this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
101 points (91.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43757 readers
1234 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Suppose there are two employees: Alice and Bob, who do the same job at the same factory. Alice has a 10 minute (20RT) commute, Bob commutes 35 minutes(70RT).

If you're the owner of the factory, would you compensate them for their commutes? How would you do it?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SHamblingSHapes@lemmy.one 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Employees living far away is not something I would want to incentivize for so many reasons.

[–] Lesrid@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

But that's not what compensation for the commute would incentivize. I don't understand why people think getting paid to drive to work would mean employees would spend most of the week driving. It would mean employers would only hire employees who live upstairs.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In my opinion, I don't think employees should be compensated for their commute. How an employee chooses to arrive to work and how far they live away from a company is not a responsibility of the company. Their job is to be ready to work when their shift starts.

However, this is an X-Y question. The overwhelming majority of jobs historically required you to show up to work. We didn't consider paying for their commute unless they had to travel for work outside of commuting. This was never an issue.

You asked the "X" question, but the "Y" question (the question you're probably asking) is how the burden of commuting should be handled for employees being asked to come in when they have been working remotely.

I think that there are many more nuances to this than simply compensation. If the employee has a working agreement with the company, and they have been managing their time with full-time remote hours, then they should consider that as part of the work agreement.

If they're being asked to come in (when they would normally be WFH), that's outside of the work agreement. It's basically like being asked to get coffee for your boss or something. If it was advertised as part of the job, and you accepted it, then that's fine. If you started work, and a year later, your boss asks you for daily coffee runs under the threat of being fired, that is not acceptable.

You have to keep in mind that the recent WFH popularity has challenged a lot of companies by making their own interests difficult. A lot of it is shitty stuff that the company doesn't want to say out loud, like:

  • They cannot walk around and micromanage you
  • They cannot watch you work
  • They don't like the idea of taking breaks, even if you put in the same amount of work throughout the day
  • They don't have that corporate appearance of an office of business casual-dressed employees
  • They have real estate they paid for that is sitting half-empty

This kind of thing. Realistically, from an employee perspective, they're doing the same work, and they don't see any issue hanging around their house in their pajamas. From a higher-up perspective at some companies, though, they don't have the same goals.

It makes sense that a lot of employees are leaving their positions with companies forcing them to come into the office. In my opinion, they're breaking their working agreement. It may not be written down and it may not be a legal difference, but there is no doubt that they're radically changing the work requirements, which might not be what they signed up for. And what if you're in a wheelchair?

Unfortunately, if Alice and Bob live in the US, there is hardly any hope for them if the company doesn't have goodness in its heart. The workers' rights laws in the US are almost non-existent. There are even about three dozen states that can even legally fire you for being gay. It's that bad.

In my opinion, workers' rights should be highlighted, and side effects like working agreements and compensation for commuting should be solved problems by proxy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Yeah why not. That shit is normal in my country. People get paid per kilometer or they get a transit pass. Of course the amount is capped and it’s a tax write off for the company anyway. Not sure why some of the comments here are against it. I guess they are all Americans

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 9 points 1 year ago

of course the Americans are against it

"BuT WHY IS SHE GEAtatING PaId MORE"

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pretty normal here in the San Francisco / Silicon Valley area. Although it usually comes in the form of chartered busses, transit passes or free parking. And parking in San Francisco can be like $400 a month, so free parking is nice.

The commute in this area averages 1-2 hours one way for many. So transportation perks are important to retaining high value employees.

And because the commute sucks, remote / hybrid work options are also key for many gigs.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] eksb@programming.dev 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would make sure they are both payed well enough that they can afford to live close to the factory. If they chose to live far away anyway, that is not my problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would put then on the same shift so they eat lunch together. Soon they will fall in love, get married and move in together. Problem solved.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you mean compensate employees for their commutes? If I were a self-respecting factory owner, I would figure out how to get the municipality to scale back any public transit options so I could lease vehicles to my employees. They should be paying me to get to work, ha!

[–] Crankpork@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Spoken like a true businesstorian.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

like a subscription!! yes!!!

they would pay you everyday to get to and from work. would it be a flat rate or by the length of commute? length in minutes? miles?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pH3ra@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blowjobs
If we have to be hypothetical, let's go wild

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've got union rep written all over your post.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's none of the company's business how an employee gets to work. It's just not.

The company should compensate the employee fairly or well for the COL in the area the job is. That's it. It's not their job to worry about how the employee gets to work.

Other than allowing/encouraging WFH where it makes sense the company shouldn't try to tell the employees how to live.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Any compensation for commuting to your regular work place is considered taxable income.

The government allows for a tax deduction if commuting costs exceed a certain amount.

I would not do anything about it as is the custom in Sweden. If they want to change it their union can negotiate it, but they are generally more interested a bigger raise than misc benefits.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

In the U.S., employers can subsidize bus passes, van pools, and bicycling to work (I guess provide bikes?) as a tax-free benefit. I'd certainly offer that.

I would not provide more $ to the employee who took a job further from home, unless I was doing on-site jobs on various job sites, work that moved around. Events, construction, etc. My employer pays for airfare or mileage for event work, that is not taxable to the employees.

Even when I did temp work I wouldn't take jobs far from my house, or any that were not one bus away, even though I have a car because cars break sometimes.

I DO think of commute time in a car as unpaid work but manage that in my life by working near home, or living near work.

[–] Brkdncr@artemis.camp 11 points 1 year ago (14 children)

No. I don’t know or care where they live. I will provide parking.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The government will get upset with you if you don't have your employees' addresses. You need that for tax purposes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] JohanSkullcrusher@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Anything short of my commuting time being considered part of my working hours is a non-starter for me. I value the time I gain by not commuting a lot more than most employers do. If my day starts the moment I close my front door, then we can start talking about additional concessions.

[–] bl4kers@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A high static number, like $100/week. The people who live closer will get a little extra and that's fine (a mild incentive)

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

This is how a lot of companies in my area do it. They might offer either a transit card, a parking pass, or a small extra cash bonus each month. Generally the transit card and parking passes are more valuable than the cash.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I wouldn't do it for time I'd do it for distance

And I'd have a cap for compensation for distance

I'd probably also offer a percentage coverage for monthly public transit passes to encourage workers to use public transit more

load more comments (6 replies)

My employer gives us a commuting payment based on the distance from home to work (paid per km) on days we go to the office. We get an additional €60 a month to cover our working from home costs.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No because that opens the door for more complicated situations. Alice is late one day due to traffic or a road closure, does she get more compensation? What if Bob can't drive so his commute takes longer? What if he can drive, but chooses not to?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would an employer care how far away their employees live, or compensate them for their travel?

Unless the employer also gets to decide where they can and can't live, why should they compensate them?

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why would an employer care how far away their employees live

Commute obviously has an impact on overall satisfaction. In roles that can be done remote or in person you can effectively trade commute time for pay.

This logic can be extended to employees working in person with contrasting commute times. Thus op's question

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some countries actually pay your commute fees or part of them. In Argentina it's called viΓ‘tico. It can be advertised as part of the job payment or discussed upon closing the agreement, regardless of whether the job is legal (by the books, officially taxable) or otherwise.

[–] maltasoron@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's pretty standard in the EU.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First: a company should pay at a minimum a wage that can afford housing nearby (probably within 15 minutes' drive). The company should pay everyone for work hours + that round trip nearby commute time

If the company is paying that wage, then employees who live farther away are making a free choice to do so. They still get that round trip nearby commute time paid, but time beyond that is not paid. Or paid at some diminishing rate.

Companies should recognize a worker's time list for the company's benefit. But there has to be a balance because of the temptation to game the system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

I commute an hour, but I only do so because it's cheaper to live where I do instead of in the city I work in. I'm already compensated.

If I wanted a short commute I would be paying for it.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It's dependent on how competitive the job market is. You either pay the person more to get them to do it or you don't. You set a value on their relative skills. Everything else comes out in the wash.

If they can take public transit I'd pay for it. I'd give them up to $2,000 hiring bonus to buy an electric bike (maybe find a good company and get a discount) and offer relocation fees to get within range of either. If you're driving, use park and ride and I'll pay for it.

Other than that, WFH.

[–] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The easiest two ways are to either pay per mile, or just add the round trip time to whatever their pay is. There might be some small complaints and attempts to abuse. But the complaining is easy to deal with and I think the abuse would be small and could be dealt with in similar ways as other time theft is dealt with.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί