Employees reveal Google has cut the pay of WFH staff

[Anonymous]

I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

Interesting that you use the phrase “above market.” How do you define that?

[Anonymous]

I agree that there shouldn’t be any premium for merely going into the office. The premium is only if the employer views their as being some benefit (e.g., increase in productivity, beneficial to company culture, lower flight risk).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally in the camp of you should pay people for the job that they are doing, particularly if everyone has the option to work remotely. I do think perhaps it's worth giving a premium to people who come into the office, if coming into the office is something that is valuable to the company. However, if two different people are remote, I'm not sure why salaries would be different.

All that being said, one nuance to consider here is on how locality pay is determined.

1) Some companies adjust pay based on cost of living. In other words, they look at a price index based on a basket of goods. This is typically what people think about when they think of locality pay. This is, for example, how the federal government does locality pay.

2) Some companies adjust pay based on prevailing wages in an area. In other words, they look at the average pay of engineers or financial analysts or lawyers in a region. Then, they adjust pay based on this metric. This is more controversial and it can lead to lower wages than might be expected despite a person living in a high cost of living area.

I can see both sides of this issue overall, but I disagree with the idea of paying a premium to people just because they go to the office. Are they more productive or doing more technical work or better work, which justifies higher pay, or are they just willing to put in face time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the employee perspective, if Person 1 is making a better Product A than Person 2, shouldn't Person 1 be paid better than Person 2? Even if Person 1 lives in Idaho and Person 2 lives in NYC?

Yes, but I don't think you're making the point.

If both of those people make 50K, and Person 1 is living in Idaho, they are already being compensated higher because they have a higher spending power.

This depends on how they are determining locality pay. If it’s by cost of living, then this makes sense. However, some companies don’t do it that way. They look at the going rate for a certain type of employee and pay accordingly. If it is the latter situation, you may actually end up being worse off despite doing the same work. DC is a good example of this where cost of living is relatively high but the going rates for some jobs are relatively lower because everything is so government centric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

Bingo. As long as the work is getting done and you’re creating value for that company, that’s all that matters. You being in the office just to have a supervisor breathe all over you and chitchat about the weather and sports isn’t worth someone getting paid 40k more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what many companies are doing. Its not an uncommon practice. PreCovid we had many threads about how much of a pay cut was worth a remote position. I took one and it worked well for me for many years! No surprises here

+1

Common practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

How many tech companies do you think there are who can compete with Google's salary, even with th col adjustment? Only a handful.

Top talent can work wherever and demand high salaries, but the vast majority of workers aren't "top talent" and can be replaced with people who are willing to move or be paid a very good salary for where they live.

Google pays pretty well even if you live in ID.

But, a lot of younger people will want to live near the campus because of the on campus perks. If you don't care about those perks and only the money, then sure, go live anywhere and find a company that will pay you top dollar, but keep in mind that if a company needs to cut costs, the higher paid individual contributor may be the first to go.

If Google had an office in ID, and they hired you in ID, you would be paid ID wages, not SV wages. By allowing you to work remotely in ID, they are essentially saying they now have an "office" in ID. Keep in mind that whereever you choose to work, the company must have nexus, which means they are paying the employer's portion of your income tax.

Also, allowing more people to work remotely means internal process changes for HR and IT. I work in this space, and there is a lot that goes into allowing people to work remotely.

I work remotely. It's great. But, I understand there are limitations to doing that, and I'm ok with that if it means I don't have to fight traffic everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not at all surprising.

I save SO much more money while teleworking. I fill my car up maybe twice a month now, no tolls, no garage fees, no metro fees, not so much money spent on meals out.

I could not believe how much I was spending pre-covid until I really did the math. I had a budget before, sure, but it just didn't click for me until all the money for those things was available to be put to another use. I mean, pre-covid I realized I had a $250/month Starbucks/Dunkin' habit. That's crazy.

+1

Lunch, parking, gas, wardrobe - all add up quick..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

How many tech companies do you think there are who can compete with Google's salary, even with th col adjustment? Only a handful.

Top talent can work wherever and demand high salaries, but the vast majority of workers aren't "top talent" and can be replaced with people who are willing to move or be paid a very good salary for where they live.

Google pays pretty well even if you live in ID.

But, a lot of younger people will want to live near the campus because of the on campus perks. If you don't care about those perks and only the money, then sure, go live anywhere and find a company that will pay you top dollar, but keep in mind that if a company needs to cut costs, the higher paid individual contributor may be the first to go.

If Google had an office in ID, and they hired you in ID, you would be paid ID wages, not SV wages. By allowing you to work remotely in ID, they are essentially saying they now have an "office" in ID. Keep in mind that whereever you choose to work, the company must have nexus, which means they are paying the employer's portion of your income tax.

Also, allowing more people to work remotely means internal process changes for HR and IT. I work in this space, and there is a lot that goes into allowing people to work remotely.

I work remotely. It's great. But, I understand there are limitations to doing that, and I'm ok with that if it means I don't have to fight traffic everyday.

+1

Employees are not necessarily worth more if they have been with the company longer. Fine to get fresh talent who are willing to take less for the trade offs. Not everyone wants a hand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the rationale of any objection to this concept.

We expect to pay less for a house in Omaha than we do in Boston, right? Isn't this just the same thing?

Yes. Salaries and raises at my large IT consulting company are based on the market rate for the job - aka how much would it cost to replace you. This is what we are told every time people get modest raises despite amazing company performance. So it is a chick and egg scenario with wages. Workers in expensive areas cost more because houses / cost of living are higher because workers make more because and on and on for infinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what many companies are doing. Its not an uncommon practice. PreCovid we had many threads about how much of a pay cut was worth a remote position. I took one and it worked well for me for many years! No surprises here

+1 There was a hug thread about this in late 2020 (I think) when Facebook announced this approach. Even with adjusting for cost of living differences, it’s not like these big tech companies are paying small company crap wages. Why should Google pay SV wages for the employees that opted to move to Idaho?

Because wages should be tied to the work and not the location.

If the company decides it’s worth more to have in-person employees, they are entitled to pay more for those positions. But they should give bonuses for in-person work instead of cutting pay for remote work.

[Anonymous]

People who WOS should be paid more than those who WFH if they are (roughly) doing the same job. Because the WOS set incurs greater expenses with childcare; commuting, etc. And it really annoys me when my colleagues who are able to WFH are “working from the Caribbean this week” (we know it, but our directors don’t - thanks to zoom backgrounds) and we have to plan our meetings around their schedule in a different time zone, or they have to keep leaving meetings early because of “poor internet” in Mexico City or Greece or wherever they are currently “WFH.”

I see patients so I have to WOS. We also have to deal with emergencies with actual in-person sick patients that bleed into after work hours - when the people who WFH can’t be “found” because it is not their “core hours.” So I have to pay for a nanny and I pay for my commute, but we all make the same money.

It’s not fair. Many people are leaving medicine, and this doesn’t help. It’s basically a 2 tier system where radiologists and molecular pathologists and other doctors who can WFH live a fabulous life, but the rest of us are in the hospital seeing patients in person (which really is a critical need) and struggling to get vacation time and even time to go to the dentist. But we are making the same money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

This.

And that’s what your former employer hoped. They were doing you a favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this practice can last for remote jobs. My last employer tried to cut my pay when I moved and I just quit and got a job with another company that wasn’t doing that. Why would I accept less pay just because I moved to a lower COL area? I’m doing the same job. It was particularly dumb on their part because they were already struggling to fill similar positions. Google may get away with it because they are paying above market, but even they are likely to find some of their competitors scooping up remote workers by offering to pay them SV wages in Idaho.

This.

And that’s what your former employer hoped. They were doing you a favor.

They hoped they could have yet another opening they couldn’t fill? I kind of doubt that, but maybe. It’s just so odd to hear all these employers bellyaching about how they can’t hire enough people at the same time they are doing stupid things like cutting pay for people just because they moved. Whatever. If that’s what they want to do, have at it. I’m not playing.