this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
911 points (97.9% liked)

Work Reform

10003 readers
575 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 130 points 1 year ago (29 children)

Oh it’s simple. Would you be commuting if you didn’t have the job? No? Then it’s work related and should be compensated.

If you have a two hour daily commute you should be paid for those two hours. Hell the company should probably pay for the cost of commuting and a tax for offsetting the emissions.

[–] severien@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I would move as far as possible from the job site. 2 hours one way on a train watching Netflix, 4 hours work, 2 hours relax on the train. That would be nice.

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

…and you just wouldn’t get hired, because the guy who lives next to their office is a more attractive option, even if he’s only 80% as productive as you.

And that’s arguably why it makes some sense; companies would be more likely to hire more locally and be more flexible about remote work - both of which save precious planetary resources ánd people’s time.

[–] colforge@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Companies would also then be incentivized to invest in and lobby for better affordable housing in the communities their offices are located in/around so that employees at all pay scales have affordable options within a few miles of the office.

[–] severien@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I would just move temporarily, and after probation period move far away. Surely they can't fire me because my living situation changed and had to move...

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this hypothetical scenario this gets implemented it would certainly be standard to have a clause to protect employers against exactly that.

[–] severien@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Seems kinda shitty that you basically can't move without employer's approval.

Also poorer people living farther away would get discriminated.

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

It’d be fair to just keep paying the same compensation you received before moving; you could still move, but you’d have to pay the price.

And yeah, there are still a lot of problems with this approach as long as housing is left to market forces. But those problems are inherent to free markets, not to this possible solution to another problem.

[–] Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

They very much can, will, and do for much less. Welcome to an "at-will" employer. The only thing that's illegal is discrimination

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)