• shannduin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many companies are walking back their permissive remote work policies which adds a layer of uncertainty for immigrants when considering living outside of an urban centre.

    • corsicanguppy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many companies are walking back their permissive remote work policies

      I interviewed today. I told the guy that the Commute policy WILL drive the costs up, as I’ll want that separate add-on to cover the policy, like a CoLA clause. The math is simple, and will work out to a bit of a bump per day if that day is mandated onsite.

      But they’re competing against a job I have that is paying X and the “100% remote” is in the contract in plain language, among other factors. I feel for them, as it’ll be harder to get actual talent like the astounding people I work with, when all they can offer is some cruel dotcom wage-slave term set. (according to my spreadsheet, it’s gonna be double just to make par).

      Rule1: Always charge 'em until ya like 'em.

      • shannduin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I wish companies would get their heads out of their butts and realize that people were just as productive working remotely as they were in the office for most jobs. We live in a world of distributed teams! Even at my company, my team is in Seattle, Mountainview, Sydney, and Boston! It logically makes no sense anymore to mandate in-office work, yet they’re doing it because they always have

    • zephyreks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but it means that companies can start looking to expand into cheaper urban centers.

      • corsicanguppy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        it means that companies can start looking to expand into cheaper

        Yeah, everyone gets that it’s a benefit to the employer to run with WFH staff, but it’s often a struggle for old-school manager who validate their existence through home-room attendance. My current employer had to re-up a contract during CoViD, and the only change was a pay bump to handle inflation and “100% WFH” (in legalese).

        And the employer sold the desks - sometimes to staff - and released the space it was renting. So easy. One guy is onsite to receive Fedex, and there’s a few ‘hotel’ desks that see regular use.

        • zephyreks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not even just WFH staff: instead of having expensive office space and high COL, you can pay less and rent an office in Saskatoon.

          • corsicanguppy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a very good point. For the footprint you must have, it lets a company choose to relo to a place that can use the tax revenue and looks far better on paper.

            … but then the ‘100% remote’ clause needs to be etched into stone, lest the management decide to “just” pull everyone back in to an office far away from their current home or abandon their jobs!

            But yeah, the cost of office space in the flat land is potentially so much lower, that I’m surprised smarter people than me at business - and there’s a lot - haven’t jumped on the opportunity to improve shareholder value or something by a relo to some place better.

            • zephyreks
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The smarter people don’t want to work in Saskatoon, unfortunately