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 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •