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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is industry standard in the tech world. And, within tech very few people argue with it because you make out better in the lower cola areas. So for example, DC is a TIer 1 city. You make the highest amount here. But move to Scottsdale, which is 33% less cola and a Tier 3 city, and you only make 20% less with most companies. So the outrage here is insane to me.

So you're only getting a 10% pay increase over regular locals?

Is that worth transferring to Scottsdale for?

I don't think it would be about what you make in comparison to the locals, per se. Rather, a better quality of life compared to living in a high cost of living area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My company has done this for years. We have a mix of onsite and remote workers. Remote workers salaries are based on their actual physical location and not the office that their business unit or team is technically assigned to.Being able to go from onsite to remote is a privilege that comes with costs.

It doesn't make full sense as both are doing the same job except the company is saving a lot of money not having desks/spaces for staff. My husband has an office space and rarely uses it. Maybe a few times a month. Its a huge waste of money. Better giving that to employees or better equipment to work at home.

You’re cute. You think that corporations are in it for their employees. They are in it for themselves. If you want the big bucks, stay in the high COL area. If you truly the lynchpin of your corporation, you can ask for whatever you want. But 99% of employees are cogs in the wheel and you take it or leave it. If they close down those office buildings, it’s not going to be a bonus for the employee.

+1 I'm sorry, but the "it's not fair" contingent sound entitled and whiney.

-signed a FT wfh person in tech for the past several years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is industry standard in the tech world. And, within tech very few people argue with it because you make out better in the lower cola areas. So for example, DC is a TIer 1 city. You make the highest amount here. But move to Scottsdale, which is 33% less cola and a Tier 3 city, and you only make 20% less with most companies. So the outrage here is insane to me.

So you're only getting a 10% pay increase over regular locals?

Is that worth transferring to Scottsdale for?

I don't think it would be about what you make in comparison to the locals, per se. Rather, a better quality of life compared to living in a high cost of living area.

But the only way that works is if the area is so poor that no one can afford to rent or buy? i.e. its a bunch of trailer parks

Otherwise...if I worked for fictional 'Company A' and they told me my salary increase for D.C. would be 10% over a standard rate of salary in this area....i.e. I'd be making $200,000 a year instead of $179,000...that just means I'm still priced out of the best areas and school districts.

An extra $20K isn't going to let me suddenly buy a house in Arlington...

[Anonymous]

I’m in tech. This sounds fair and normal. Salaries have always taken the local economy into account. Why should that be different just because you’re teleworking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is industry standard in the tech world. And, within tech very few people argue with it because you make out better in the lower cola areas. So for example, DC is a TIer 1 city. You make the highest amount here. But move to Scottsdale, which is 33% less cola and a Tier 3 city, and you only make 20% less with most companies. So the outrage here is insane to me.

So you're only getting a 10% pay increase over regular locals?

Is that worth transferring to Scottsdale for?

I don't think it would be about what you make in comparison to the locals, per se. Rather, a better quality of life compared to living in a high cost of living area.

But the only way that works is if the area is so poor that no one can afford to rent or buy? i.e. its a bunch of trailer parks

Otherwise...if I worked for fictional 'Company A' and they told me my salary increase for D.C. would be 10% over a standard rate of salary in this area....i.e. I'd be making $200,000 a year instead of $179,000...that just means I'm still priced out of the best areas and school districts.

An extra $20K isn't going to let me suddenly buy a house in Arlington...

I understand that. But if an employee chooses to not be in the office every day and instead opts to move to a lower cost of living area, the employer doesn't care about what you can or can't afford. It's paying commensurate to that area. The only advantage (as I see it) to the people moving to LCOL areas will be less expensive schools for their kids, shorter commute (as in none), so they can live as far out of town as they want to get a decent-sized house.

I think the majority of people who really care to do this are mid-level employees with young families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in tech. This sounds fair and normal. Salaries have always taken the local economy into account. Why should that be different just because you’re teleworking?

+1. This was expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in tech. This sounds fair and normal. Salaries have always taken the local economy into account. Why should that be different just because you’re teleworking?

+1. This was expected.

Not to the idiots crowing about making $300K and remotely working from Charlotte. Real wake-up call.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/881960.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to create some very weird incentives to hack the cheapest location that still pays full salary. Like the furthered out SV/DC/NY suburb.

If appraisal companies can accurately pinpoint a house's value in say...Chantilly vs Arlington or Westchester vs Manhattan, what makes you think Facebook - which has access to everyone's data - won't be do the same for further out suburbs down to the mile?

As for Silicon Valley - people are already living at 2 hour commutes away from the Facebook hub just to pay for the privilege of a $600,000 SFH.

They deserve full pay. The remote WFH will probably lose access to facebook office benefits and a pay cut if they are not coming into the office certain days of the week.

Here's what the COL in Dixon, California (a SV suburb with a 2-hour commute) looks like -

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/965-Bounds-Dr-95620/home/2433372

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/2240-Mariposa-Dr-95620/home/2620889

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/510-W-Cherry-St-95620/home/144147159

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/241-S-1st-St-95620/home/2437703

I highly doubt the pay calculations will be according to home value. That level of granularity frankly will lead to discrimination lawsuits.

I wasn't saying it was. Although that is factored into COLA adjustments. I just don't think you can 'hack' Facebook COLA's calculator by living in Haymarket and claiming a Washington, D.C. price tag.

They'll know.

If they pay me less to live in PG vs MoCo they are going to get sued. And lose. Quickly.

Sure, tough guy. They could use COLA per zip but it’s a level of granularity not worth it. You’d have no grounds since there is no requirement to live in a certain zip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to create some very weird incentives to hack the cheapest location that still pays full salary. Like the furthered out SV/DC/NY suburb.

If appraisal companies can accurately pinpoint a house's value in say...Chantilly vs Arlington or Westchester vs Manhattan, what makes you think Facebook - which has access to everyone's data - won't be do the same for further out suburbs down to the mile?

As for Silicon Valley - people are already living at 2 hour commutes away from the Facebook hub just to pay for the privilege of a $600,000 SFH.

They deserve full pay. The remote WFH will probably lose access to facebook office benefits and a pay cut if they are not coming into the office certain days of the week.

Here's what the COL in Dixon, California (a SV suburb with a 2-hour commute) looks like -

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/965-Bounds-Dr-95620/home/2433372

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/2240-Mariposa-Dr-95620/home/2620889

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/510-W-Cherry-St-95620/home/144147159

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Dixon/241-S-1st-St-95620/home/2437703

I highly doubt the pay calculations will be according to home value. That level of granularity frankly will lead to discrimination lawsuits.

I wasn't saying it was. Although that is factored into COLA adjustments. I just don't think you can 'hack' Facebook COLA's calculator by living in Haymarket and claiming a Washington, D.C. price tag.

They'll know.

If they pay me less to live in PG vs MoCo they are going to get sued. And lose. Quickly.

Sure, tough guy. They could use COLA per zip but it’s a level of granularity not worth it. You’d have no grounds since there is no requirement to live in a certain zip.

Let’s put it to a jury.

That said, I don’t think FB will do this (PP was speculating). But if they do, this will be the result.

[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.

Everybody has housing expenses. Unless you’re living on a tent on a beach with all the other homeless bums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to create some very weird incentives to hack the cheapest location that still pays full salary. Like the furthered out SV/DC/NY suburb.

I highly doubt the pay calculations will be according to home value. That level of granularity frankly will lead to discrimination lawsuits.

I wasn't saying it was. Although that is factored into COLA adjustments. I just don't think you can 'hack' Facebook COLA's calculator by living in Haymarket and claiming a Washington, D.C. price tag.

They'll know.

If they pay me less to live in PG vs MoCo they are going to get sued. And lose. Quickly.

Sure, tough guy. They could use COLA per zip but it’s a level of granularity not worth it. You’d have no grounds since there is no requirement to live in a certain zip.

Let’s put it to a jury.

That said, I don’t think FB will do this (PP was speculating). But if they do, this will be the result.

I think you are mixing two different issues. If someone wants to move to Florida and WFH rather than DC, there will be a COL adjustment that reflects that. But if someone wants to live in MoCo vs PG with the office in DC, that's very different. I haven't seen COL adjustments for a general area.

However, what will make a difference is adjusting for employees who never come into the office anymore, regardless of where they are working. At the very least, this seems like a two-prong pay issue.

There will be a cost for no longer going into the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in tech. This sounds fair and normal. Salaries have always taken the local economy into account. Why should that be different just because you’re teleworking?

+1

[Anonymous]

^^ FB isn’t basing locality pay on offices. They’re doing it based on where remote workers live, no office needed. So PP plaintiff thinking they would win because there would be different salaries based on zip codes is clueless. There is no case if FB said “we pay based on zip code”. They can use a multiplier on median salary or an any other non-discriminatory factor. It is legal to offer different wages for the same role based on location. As long as it’s an established policy - which FB is being more than generous to be advertising this far in advance.

With a company their size there is no way they are going to deal with that minutiae. They’ll set a range, probably miles, around a metro cities.

The plaintiffs attorney needs to go back to ambulance chasing.

And those thinking this will cause a mass exodus need to put their wine down. FB has always paid above market wages. Adjusting for the LCOLA won’t change that. Other local tech employers still won’t compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not fair. I left DC when daycare closed (many thanks to my family) but I'm still paying rent on my DC apartment and tuition to my closed DC daycare, so expenses haven't gone down very much.

No one is forcing you to keep an extra rental or pay daycare into summer.

Cancel contracts if you plan to permanently move.

I want to come back! I cant wait to come back! I am waiting for DC to open back up! It took us forever to get off daycare waitlists with two kids and we'd need a bigger place to swing 2 children, 2 teleworkers, and a nanny. We would only break contracts if we knew this would continue for a year or more.

This isn't based on where people are living now during the pandemic. It is based on where people are living in Jan. 2021.

[Anonymous]

I am curious what will happen if people who WTF travel a lot. Meaning travel not for work but I want to see my parents for two weeks so I work from home in NYC and then I go to DC and visit my sister and then I go home wherever that is And then we take a month at the beach while I WFH. It would seem like this is acceptable as long as I am working, so how would they know if I am working from a friend’s house In Florida or I moved their or I am taking a beach summer with my kids while still working.

The VPN stuff seems like it would be more of hassle than informative.