Would you take a pay cut to go remote?

[phantominvestor]

Quote

 

Stripe saw "major uptake" of the unusual offer it made to staff during the pandemic: Leave high-cost cities like New York and San Francisco and take a $20,000 bonus to boot. The catch? Workers had to consent to a 10% cut to their base compensation. From a report:"We saw pretty major uptake," John Collison, Stripe's co-founder and president, said Tuesday on Bloomberg Television. "There were a lot of people where they took advantage of all the remote working that was going on last year to be able to move to be closer to their families, to somewhere they wanted to move previously." Stripe -- dually headquartered in Dublin and San Francisco -- has long been considered a leader among Silicon Valley firms in its embrace of remote work. It began hiring engineers who work from home as early as 2013 and six years later opened a fully remote engineering hub. "We have not come to our ultimate stance or ultimate decision of what the exact mix of in-office versus remote will be," Collison said. "Everyone has been working remotely during a pandemic but I think that's going to be very different from the steady state of working remotely."

Payments Giant Stripe Saw Major Uptake of Staff Offer To Move With 10% Pay Cut - Slashdot

Would you take a 10% pay cut to go remote? I cannot believe companies can get away with this. People should say no. I want to work remotely but I don't see why the employer should get the benefit of the shorter commute. The job is worth 100% otherwise the employer wouldn't be paying it.

There's some good comments on that Slashdot post. Some people saying it makes sense to go with a cheaper cost of living and no commute but forego the salary progression of higher salaries.

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, phantominvestor said:

Would you take a 10% pay cut to go remote? I cannot believe companies can get away with this. People should say no. I want to work remotely but I don't see why the employer should get the benefit of the shorter commute. The job is worth 100% otherwise the employer wouldn't be paying it.

Sorry hang on, they should be paying ME if they want to save on office space costs!

No, I would not take a 10% pay cut to work remotely.

But then I live a short drive (or long walk) from the office, so it wouldn't save a commute really.

[Orb]

I couldn't stomach a current employer trying to cut my current salary because it would feel too much like opportunistic exploitation by them. 

However, I'd leave my current job and take a new job starting at a significantly lower salary (or even freelance) for the opportunity to not have to go into a workplace. Working from home sounds like a dream to me, so yes, I'd take a big salary cut to do it.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Orb

[hotblack42]

Take the $20,000, jobhunt on company time & quit within 6 months?

[captainb]

7 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Sorry hang on, they should be paying ME if they want to save on office space costs!

No, I would not take a 10% pay cut to work remotely.

But then I live a short drive (or long walk) from the office, so it wouldn't save a commute really.

Don't know if it's just a London thing but we are accelerating our move of IT from London to Belfast. And yes people will take redundancy or move to Belfast now remotely. Pay is less.

Also hard to see why a civil servant say in London gets London weighting if working remote.

Purely the flip side, once you go remote you are competing for the role with everyone else who can work remote rather than everyone else who can get to that office. Nothing less nothing more. But to suggest that won't influence salaries medium to long term is very niave 

[winkie]

Depends...... sometimes a job requires a person to be there in the flesh, like service jobs and caring jobs......office jobs where sitting with other workers looking at screens all day, a question mark as to why need to be there five or six days a week........think of all the work that could be done during the time taken to get there and get home, using time productively, think of all the money that could be saved by employers on office space required......more scattered office hubs around the country might be a better medium alternative for large employers and employees....any money saved and productivity gained could be distributed towards those that met and exceeded targets set...... everything is measurable.

[crash-and-burn]

I have a relative who will be working from home almost indefinitely as they sold up three of the four offices, and saved a fortune in the process. Their pay increased, and the company sends the occasional present (such as flowers) in the post. 

Trying to cut 10% from a wage, when saving money is just opportunistic theft.

[simon2]

I've seen the opposite happen; the same job re-advertised remotely as a slightly lower salary and slightly changed description. So the company got their pay cut, just that it was transferred to someone else.

Can they get away with it? Quite easily I think, because they have lots of people applying.

For jobs where the incumbent doesn't have pricing power, it seems to me that historically any efficiency or productivity gains accrued to the business and bigger bosses as opposed to the worker in increased wages. The opposite where they do have some power, either by nature of the job or unions.

So it depends on the job really. 

[hurlerontheditch]

a former client of mine is already making plans like this. if you want to work remote, that's fine but there will be a new contract and that will have less pay as there is less travel costs. Their exact words to me

[dugsbody]

How about framing the question this way:

You have a family to raise and need a decent size house near decent schools and unfortunately, not being a boomer, the only place you can afford is quite far out of central London. Employer A offers you X salary for a bum on seat role in London where you commute is 3 hours total each day, at peak time, with frequent delays, no seat, squeezed in, and a couple of changes through busy stations. Each day, two people cough on you and at least seven people arrive late for the train and shove in front of you to get on then stand in the aisle in (relative) comfort while you're stuck by the doors. By the time you get to the office your stress levels are already at peak. Your season ticket costs 5% of your salary.

Employer B offers you X - 10% salary, but with the option to work fully remote and come to the office when you like.

Which would you choose?

Edited June 18, 2021 by dugsbody

[markyh]

1 hour ago, hurlerontheditch said:

a former client of mine is already making plans like this. if you want to work remote, that's fine but there will be a new contract and that will have less pay as there is less travel costs. Their exact words to me

You cant by time, ever. 

[TheCountOfNowhere]

I've posted a link from the DailyMail, so take it with a pinch of salt, on a different thread saying 1/3 of companies with staff working from home are going to offshore those jobs, 6 million jobs !!!

People have just showed that they are not needed in an office and profiteering corporations will take full advantage of that.

People are going on about pay rises and demanding this that and the other, when perhaps they should get their backsides back into the office and start telling their bosses how working from home is not working.

[Huggy]

My first thought was that I'd take offense if my place tried that. Levels of penny pinching such as this (we're talking about a 5 grand season ticket here) implies that they are either in trouble, or are operating at [name of large online retailer] levels of employee skinning.

But, looking at it objectively, I'd probably take that as the pay cut without too much moaning (don't tell the boss!) as I would be saving a hell of a lot of time on the train and that is a massive benefit that I didn't previously have. It works out about a calender month (24hrs a day, 7 days a week, for an entire bloody month) per year doing the commute.

However, even then I would still be on the look out for new a job as the salary difference between my company and one which didn't lower salaries would be larger and that might make moving a bit more easy to decide on. I'm pragmatic and understanding about most things, but no cuck.

[Freki]

Are people really happy with working full time remote, no office time ever?

I guess there will be more choices and it will become a new criterion when it comes to choosing an employer (for those that can afford choosing) 

[Huggy]

11 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

I've posted a link from the DailyMail, so take it with a pinch of salt, on a different thread saying 1/3 of companies with staff working from home are going to offshore those jobs, 6 million jobs !!!

People have just showed that they are not needed in an office and profiteering corporations will take full advantage of that.

People are going on about pay rises and demanding this that and the other, when perhaps they should get their backsides back into the office and start telling their bosses how working from home is not working.

This doesn't really make sense. These profiteering corpos would have offshored all they could already, and I don't see getting lots of people to WFH would suddenly make them realise they didn't go far enough.

Any decisions on getting rid of staff would probably have more to do with the coming financial armageddon. It has to be Black Monday soon right?

[PeanutButter]

It's America. They can fire you in most states and not pay beyond two weeks (or that day). You ever watch Undercover Boss when every employee grovels and simpers about how LUCKY and FORTUNATE they are just to even have their job (and how much they love it). Of course it's all fake but most basic workers seem to live in fear of being dumped at the strike of a pen. 

Try doing that in France or Germany lol. 

[LetsBuild]

11 minutes ago, Freki said:

Are people really happy with working full time remote, no office time ever?

I guess there will be more choices and it will become a new criterion when it comes to choosing an employer (for those that can afford choosing) 

Yep, I’ve been into the office 4 times this year - It really highlighted to me how unproductive I am in the office environment, lots of distraction, people wanting to talk, ‘oh can you just come to this meeting…’ etc.

[Freki]

20 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

It's America. They can fire you in most states and not pay beyond two weeks (or that day). You ever watch Undercover Boss when every employee grovels and simpers about how LUCKY and FORTUNATE they are just to even have their job (and how much they love it). Of course it's all fake but most basic workers seem to live in fear of being dumped at the strike of a pen. 

Try doing that in France or Germany lol. 

You would be surprised, firing someone in the US is really hard when they can lawyer up.  So agreed with the little non unionised people, but top 10% earners is another deal. 

[captainb]

14 minutes ago, Freki said:

You would be surprised, firing someone in the US is really hard when they can lawyer up.  So agreed with the little non unionised people, but top 10% earners is another deal. 

Nah. Most don't have contracts even in financial services.

Works both ways. The good can demand much higher bonuses than in London for the same revenue as you don't pay? I walk today.

Flip side is if you have a crap year or two you can be gone the same day.

 

Having said that employment law in the UK is also pretty lax. As long as you are not stupid in how you do it, you can get rid of anyone within the first 2 years of employment.

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by captainb

[PeanutButter]

21 minutes ago, Freki said:

You would be surprised, firing someone in the US is really hard when they can lawyer up.  So agreed with the little non unionised people, but top 10% earners is another deal. 

We wiped 20% of our US workforce last year. It was virtually instant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[Frugal Git]

No way. The opposite. You want me to work from home? Pay me a lump 200k so I can buy a house big enough to comfortably accommodate WFH. 

[scottbeard]

5 hours ago, captainb said:

Don't know if it's just a London thing but we are accelerating our move of IT from London to Belfast. And yes people will take redundancy or move to Belfast now remotely. Pay is less.

Also hard to see why a civil servant say in London gets London weighting if working remote.

Purely the flip side, once you go remote you are competing for the role with everyone else who can work remote rather than everyone else who can get to that office. Nothing less nothing more. But to suggest that won't influence salaries medium to long term is very niave 

Working in Belfast you lose a London weighting, fair enough.

I agree that in the long term the whole job market (and salaries) will be very different because you are right, in some jobs at least you are now competing with anyone who has a computer.  I hope I didn't say "remote working won't influence salaries" and that you're just misquoting me - the question was "would I take a pay cut to work from home " with the implicit other choice being stay on full pay in the office.  That's different to "do you think in the long term salaries will be impacted by home working"? 

 

[wsn03]

1 hour ago, Freki said:

Are people really happy with working full time remote, no office time ever?

I guess there will be more choices and it will become a new criterion when it comes to choosing an employer (for those that can afford choosing) 

I work for myself with clients, both projects are home based now for the next 3 years on the main one. Wife in the same position. To us every day is the same, so I definitely miss going to an office. The lack of hassle is a bonus, but the sameness and lack of people is a total drain. My clients are all abroad so it can't really be changed, but I would say I'm usually happier going into a workplace and keeping home separate.

The difference is I've got used to home working now, and like being on holiday or retired the idea of reverting back feels very tough. The reality I think is I'd possibly be happier but like when you sleep in all the time there's that whole thing of not being bothered to make the switch. This must be the issue facing an awful lot of people.

I always chase the money. If there was no money difference I think I'd choose home, but would in reality be better off at least mentally going to the workplace. I do feel like someone who is unemployed but sitting on screens all day despite being busier than I've ever been

[captainb]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

Working in Belfast you lose a London weighting, fair enough.

I agree that in the long term the whole job market (and salaries) will be very different because you are right, in some jobs at least you are now competing with anyone who has a computer.  I hope I didn't say "remote working won't influence salaries" and that you're just misquoting me - the question was "would I take a pay cut to work from home " with the implicit other choice being stay on full pay in the office.  That's different to "do you think in the long term salaries will be impacted by home working"? 

 

Apologies quote wasn't meant, using phone on a train!

 

[MARTINX9]

People will have the worst of both worlds - at home for 2-3 days a week and in the office for 2-3 days a week.

Fine for those with offices or studies - not so much fun long term working from a kitchen table or bedroom in your flat.