Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Exactly. For example, I worked with plenty of people who work in DC or tech firms in Reston who lived way out in West Virginia and would commute for 2-3 hours a day. They lived in a low COL town but still got compensated at a typical salary. They didn’t get penalized because they lived out west. So it’s all about control and wanting people back in the office because those companies are paying millions to lease out these buildings. It’s not like you’re working less because you live somewhere else.

I don’t know how many times we can point out that this is not what these policies actually do. You don’t get paid more for coming into the office.

Then what is the point of the policies? Give me one logical explanation.

They are not logical.

Part of Google’s brand is about people being in on campus doing Google-ly things. If you’re not on campus, then you’re not contributing to the serendipitous things that help make new ideas pop, as one example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Exactly. For example, I worked with plenty of people who work in DC or tech firms in Reston who lived way out in West Virginia and would commute for 2-3 hours a day. They lived in a low COL town but still got compensated at a typical salary. They didn’t get penalized because they lived out west. So it’s all about control and wanting people back in the office because those companies are paying millions to lease out these buildings. It’s not like you’re working less because you live somewhere else.

I don’t know how many times we can point out that this is not what these policies actually do. You don’t get paid more for coming into the office.

Then what is the point of the policies? Give me one logical explanation.

They are not logical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

I’m sure you would like to believe this. Within my team, the in-office junior people are overall better at their jobs than the fully remote people.

This. I’m sure in other companies it may be different but this has been my observation as well. To be sure, there are some sharp remote workers, but even they are not always fully hooked into a team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

That’s not always true. Plenty of grunt work that didn’t require much talent gets shoveled off to remote employees. I think some full-time remote workers think too much of themselves and that’s part of the problem. It exists in-office too, but remote workers aren’t around people who can help deflate their self-perceptions.

Just b/c someone is in the office, doesn't mean they are productive. Plenty of people go to office and waste time--go out to lunch, shop online, gossip, etc. Oh but b/c they are in person, they must be working or are more committed...

You missed the point entirely. Many full time remote workers tend to think they are more valuable than they really are. They don’t have anyone to keep them in check or to give them a sense of reality. I’m not talking strictly about productivity. You are correct that people can waste time in either setting. And just because you’re remote working full time doesn’t mean you got to do that because you’re some Demi-god.

lol this is one the dumbest things I’ve ever read. So, basically, you need to micromanage your employees to make sure they’re at their cube and monitoring what they’re working on. Because remote people need to be “in-check”?

Just admit you’re a micromanager and you don’t trust your employees.

But I get more work done remotely than wasting my time commuting, you coming to my cube to talk about the weather when I could be getting shit done in the peace and quiet of my home office.

Uh, no. We have very liberal flexible hours. And allow people to work from home as needed. But yes, many (not all) people who work full time from home are a special breed, and think they are more special than anyone else.

In the case of Google, people need to read the room. Clearly, there is something the company values more than remote workers and are compensating them accordingly. Remote workers who don’t like the changes need to find a place where their remoteness is valued more. Again, there must be an intangible that these remote workers are not understanding.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not against EEOC, if they don’t like the new Google policy, then they are welcome to leave.

Nobody suggested there was anything illegal about the policy. I assume that is what you meant by "against the EEOC."
That really isn't the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

I’m sure you would like to believe this. Within my team, the in-office junior people are overall better at their jobs than the fully remote people.

It’s not against EEOC, if they don’t like the new Google policy, then they are welcome to leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

That’s not always true. Plenty of grunt work that didn’t require much talent gets shoveled off to remote employees. I think some full-time remote workers think too much of themselves and that’s part of the problem. It exists in-office too, but remote workers aren’t around people who can help deflate their self-perceptions.

Just b/c someone is in the office, doesn't mean they are productive. Plenty of people go to office and waste time--go out to lunch, shop online, gossip, etc. Oh but b/c they are in person, they must be working or are more committed...

You missed the point entirely. Many full time remote workers tend to think they are more valuable than they really are. They don’t have anyone to keep them in check or to give them a sense of reality. I’m not talking strictly about productivity. You are correct that people can waste time in either setting. And just because you’re remote working full time doesn’t mean you got to do that because you’re some Demi-god.

lol this is one the dumbest things I’ve ever read. So, basically, you need to micromanage your employees to make sure they’re at their cube and monitoring what they’re working on. Because remote people need to be “in-check”?

Just admit you’re a micromanager and you don’t trust your employees.

But I get more work done remotely than wasting my time commuting, you coming to my cube to talk about the weather when I could be getting shit done in the peace and quiet of my home office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Is it? The Google policy is based on paying COL for geographic region, not in-office v. out-of-office.

To be sure, there is a conversation to be had about what you said. But I would invert it- is working remotely more valuable to employees than a slightly higher paycheck? It isn't so much that employers value people being in the office so much as workers value being at home.

Maybe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can believe that all you want, but employers disagree.

That's BS. Most employee who work remotely are highly sought after. The ones who go into office have to b/c they don't have options.

That’s not always true. Plenty of grunt work that didn’t require much talent gets shoveled off to remote employees. I think some full-time remote workers think too much of themselves and that’s part of the problem. It exists in-office too, but remote workers aren’t around people who can help deflate their self-perceptions.

Just b/c someone is in the office, doesn't mean they are productive. Plenty of people go to office and waste time--go out to lunch, shop online, gossip, etc. Oh but b/c they are in person, they must be working or are more committed...

You missed the point entirely. Many full time remote workers tend to think they are more valuable than they really are. They don’t have anyone to keep them in check or to give them a sense of reality. I’m not talking strictly about productivity. You are correct that people can waste time in either setting. And just because you’re remote working full time doesn’t mean you got to do that because you’re some Demi-god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Exactly. For example, I worked with plenty of people who work in DC or tech firms in Reston who lived way out in West Virginia and would commute for 2-3 hours a day. They lived in a low COL town but still got compensated at a typical salary. They didn’t get penalized because they lived out west. So it’s all about control and wanting people back in the office because those companies are paying millions to lease out these buildings. It’s not like you’re working less because you live somewhere else.

I don’t know how many times we can point out that this is not what these policies actually do. You don’t get paid more for coming into the office.

Then what is the point of the policies? Give me one logical explanation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Exactly. For example, I worked with plenty of people who work in DC or tech firms in Reston who lived way out in West Virginia and would commute for 2-3 hours a day. They lived in a low COL town but still got compensated at a typical salary. They didn’t get penalized because they lived out west. So it’s all about control and wanting people back in the office because those companies are paying millions to lease out these buildings. It’s not like you’re working less because you live somewhere else.

I don’t know how many times we can point out that this is not what these policies actually do. You don’t get paid more for coming into the office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

Exactly. For example, I worked with plenty of people who work in DC or tech firms in Reston who lived way out in West Virginia and would commute for 2-3 hours a day. They lived in a low COL town but still got compensated at a typical salary. They didn’t get penalized because they lived out west. So it’s all about control and wanting people back in the office because those companies are paying millions to lease out these buildings. It’s not like you’re working less because you live somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I'm not sure the issue here is about working in an office v. working from a home.

This is about appropriate compensation based on geographic location. The rationale would be the same if a company hired somebody to work in a HQ office in NY or a satellite office in Tucson....

No. Some of it is definitely about whether being in an office is or isn’t more valuable and therefore deserving of more compensation. COL is also a factor but not the only one.

I have never heard of a company that adjusts pay based on in office v remote. Certainly there are jobs that require in person work. But if a job can be performed either way, and the company allows that, I don’t know if any company that pays less to the remote worker so long as they live in the same geographic area or a similar COL area. Do you have an example of such a company?

I’m federal government and we decrease pay based on where you live remotely. Except I think you can’t make more than where your work is located. Like we get the DC pay scale and you can’t be paid the nyc scale even if you’re working in nyc because we don’t need you to be in nyc.