Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are in a period of transition right now that won’t last. Once WFH policies shake out and get fully established, this won’t be controversial. If you live in Montana and are applying for remote work jobs in big tech, you will know your salary will be based in part of your location. If you work in the office in NYC but are considering moving back home to Cleveland, you will know as part of the calculus that it will come with an X% pay decrease due to locality. This is already a fact of life for many people who have coped just fine. The people who are upset now are the ones who thought they found a way to game the system and are upset they market caught up with them.

I don’t see how employers will be able to sustain that. There are already a bunch of tech companies that will pay remote workers in Boise at the same scale as SV. How is Google going to compete for those people while demanding they get paid 20% less just because COL is lower? The competitive pressure will ultimately be too much and they will have to cave.

Which employers?

I'm wondering this, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine, but the Google compensation policy has nothing whatsoever to do with that. A google employee who WFH full time in SF gets the same comp as one who works in the office 7 days a week in Mountain View. The WFH only gets a pay cut when he moves up to Boise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the office. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

Also, when you are living in SF, it's easy to pop into the office for a meeting with your coworkers. Sometimes meeting in person is just easier. Harder to do that if you are living in Boise.

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.

We are in a period of transition right now that won’t last. Once WFH policies shake out and get fully established, this won’t be controversial. If you live in Montana and are applying for remote work jobs in big tech, you will know your salary will be based in part of your location. If you work in the office in NYC but are considering moving back home to Cleveland, you will know as part of the calculus that it will come with an X% pay decrease due to locality. This is already a fact of life for many people who have coped just fine. The people who are upset now are the ones who thought they found a way to game the system and are upset they market caught up with them.

I don’t see how employers will be able to sustain that. There are already a bunch of tech companies that will pay remote workers in Boise at the same scale as SV. How is Google going to compete for those people while demanding they get paid 20% less just because COL is lower? The competitive pressure will ultimately be too much and they will have to cave.

Which employers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

DP.. you seem really young and idealistic. That isn't how it works. It's about COL and commiserate pay. You having kids has nothing to do with your employer. Your employer is paying for your work and will pay you market rate of where you live. That's standard practice.

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.

We are in a period of transition right now that won’t last. Once WFH policies shake out and get fully established, this won’t be controversial. If you live in Montana and are applying for remote work jobs in big tech, you will know your salary will be based in part of your location. If you work in the office in NYC but are considering moving back home to Cleveland, you will know as part of the calculus that it will come with an X% pay decrease due to locality. This is already a fact of life for many people who have coped just fine. The people who are upset now are the ones who thought they found a way to game the system and are upset they market caught up with them.

I don’t see how employers will be able to sustain that. There are already a bunch of tech companies that will pay remote workers in Boise at the same scale as SV. How is Google going to compete for those people while demanding they get paid 20% less just because COL is lower? The competitive pressure will ultimately be too much and they will have to cave.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Google is big on collaboration, hallway conversations, etc.. They have comfy alcoves for people to get together and discuss things.

In some ways, it's easier for everyone to wfh because conference rooms are at a premium, and most people sit in open office spaces. When I try to have video conferences with people in those open office areas I can hear the background noise of those around them. So, if you are at home, it's a lot easier for people to find quieter rooms.

Having stated that, I realize that not everyone has a home office that is conducive to having video conferences. I can hear their little kids in the background. When you are in the office, you don't have home distractions, though, yes you can have other distractions. When you are at home, it's hard to know if you are actually at your desk. One person I worked with would almost never answer pings within a few minutes. They always seemed to be away. This person wasn't exactly a high performer, either. And a few times, I could hear their background when they were in a conference call, and you knew they were out and about while on calls. You need to be on the computer on these calls because people often share their screen, and if you can't see it, it makes the call useless.

Someone also mentioned network issues. Yep, I've been in calls where people who wfh are having a lot of network issues. It's very annoying because it happens quite frequently.

I wfh, but my managers absolutely know I'm working because 1. I always answer pings pretty quickly 2. I'm a high performer. I have been wfh even before covid, but it really isn't for everyone. Some people get more easily distracted than others, and they don't have a good setup at home to be able to wfh effectively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

So if your employer moved your job to a more expensive area and kept the salary the same, you'd be cool with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

NP. Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

It does to me. If we apply locality pay, I think we should also pay single people less. After all, they don’t have a family to support. Or what about people who have a working spouse?

I think an employer should pay a salary commensurate with the job and job market - not the lifestyle of the employee.

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.

I bet you would sing a different tune if your company basked you to move to a higher cost of living area for the same pay.

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.

The point of the policies is what it has always been for decades- to pay people what is necessary to attract the talent and no more. If you live in Minnesota, I can pay you 100K and you will be happy. If you live in Silicon Valley, I need to pay you twice that.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is kind of the opposite of how it works. There is a base salary for your work. Then the government increases pay based on cost of living where your work is located. If it's an office in DC, you get DC locality pay on top of the "base." If you go remote to a lower cost area, then you get whatever the locality pay is for that area because that's your new work location. E.g. Atlanta gets a slightly smaller COL increase than DC, and rural northern PA gets just the base.

You are right that you can't opt to get higher pay than where your office is located, because that would be a net loss to the government of having you work remotely.

Honestly, none of this seems remotely unfair to me.

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.

We are in a period of transition right now that won’t last. Once WFH policies shake out and get fully established, this won’t be controversial. If you live in Montana and are applying for remote work jobs in big tech, you will know your salary will be based in part of your location. If you work in the office in NYC but are considering moving back home to Cleveland, you will know as part of the calculus that it will come with an X% pay decrease due to locality. This is already a fact of life for many people who have coped just fine. The people who are upset now are the ones who thought they found a way to game the system and are upset they market caught up with them.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine, but the Google compensation policy has nothing whatsoever to do with that. A google employee who WFH full time in SF gets the same comp as one who works in the office 7 days a week in Mountain View. The WFH only gets a pay cut when he moves up to Boise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the office. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again this is your FEELING. Not an actual fact whatsoever. I don’t give a shit about what you feel, as long as the people are creating value for the company and getting their work completed on time, their location is irrelevant. Your argument is one of the dumbest things I’ve read.

When we all were forced to work remotely cause of Covid, I didn’t think I was more special than anyone. Neither did any of my coworkers who were remote prior to covid. They still got their work done (early actually), attended meetings, etc. they even flew into dc to attend events when needed once a quarter. It has nothing to do with feeling “more special”. That’s just your bias talking.