I guess you agree with my point about forcing employers to pay for work done.

A few grand per year for an employee sounds a bit like a raise. I support it.

Admin costs rise, other costs fall such as hours scheduled but not worked (e.g. calling out sick) fall. Yes, the company is just going to eat these costs. "What if it gets passed on?" That's the point. Wrap up the total cost of a product in the price. Stop externalizing costs that shouldn't be. The cost of paying workers a living wage is a pittance when lumped into the price of a service or product.

Make better algorithms? I'm not sure what you expect. If the company isn't finding suitable hires within their radius they will adapt, like increasing the radius or reducing the requirements.

There are already exemptions for small businesses for onerous costs such as healthcare, as well as models for scaling mileage in rural places with small pizza places. Again, it's making things harder than they need to be. Unsure why you're acting flippantly towards exemptions in your response.

Sounds like we went around the monopoly board and collected $200 rather than full circle, but hey, everyone has a different opinion. Thanks for sharing yours.

We do, though. There are quite a number of legal cases where individuals and governments at state and federal levels win on labor-related grounds. These are around not being compensated for work performed. Some of them include salaried employees.

We've already got a mileage stipend in place, even in the public sector. I'm unsure why you're under the impression that can't be extended. If it's an hourly employee, pay them from the start of the commute. If it's a salaried employee, consider their start time the same when it comes to calculating benefits. We don't need to make things unduly difficult. Someone abuses it in a "5 hour commute"? Fire them. We've got plenty of rules on the books for time fraud. This is the part where companies determine whether they want to hire someone. In addition, generally most companies don't hire people from an hour or more away.

It's not that there aren't flaws, it's that the flaws don't outweigh the benefits.

But they are making the choice to have employees. No one is forcing them to do so either. We do, however, force companies to pay employees for time worked in all cases. The commute should be a part of that.

If employers don't want to pay employees for time worked, employees should refuse to work there.

Partially because, in most cases, they would see a return on investment in just the quality of candidates available, let alone indirect benefits such as employees with fewer reasons to not come into work at all, e.g. being "sick".

We're finding that many people ARE saying "sod this" when it comes to positions without remote availability. For the most part there are no benefits to coming into an office. The two biggest ones being an easier time during communication as understanding increases the more context you have (like body language) and that the value of money spent on a corporate lease won't plummet.

To answer in a more philosophical way, why should individuals not be compensated for their time working? I would argue vehemently that the commute is work time and should be paid as such. If companies don't want to pay for that time, they should hire closer to their location or offer remote positions.