his analysis of capitalism. A journalist who goes from country to country under pseudonyms dodging debt collectors sounds like he has ample experience managing his own finances, not that it matters.

 

[Chimpzy]

As long as they get the required work done I don't see a reason to care.

Though this comes from the teacher training stuff I did where it was pointed out it actually demotivates pupils where if they finish the set work then the extension activities given basically to keep the busy is just yet more work. Instead you have to give them either some unique but fairly enjoyable activity or give them planned homework tasks early so they can get them done in lesson and avoid having to do homework.

From a purely cynical business perspective trying to maximise the work you get from an employee and working them every moment might seem good as a way to increase profits but in the end it just reduces productivity as the employee learns stretch out tasks to fill the time because there is no incentive to finish quicker or if they don't and do keep having work piled on with no reward they become disheartened in the company and disloyal such that they'll potentially jump ship to rivals.

I'm suddenly reminded of a Bill Hicks bit.

 

[Gergar12]

It's part of the American war on the suburbs. With BlackRock buying up single-family homes, and Google forcing you to stay in the City.

 

[CM156]

U-nio-nize.

Not an option for all of us, sadly.

 

[tstorm823]

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

Sure. In many cases. If it keeps the business running, if it comes with added benefits, if it's a cut to other workers to the benefit of your own.

If workers at google can take a 10% pay cut and chop 25% off their living expenses in the process, they're benefiting.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not an option for all of us, sadly.

Not legally an option, not practically an option, or not possibly an option?

 

[CM156]

Not legally an option, not practically an option, or not possibly an option?

All three in the case of my profession. I mean, lawyers have their state bar associations, but it's not like we can go on strike to improve working conditions.

 

[Seanchaidh]

All three in the case of my profession. I mean, lawyers have their state bar associations, but it's not like we can go on strike to improve working conditions.

Certainly not with that attitude!

 

[CM156]

Certainly not with that attitude!

It would violate ethical duties to clients to do something like that.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It would violate ethical duties to clients to do something like that.

So not legally and not ethically in your judgment.

OK.

 

[CM156]

So not legally and not ethically in your judgment.

OK.

For my profession.
Others have different rules, of course.

 

[bluegate]

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

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

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

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

So, are they basically trying to make this come off as them cutting the compensation people used to get for driving into work every day?

Isn't that considered separate from one's paycheck over there?

 

[tippy2k2]

So, are they basically trying to make this come off as them cutting the compensation people used to get for driving into work every day?

Isn't that considered separate from one's paycheck over there?

I haven't seen anything "official" from Google for their reasoning but this tape leaked from their office when Google was asked why they would do this to their employees

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

U-nio-nize.

Oh no! You said the dreaded U-WORD! You are now a communist who hates hard work and success and wants to take the money away from all the rich people and give it to the lazy poor.

And more importantly, unions keep me from walking into a store and screaming "I WANT THAT PERSON FIRED!" like the fucking Karen I really am.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh no! You said the dreaded U-WORD! You are now a communist who hates hard work and success and wants to take the money away from all the rich people and give it to the lazy poor.

And more importantly, unions keep me from walking into a store and screaming "I WANT THAT PERSON FIRED!" like the fucking Karen I really am.

Do you not feel like the sarcasm lands poorly on a board with multiple communists who want to take the money away from all the rich people?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Do you not feel like the sarcasm lands poorly on a board with multiple communists who want to take the money away from all the rich people?

No.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Honestly, a pay-cut really only makes sense for people living well out of the area because pay rate is tied to the cost of living of the area. Like someone working in Chicago is gonna get paid more than someone living in the Springfield, IL for the same job. If someone lives across the street from the office building, then adjusting for cost of living makes no sense. Also, a company might have already been paying work-from-home people less before the pandemic because working from home is obviously a perk. I don't really see a problem with adjusting for those things IF, and it's a big fucking IF, the company is honestly adjusting the pay appropriately. Lastly, a pay-cut is a really fucking bad way of making said adjustments.