▲ 1403 ▼ The back-to-office backfire: Companies ending WFH perks lose out on top talent, who view flexible work as equivalent to an 8% raise (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 3 years ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 156 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1125686 Archived version: https://archive.ph/vL1mC Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806071111/https://www.businessinsider.com/employees-work-from-home-benefits-as-good-as-raise-2023-8
[–] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 17 points 3 years ago (7 children) I would rather make 50k WFH than 100k in an office. permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 26 points 3 years ago (3 children) For double the salary, I'd need to think long and hard about it tbh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (2 children) For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe). Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn't a huge red flag for bad management in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn't spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let's say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that's worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary. Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn't actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I'm 100% WFH in Denmark so I'm not advocating to push people into an office building but there's definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago 50K isn't worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Lol, my family can't afford to live on $50k a year. So that's a hard no for me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 1 point 3 years ago Hahaha, yeah definitely a no for the family man. But as a single man 50k is fine, and the flexibility is worth more than a 100% raise. permalink fedilink source parent [–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago You do you, there's no way I'd take a $50k pay cut under any circumstance permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 26 points 3 years ago (3 children) For double the salary, I'd need to think long and hard about it tbh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (2 children) For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe). Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn't a huge red flag for bad management in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn't spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let's say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that's worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary. Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn't actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I'm 100% WFH in Denmark so I'm not advocating to push people into an office building but there's definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago 50K isn't worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (2 children) For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe). Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn't a huge red flag for bad management in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn't spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let's say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that's worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary. Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn't actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I'm 100% WFH in Denmark so I'm not advocating to push people into an office building but there's definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago 50K isn't worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xenxs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn't spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let's say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that's worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary. Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn't actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I'm 100% WFH in Denmark so I'm not advocating to push people into an office building but there's definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago 50K isn't worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago 50K isn't worth 10+ hours extra hours per week going solely toward work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Lol, my family can't afford to live on $50k a year. So that's a hard no for me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 1 point 3 years ago Hahaha, yeah definitely a no for the family man. But as a single man 50k is fine, and the flexibility is worth more than a 100% raise. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 1 point 3 years ago Hahaha, yeah definitely a no for the family man. But as a single man 50k is fine, and the flexibility is worth more than a 100% raise. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago You do you, there's no way I'd take a $50k pay cut under any circumstance permalink fedilink source parent