Facebook announces that remote WFH employees will have salaries decreased to match local COL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I see no problem with this policy applying to new employees, that said, so long as they go in knowing what the policy is.

No.. they have till Jan 2021 to decide whether they want to wfh permanently or not. Announcing the col adjustment now means they have the knowledge in hand before they make the decision. You are misinformed.

Yes, when things take a down turn, employers benefit. For decades in SV, it's been an employee's market, rather than an employer's market. No different to how real estate prices work, or any thing else. It's called supply and demand.

What I don't understand is, won't a ton of FB employees WFH while staying in the Bay Area where they likely have spouses with jobs and kids in schools? Seems like this is to address a small number of people who will move to lower COL areas.

There were a lot of people who left California or the coasts entirely to shelter elsewhere just like New Yorkers left Manhattan.

Other people were thinking about never coming back or not doing so for half a year or more. With schools closed, there was nothing forcing them too.

I'm seeing a lot of new SFH listings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as well.

Facebook decided to get out ahead of the bullrush. People can still leave -- they just won't be taking those lucrative paychecks with them.

They will still come out ahead even with the locality adjustment. Unlike what our comp expert above is trying to claim, FB isn’t going go pay their engineers 80k.

OK, then why are some people so outraged over this? FB is giving them to Jan.2021 to make this decision. They have a half a year to decide, and that is pretty generous.

Well anytime you adjust someone’s comp down the person isn’t going to say, thank you sir may I have some more? If you shift someone from 350k to 280k, that’s still a significant loss. Do you really need that spelled out?

And those on this thread are pretty obviously uneducated as to how these programs really get implemented. Re-read the person who keeps posting about hiring a comp consultant. This board is also overwhelming used by Feds or lawyers. Neither have been through something like this.

But they could stay at $350K. They would just have to keep with their original deal and come to work. If they want to wfh, they can (already a big win). If they want to move and wfh, there will be a col adjustment. What is the issue?

Read the actual thread. You’ll see many people arguing employees should make the same wage regardless of where they live. The whole point of this thread is that FB is adjusting salaries for employees that want to work remotely as of 1/2021. People do not believe COL should apply to their salaries and that is why there is outcry. If you don’t understand that, then read the thread again. It’s very clear what the issue is.

[Anonymous]

Your job has not changed and what the employer makes OFF of you won't change. The reason that jobs pay less in lower COLA areas is generally because most people in the world don't work for giant multinationals, most actually work at local or regional organizations, they make less, so they pay less. Facebook is looking to make the same but pay less. This is literally off the backs of their employees.

Why are we SO quick to make sure that corporations are given their fair share vs the employees????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that’s fair. Your doing the same job. Not all people pay housing expenses . COL doesn’t effect everyone.

Cool. So you would relocate to SF with your same job/salary? And who doesn't pay housing expenses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your job has not changed and what the employer makes OFF of you won't change. The reason that jobs pay less in lower COLA areas is generally because most people in the world don't work for giant multinationals, most actually work at local or regional organizations, they make less, so they pay less. Facebook is looking to make the same but pay less. This is literally off the backs of their employees.

Why are we SO quick to make sure that corporations are given their fair share vs the employees????

You are either naive or don't understand col adjustments.

Even the federal government, a national employer not regional, has COLA.

FB is not doing anything different than what the federal government or other large employers do.

I don't understand the outcry on here at what FB is doing. Once again.. they are giving their employees a choice, and they have six month to decide. How many other corporations or the federal government are doing this? I work with another large SV company, and they have not indicated that they will be giving their employees this option.

IMO, what FB is doing is actually a great perk. Not many companies would give you the option to wfh permanently no matter where you live. Believe me, I have worked with some large high tech SV companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

LOL.. someone is jealous. FB is doing this because they can. They want to give their employees options. That's more than most most employers are doing for their workers.

I think it’s interesting you believe that. The evidence over the last year would seem to indicate they are in financial trouble as well as in a bit of a brand crisis thanks to bad publicity. So I think it’s more reasonable to believe the have an ulterior motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I see no problem with this policy applying to new employees, that said, so long as they go in knowing what the policy is.

No.. they have till Jan 2021 to decide whether they want to wfh permanently or not. Announcing the col adjustment now means they have the knowledge in hand before they make the decision. You are misinformed.

Yes, when things take a down turn, employers benefit. For decades in SV, it's been an employee's market, rather than an employer's market. No different to how real estate prices work, or any thing else. It's called supply and demand.

What I don't understand is, won't a ton of FB employees WFH while staying in the Bay Area where they likely have spouses with jobs and kids in schools? Seems like this is to address a small number of people who will move to lower COL areas.

There were a lot of people who left California or the coasts entirely to shelter elsewhere just like New Yorkers left Manhattan.

Other people were thinking about never coming back or not doing so for half a year or more. With schools closed, there was nothing forcing them too.

I'm seeing a lot of new SFH listings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as well.

Facebook decided to get out ahead of the bullrush. People can still leave -- they just won't be taking those lucrative paychecks with them.

They will still come out ahead even with the locality adjustment. Unlike what our comp expert above is trying to claim, FB isn’t going go pay their engineers 80k.

OK, then why are some people so outraged over this? FB is giving them to Jan.2021 to make this decision. They have a half a year to decide, and that is pretty generous.

Well anytime you adjust someone’s comp down the person isn’t going to say, thank you sir may I have some more? If you shift someone from 350k to 280k, that’s still a significant loss. Do you really need that spelled out?

And those on this thread are pretty obviously uneducated as to how these programs really get implemented. Re-read the person who keeps posting about hiring a comp consultant. This board is also overwhelming used by Feds or lawyers. Neither have been through something like this.

But they could stay at $350K. They would just have to keep with their original deal and come to work. If they want to wfh, they can (already a big win). If they want to move and wfh, there will be a col adjustment. What is the issue?

Read the actual thread. You’ll see many people arguing employees should make the same wage regardless of where they live. The whole point of this thread is that FB is adjusting salaries for employees that want to work remotely as of 1/2021. People do not believe COL should apply to their salaries and that is why there is outcry. If you don’t understand that, then read the thread again. It’s very clear what the issue is.

But PP is saying -- I think correctly -- that it's absurd to complain because it's a choice. If they stay in the SF area, they'll make the same amount. They can also choose not to WFH... and make the same amount. Literally no one is being hurt by this. It's just a bonus option.

[Anonymous]

A little history lesson: IBM encouraged people to work remotely about a decade ago. Seemed like a great deal but then the people who worked remotely never got raises. 10 years later, you had mid career managers managing an entry level new hire who makes $40k more than them. The company also cut back on paying their WiFi and phone line, until they had to cover all costs themselves. Then they said, everyone needs to come back to the city to work or you’re fired, with only minor COL adjustments to come back, so they’d still make less than the newbies. Thousands had no choice but to resign.

Companies will always find a way to get theirs and screw you in the end. If you choose to work remotely you give them extreme leverage over you. Do what’s right for you but always have a Plan B!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

LOL.. someone is jealous. FB is doing this because they can. They want to give their employees options. That's more than most most employers are doing for their workers.

I think it’s interesting you believe that. The evidence over the last year would seem to indicate they are in financial trouble as well as in a bit of a brand crisis thanks to bad publicity. So I think it’s more reasonable to believe the have an ulterior motive.

? their stock price is still pretty high. In any case even if they are in "financial trouble", the fact that they are giving their employees the option and six months to decide is a perk because not many companies offer this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little history lesson: IBM encouraged people to work remotely about a decade ago. Seemed like a great deal but then the people who worked remotely never got raises. 10 years later, you had mid career managers managing an entry level new hire who makes $40k more than them. The company also cut back on paying their WiFi and phone line, until they had to cover all costs themselves. Then they said, everyone needs to come back to the city to work or you’re fired, with only minor COL adjustments to come back, so they’d still make less than the newbies. Thousands had no choice but to resign.

Companies will always find a way to get theirs and screw you in the end. If you choose to work remotely you give them extreme leverage over you. Do what’s right for you but always have a Plan B!

I agree with this. I've worked with SV companies for 20 years, and the whole remote working thing ebbs and flows. Even if more companies do this, eventually, they will want to scale it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I see no problem with this policy applying to new employees, that said, so long as they go in knowing what the policy is.

No.. they have till Jan 2021 to decide whether they want to wfh permanently or not. Announcing the col adjustment now means they have the knowledge in hand before they make the decision. You are misinformed.

Yes, when things take a down turn, employers benefit. For decades in SV, it's been an employee's market, rather than an employer's market. No different to how real estate prices work, or any thing else. It's called supply and demand.

What I don't understand is, won't a ton of FB employees WFH while staying in the Bay Area where they likely have spouses with jobs and kids in schools? Seems like this is to address a small number of people who will move to lower COL areas.

There were a lot of people who left California or the coasts entirely to shelter elsewhere just like New Yorkers left Manhattan.

Other people were thinking about never coming back or not doing so for half a year or more. With schools closed, there was nothing forcing them too.

I'm seeing a lot of new SFH listings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as well.

Facebook decided to get out ahead of the bullrush. People can still leave -- they just won't be taking those lucrative paychecks with them.

They will still come out ahead even with the locality adjustment. Unlike what our comp expert above is trying to claim, FB isn’t going go pay their engineers 80k.

OK, then why are some people so outraged over this? FB is giving them to Jan.2021 to make this decision. They have a half a year to decide, and that is pretty generous.

Well anytime you adjust someone’s comp down the person isn’t going to say, thank you sir may I have some more? If you shift someone from 350k to 280k, that’s still a significant loss. Do you really need that spelled out?

And those on this thread are pretty obviously uneducated as to how these programs really get implemented. Re-read the person who keeps posting about hiring a comp consultant. This board is also overwhelming used by Feds or lawyers. Neither have been through something like this.

But they could stay at $350K. They would just have to keep with their original deal and come to work. If they want to wfh, they can (already a big win). If they want to move and wfh, there will be a col adjustment. What is the issue?

Read the actual thread. You’ll see many people arguing employees should make the same wage regardless of where they live. The whole point of this thread is that FB is adjusting salaries for employees that want to work remotely as of 1/2021. People do not believe COL should apply to their salaries and that is why there is outcry. If you don’t understand that, then read the thread again. It’s very clear what the issue is.

But PP is saying -- I think correctly -- that it's absurd to complain because it's a choice. If they stay in the SF area, they'll make the same amount. They can also choose not to WFH... and make the same amount. Literally no one is being hurt by this. It's just a bonus option.

I’m guessing you haven’t been a manager. Employees complain about EVERYTHING. Try giving employees free Starbucks coffee in the kitchen and then switch to Folgers in 6 mos.

You can think no one has a right to complain, but people ARE complaining because on 5/1 there was no policy so people feel “wronged” that FB is announcing this (with plenty of notice) and applying it to their existing workforce. I don’t work for FB but I can understand why people are upset. It’s a little surprising that after reading this thread you’ve overlooked all the comments railing against this. Including ones about how this should only apply to new hires.

To be clear. People are complaining (including a poster on this page) because they think they should make the same salary regardless of location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your job has not changed and what the employer makes OFF of you won't change. The reason that jobs pay less in lower COLA areas is generally because most people in the world don't work for giant multinationals, most actually work at local or regional organizations, they make less, so they pay less. Facebook is looking to make the same but pay less. This is literally off the backs of their employees.

Why are we SO quick to make sure that corporations are given their fair share vs the employees????

You are either naive or don't understand col adjustments.

Even the federal government, a national employer not regional, has COLA.

FB is not doing anything different than what the federal government or other large employers do.

I don't understand the outcry on here at what FB is doing. Once again.. they are giving their employees a choice, and they have six month to decide. How many other corporations or the federal government are doing this? I work with another large SV company, and they have not indicated that they will be giving their employees this option.

IMO, what FB is doing is actually a great perk. Not many companies would give you the option to wfh permanently no matter where you live. Believe me, I have worked with some large high tech SV companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can think no one has a right to complain, but people ARE complaining because on 5/1 there was no policy so people feel “wronged” that FB is announcing this (with plenty of notice) and applying it to their existing workforce. I don’t work for FB but I can understand why people are upset. It’s a little surprising that after reading this thread you’ve overlooked all the comments railing against this. Including ones about how this should only apply to new hires.

To be clear. People are complaining (including a poster on this page) because they think they should make the same salary regardless of location.

Why would you be upset that you are given choices, one of which is to continue coming into the office in CA which means no pay cuts. Seriously some of you are super dumb or entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

LOL.. someone is jealous. FB is doing this because they can. They want to give their employees options. That's more than most most employers are doing for their workers.

What are you talking about? My entire point is that Facebook is just one tech company. If you're in tech and don't want to work for a startup, a lot of people aspire to FANG companies...or have...Facebook's reputation has obviously suffered in the past few years. FANG=Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. Some would argue Microsoft is included too. Facebook and Netflix don't really need remote workers for their business models. Facebook currently has about 45,000 employees. Netflix has 6,700. Google has 118,000 and Microsoft has 150,000. My ONLY point is that Facebook is just ONE tech company. LOTS of tech companies offer remote work and have been doing that for years while still paying high salaries to qualified applicants. It's 10 times harder to get hired at Google than getting into Harvard. So, if Facebook does this--who cares? It's not like Facebook employees won't easily be poached my other FANG companies who won't drastically slash their salaries for wanting to move to second tier tech cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can think no one has a right to complain, but people ARE complaining because on 5/1 there was no policy so people feel “wronged” that FB is announcing this (with plenty of notice) and applying it to their existing workforce. I don’t work for FB but I can understand why people are upset. It’s a little surprising that after reading this thread you’ve overlooked all the comments railing against this. Including ones about how this should only apply to new hires.

To be clear. People are complaining (including a poster on this page) because they think they should make the same salary regardless of location.

Why would you be upset that you are given choices, one of which is to continue coming into the office in CA which means no pay cuts. Seriously some of you are super dumb or entitled.

Ok now you’ve just outed yourself as an ignorant troll. I’m fine with COL adjustments to salaries. My current firm has them. But you’re obviously too lazy to read the posts on this thread that outline what you can’t comprehend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why Facebook is trying this—Facebook sucks. Who really WANTS to work there anyway now—except for the money? Most young techies feel it’s sort of embarrassing. It just seems like people are extrapolating that all highly paid tech workers are going to be screwed now. My point was that many big tech companies have had remote workers or workers in satellite branches for years now, and those workers are still highly paid. Are they paid as much as people working in Silicon Valley? No. There’s a COL difference, but it’s not THAT much. Whatever Facebook does, I don’t think more remote jobs are going to dramatically hurt salaries for engineers.

LOL.. someone is jealous. FB is doing this because they can. They want to give their employees options. That's more than most most employers are doing for their workers.

What are you talking about? My entire point is that Facebook is just one tech company. If you're in tech and don't want to work for a startup, a lot of people aspire to FANG companies...or have...Facebook's reputation has obviously suffered in the past few years. FANG=Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. Some would argue Microsoft is included too. Facebook and Netflix don't really need remote workers for their business models. Facebook currently has about 45,000 employees. Netflix has 6,700. Google has 118,000 and Microsoft has 150,000. My ONLY point is that Facebook is just ONE tech company. LOTS of tech companies offer remote work and have been doing that for years while still paying high salaries to qualified applicants. It's 10 times harder to get hired at Google than getting into Harvard. So, if Facebook does this--who cares? It's not like Facebook employees won't easily be poached my other FANG companies who won't drastically slash their salaries for wanting to move to second tier tech cities.

Do you know for sure that the other companies named don’t offer locality pay? I’ve never looked into and just assumed they did (even tho their pay would still be well above local market pay).
-DP