1510
Audiobooks are the only thing that keep me sane on my commute (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
288 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Which is why all commuting should be paid. I'm not travelling to work just for funsies, it's purely for the sake of work, and so it should be compensated.

Plenty of jobs can also be done remotely, and not offering that as an option to workers should be penalised, particularly if a commuter has to take transit to get there. In a day and age where we should be minimising our emissions, forcing people to commute just isn't right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    The issue here is that paying for commute incentivized longer commutes. I'd rather prioritize chaper living conditions in the area where workers are needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's not like the company doesn't have a say in this. They hire people closer to them, or offer WFH where a commute isn't part of it. My company does pay for my commute. I'm WFH, but when I have to travel for work, it goes on the company credit card.

    Yes, there will be cases where a commute is absolutely necessary, but you can always evaluate these things on a case by case basis.

    Plus it's ultimately time that the worker is giving up. I'll take my current no commute over commute with reimbursement any day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I agree, but there are countries (like Austria where i live) which incentivizes long commutes by financial benefits - its called "Pendlerpauschale", meaning a general payment for people having to drive a longer commute.

    In my opinion, the only thing they are paying for is a more dispersed suburbian area and a big load of CO2 emissions, while sealing a shitton of earth in the suburbs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Company housing it is!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    To be fair, company housing can be beneficial to both sides IF IT IS PLANNED AND EXECUTED AS SUCH.

    in reality, companies use such arrangements to abuse their workers even more.

    I'd advocate for anyone pushing for controlled company housing, when they don't get away with cutting corners everywhere and if our society ever realizes that this arrangement might be beneficial for both sides if stringently regulated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Then you don't want company housing. You want government housing. Which can have its own issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I live in Vienna, with a very strong public housing sector, where i actually live after my divorce, being a pensioner. There is no way in hell i would be able to pay for the current rates on the open market - they are about 200-300% higher than the rent i pay for my sub-40m² apartment, approaching 800-1000€/40m², where i pay 380€. Without government housing, people in my position have nowhere to go, which is why you have scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    There are no "scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns" in the US. Frankly there are large swaths of the US that have very low population densities and well below freezing weather 6 months out of the year. Making such place nearly impossible for homeless people to survive. And there is very little to no safety nets for anyone out there. So they are pretty much concentrated in large cities with good weather and much better social care. Which a sad situation because even a "liberal" state like California doesn't seem too much care.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I get compensation in taxes and as a paid sum by the company. It's based on kilometers. The taxation thing is based on kilometers and the cheapest available option

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I've a friend who works as a truck driver, and does get compensation for how long he has to drive to get to work. It's also tax credits. As someone who doesn't drive but instead would rely on public transport, I wouldn't get compensated.

    Honestly I think that's pretty bunk, why does the public fund people having to commute by car? It's something the company should pay the worker for because it's technically work they're doing for the sake of the company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Here you gotta fill out specific criteria to be compensated (in taxes) for driving your own car. Otherwise you'll be compensated based on the cheapest possible mode of transport (train and bus, almost always)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Making more living space available in the city where you don't need a car would be more beneficial. it would prevent sealing land in the suburbs, prevent CO2 emissions for travel, and in general improve efficiency of public transport.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent