Submitted by arrogant_ambassador t3_11ebroo in nyc
Comments
virtual_adam t1_jae9bv2 wrote
The same people who are outraged Google will pay them less in Alabama have no problem paying Indians or Romanians a fraction
The more fully remote becomes palatable, the easier it becomes for companies to partially off shore work
And this isn’t even shitting on offshore workers, I’m sure there are plenty that are smarter than my coworkers
BoredGuy2007 t1_jadk6b9 wrote
The benefit is the psychopathic desire to control how other people live their lives
It is truly ridiculous. I have yet to see a tangible empirical case for demanding workers come to the office
Pherring83 t1_jaenmvr wrote
Same here. There is tons of data to support why remote/hybrid work schedule is better yet all these blowhards keep trumpeting "Corporate culture" and "Engagement". The reality is essentially "We signed a 30 year commercial real estate lease and we have to justify it to shareholders."
myassholealt t1_jaewdtc wrote
But isn't compensation supposed to factor in cost of living for employees to make the wage competitive? You're not gonna find an 85K/yr administrative office job working in Tuscaloosa. But you can find a company paying that kind of money in NYC.
I think you guys are really delusional if you expect companies to continue to pay NYC-COL wages to workers living small town USA. Those with niche skills thus they have the bargaining advantage, sure. But your average employee? Lol.
961402 t1_jaf25zg wrote
Reducing wages AND saving on commercial rents is a win-win situation for any employer.
Remember, you're nothing but red numbers in a spreadsheet to your average employer
arrogant_ambassador OP t1_jad4ucr wrote
The city doesn’t want those savings.
drpvn t1_jad5ccb wrote
It would nonetheless be a huge mistake for the city to accept this framing. It would be expensive (bad for NYC taxpayers), it would create two tiers of employees, and it would cause remote workers to demand pay parity with in-person workers, ultimately making it even more expensive (even worse for taxpayers). The city should reject the idea that remote work is an employee benefit.
hulks_brother t1_jadicxa wrote
Remote workers should not be paid less but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a monetary incentive for in-person work.
drpvn t1_jadigwn wrote
If there’s a monetary bonus for in-person work, then remote workers will be paid less.
hulks_brother t1_jadkgww wrote
Potato Potahto
drpvn t1_jadlbuc wrote
More like bonus potato. In person gets a bonus. Remote gets a potato.
BoredGuy2007 t1_jadka2g wrote
“There shouldn’t be a credit card fee but there should be a cash discount”
JaredSeth t1_jadpd7d wrote
Remote workers will naturally be paid less though because they're competing with every other remote worker. When an employer can hire a full time developer in India for ₹700,000 a year, why would they pay someone in the States in $USD? If on the other hand what they really want is someone who'll come in to the office, they'll have to pay in accordance with the local cost of living to retain talent.
throws_rocks_at_cars t1_jaesm98 wrote
Quality
Legality of work materials requiring citizenship
Time zone coordination
Industries not present in India (say, aeronautics? Chip manufacturing? Take your pick.)
Residency requirements
Classified/cleared materials
Other federally regulated materials
Is that enough? We can keep going.
eclectic5228 t1_jae0dw8 wrote
Except that most NYC agencies have any residency requirement
JaredSeth t1_jae3un3 wrote
Oh, I was responding more to the general idea that remote workers should be compensated the same as in-person, not so much for city agencies.
poralexc t1_jaebh0t wrote
In software, outsourcing usually means writing something twice and paying two sets of engineers.
”Near shoring“ is becoming a lot more common—using workers from CA/Latin America but keeping them more closely integrated with their US counterparts.
JaredSeth t1_jaeedjc wrote
Yeah, my company does a lot of both (not "outsourcing" per se because these are employees, but certainly offshoring\near-shoring).
[deleted] t1_jadpvht wrote
[deleted]
47mmAntiWankGun t1_jaek9wh wrote
As a city worker who is celebrating the potential return of working from home (and who can absolutely perform their job from home), is everyone suddenly pretending that working from home doesn't have tangible value, or that it isn't worth that much? People who have the option of remote work have the option not to spend money on commutes in potentially health hazardous conditions, have the option not to spend 1-2 hours of their lives (if not more) on that commute, and don't have to make the choice between preparing lunch outside of work or paying extra for an LIC or Manhattan lunch. The very same people here who would probably say they'd leave if their office mandated a return to office turn to those denied that option and say that it's not worth all that much because (according to some of these posts) essential workers have the right to work paid overtime. Would you, in the same position, really trade the ability to work from home for the right to paid overtime?
There's an argument that compensating office-essential workers "creates two tiers of employees." Well, COVID already made clear there were two tiers; people who have the liberty to work from home and people who do not have that liberty; ergo, the people who faced real hazards to survive, and the people who clanged pots and pans for them at 7 pm but apparently won't condone the idea of pay commensurate with their conditions. And yes, even with COVID (mostly) gone, there are real hazards to commuting and working in the office: extra transportation costs, exposure to disease, crime, traffic, and commuter disruptions that can cost hourly workers their pay due to no fault of their own, plus the time lost spent with family, friends or themselves. There's a reason embassy US workers in Yemen are paid 35% more than their compatriots doing the same job in Switzerland; hazards and risk have a quantifiable value. We understand that costs of living might vary based on your living conditions (nevermind that commuting costs are part and parcel of cost of living calculations), and yet can't grasp that the risks and extra costs incurred by essential workers have a monetary cost? The fact is that Essential Workers (like all workers) don't want support, they want salaries commensurate with the dangers and costs. If the city's goal is to retain its shrinking municipal workforce, it should both allow remote work for those jobs that can allow it and provide additional incentives to sign up for jobs that don't, lest it be even more attractive to be a school administrator than a schoolteacher.
PJkazama t1_jaf4ys4 wrote
Apologies in advance if I didn't understand you correctly but doesn't this presume that salary offered at large considered commute to begin with? Like you mentioned, I know some jobs that ask you to relocate or perhaps some corporate jobs but I'm under the assumption is that the salary is more often commensurate with experience and what they've already decided the position is worth. Yes, on occasion there is an added cost to hazard, commute, travel etc... but that seems already factored in. What I think we're examining here is the same office job split in to two catagories: one at home and one in the office. How is the position worth any less if someone can achieve the same task from home?
I can understand an incentive where employees that show up in person are paid a bonus at the end of the year but to create this distinction now for the same position just strikes me as NY's typical attempt to squeeze as much money out of their residents as legally possible.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jad83ot wrote
For companies, remote worker benefits the companies more than the workers. Because in-office work would require both a high salary plus the costs of the office space. In contrast, a remote worker, even if making the same salary, would still cost the company less.
For city workers, I have concerns with people working for the city, but who at the same time don't live in the city. It doesn't really matter to me if they work remotely as long as they live in the city.
But if they are going to be making decisions that impacts the city, they need to have some skin in the game, in my opinion.
c0satnd t1_jadkt1p wrote
Sigh. They’re really employing the divide and conquer strategy and some folks in this thread are already falling right into it.
LeftyMode t1_jaekphq wrote
Turn office space into housing.
Fixed.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jad76un wrote
Remote work will draw NYC salaries down and low wage places up. There will be a national salary for a lot of jobs.
I was at a seminar where companies in low wage areas where complaining they were losing their advantage of low priced workers. The low priced workers demanded higher wages they could get working remote for companies in high cost areas.
mowotlarx t1_jadjriu wrote
>Remote work will draw NYC salaries down and low wage places up. There will be a national salary for a lot of jobs
You say that as if remote work hasn't been the rule for the past 3 years. This isn't theoretical anymore we've already seen it in action and this didn't happen.
atheros t1_jaezp2l wrote
Wages are very sticky. Three years isn't enough time for us to draw conclusions about the medium term future especially since most of those three years were during a very strange economic time.
[deleted] t1_jaeiy6i wrote
[removed]
Commercial-Impress74 t1_jaej28m wrote
Anyone kno any good remote jobs for NY?
throws_rocks_at_cars t1_jaestqk wrote
Anything is the STE of STEM. Law. PM. Marketing. Tons of industries.
smallint t1_jaef4wv wrote
Tree Fiddy?
HEIMDVLLR t1_jadirv6 wrote
All of this is dumb. Remote and In-Person, should be paid the same…
If you grew up here, you know people that got city jobs and moved to Long Island, NJ, and PA. Because their argument is, cost of living is cheaper, QoL is better for their kids. They’re the original remote workers.
They’re willing to drive back and forth into the city everyday for the salary and the city doesn’t give a fuck to stop it.
myassholealt t1_jaewv0j wrote
That analogy doesn't work. They are still physically going into work. That quite literally is not remote...
HEIMDVLLR t1_jaf1gdx wrote
So you think the city should punish remote workers and reward anyone living outside of city limits as long as they physically come into work?
hulks_brother t1_jadi46w wrote
There should be additional compensation for all who are required to "go in" for work.
mowotlarx t1_jadjx13 wrote
Why? Different jobs are different. If you chose to be an electrician or a contractor instead of someone who works primarily on a computer and phone why should you get a special gift in salary (when you already get overtime that most office workers don't get) because you obviously can't work remotely? The city shouldn't be setting wage expectations based on the possibility of sour grapes.
newestindustry t1_jadsxmo wrote
>If you chose to be an electrician or a contractor instead of someone who works primarily on a computer and phone why should you get a special gift in salary (when you already get overtime that most office workers don't get) because you obviously can't work remotely?
This is really lame and anti-worker.
mowotlarx t1_jadujk3 wrote
>anti-worker
It's anti-worker to pretend all jobs need to be equalized in this very silly way. What the administration is actually doing here by setting up this ridiculous comparison between different kinds of jobs, is pitting workers against each other hoping they won't look up top. That is anti-worker. Different jobs are different. Why are we sitting here pretending they aren't? Blue collar city jobs have always had overtime options that administrative workers never had. This "equalizing" has already occurred because of that.
newestindustry t1_jadxwlb wrote
Blue collar workers do physically taxing work. They can be hurt or killed on the job. Acting like they're the bad guys for wanting cash compensation for a benefit that more educated workers will be able to get is not cool.
mowotlarx t1_jadze3m wrote
Wanting cash because they are angry that their physical labor job they chose doesn't allow them to work remotely is ridiculous. Ask for more $$ because you deserve it, but demanding it because their work can't be remote is childish. And the only people egging on this apples to oranges garage are the bosses.
newestindustry t1_jae6r68 wrote
You keep saying it's ridiculous, silly, childish, without giving any real reasons why blue collar laborers shouldn't seek cash compensation for a benefit (remote work) that they can't receive but more educated workers do. I feel like you're seeing a zero-sum game between blue- and white-collar workers where it doesn't exist. If they get more compensation for working in person, how does that harm you? You are very obviously not a blue collar worker, so why do you care if they make more money?
mowotlarx t1_jaek3f9 wrote
Remote work isn't a fringe benefit. If we're playing this "everything is the same" game, give every office worker overtime eligibility.
Or, if they really want to work remotely they should change professions.
newestindustry t1_jaeslwl wrote
Of course every office worker should be overtime eligible. That they aren't is unjust—and so is the fact that many essential and/or blue-collar workers are denied the benefit of remote work.
You saying remote work isn't a fringe benefit doesn't make that true. Not sure if you've changed jobs in the last few years but it's absolutely treated as one by recruiters. In the story we're both responding to, labor organizers, leaders, and activists also recognize it as one.
The idea that unionized blue collar workers should just switch jobs if they're unhappy with their working conditions is elitist and anti-worker, you sound like the "learn to code!" people we all hate.
shivering t1_jaf1klh wrote
>If we're playing this "everything is the same" game, give every office worker overtime eligibility.
Damn you're so close.
spoil_of_the_cities t1_jad6axf wrote
In person workers need to be paid enough to live in NYC
Remote workers only need to be paid enough to live in Missouri, or maybe the Philippines
Generoh t1_jad91w0 wrote
Is there something you have against people living in the Missouri or the Philippines?
spoil_of_the_cities t1_jad9fcu wrote
Not at all I think they will perform excellently
drpvn t1_jad2h94 wrote
My firm and every other firm I know of pays remote workers the same as in-person workers. The idea that remote workers should earn less is ridiculous. If anything it’s a benefit to the employer, which saves on their commercial real estate footprint.