Lol you should be allowed to clock in when you start your commute. These CEOs don’t even want to pay their employees when they are on the clock and working.
In theory that sounds good but I don’t really get how it’d work. I mean what if you just lived four hours away so your commute there and back was just your eight hours? That’s obviously ridiculous so what’s the cut off? Like an hour? How does that affect breaks and lunch if you do live an hour away so you’re only working six hours? Or is it just like a premium pay, like you earn 10% of your salary on your way in?
Any company that does that likely uses a company vehicle as company property and demands you live in the specific area.
My old employer did that for our field technicians. You were paid from the second you left your home until you got back. If you had to stay overnight - then they paid for that too.
We hired people all over the US but we only hired people in centralized areas key to our customers. You were NOT allowed to change your home address more than 20 miles without sufficient approval. It would be grounds for termination.
My coworker lived in Alabama, and got some girl pregnant when they had him working in Philadelphia on an all-hands type of emergency . He decided to move to Philly to raise the child. You’ve no idea the amount of bureaucratic headache it took to stay employed.
Interesting. Where I work we have field techs as well but I guess it’s a little different. Everyone’s issued their own truck, the truck just lives at the office. So you’d drive to the office, pick up your truck, and then start earning windshield time. In any case, I do wonder what it’d look like for like a retail worker or something.
I mean if I was a miner and instead of working in the mines I could just drive for 8 hours that sounds a little more doable. In any case, what if I just get a job somewhere and then move? As much as people on lemmy hate driving I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes it.
My husband has to drive to different sites every day. He clocks in when he starts his car, and starts getting paid either an hour later or the minute he gets to the job site, whichever is sooner. So if they schedule him more than an hour from home, he gets paid for that extra drive time, which is nice. First hour is just expected commute.
And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
Guess we just have to make more shareholder value if we want nice things. We can’t talk too loudly though, just in case someone gets the idea that the workers should actually become the shareholders.
Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.
I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable
My company’s policy is that if you’re traveling to other offices, that’s paid time. If I go into the main office, but then midday have to drive 2 hours to one of our labs or something, it makes sense I’d be paid for that, right? Same with commuting during business trips. So, if I have the ability to WFH, how is it any different? I’m having to travel from one office location to another.
Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.
Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.
It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution
If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair
If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away
I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it
I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”
I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.
Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense
I don’t think you understand… The only difference is there are those who expect and demand to paid for their time and money spent getting to work and those who don’t. There are those who accept getting the raw end of the work-life and financial balance, and those that don’t. If the CEO can demand, expect, and get compensation. So can the boots on the ground worker. Only real difference is that you don’t. That’s capitalism.
Here’s a fun fact. Vasquez Rocks is a common shooting location for Hollywood. Particularly Star Trek; my wife and I make a game of pointing out when they’re using Vasquez Rocks for yet another episode.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”. If they shoot within the studio zone, people have to pay for their own transportation and meals. If it’s outside, the studio pays for all that. Vasquez Rocks is just outside the studio zone.
Lol you should be allowed to clock in when you start your commute. These CEOs don’t even want to pay their employees when they are on the clock and working.
In theory that sounds good but I don’t really get how it’d work. I mean what if you just lived four hours away so your commute there and back was just your eight hours? That’s obviously ridiculous so what’s the cut off? Like an hour? How does that affect breaks and lunch if you do live an hour away so you’re only working six hours? Or is it just like a premium pay, like you earn 10% of your salary on your way in?
I wonder if any company actually does this.
Any company that does that likely uses a company vehicle as company property and demands you live in the specific area.
My old employer did that for our field technicians. You were paid from the second you left your home until you got back. If you had to stay overnight - then they paid for that too.
We hired people all over the US but we only hired people in centralized areas key to our customers. You were NOT allowed to change your home address more than 20 miles without sufficient approval. It would be grounds for termination.
My coworker lived in Alabama, and got some girl pregnant when they had him working in Philadelphia on an all-hands type of emergency . He decided to move to Philly to raise the child. You’ve no idea the amount of bureaucratic headache it took to stay employed.
Interesting. Where I work we have field techs as well but I guess it’s a little different. Everyone’s issued their own truck, the truck just lives at the office. So you’d drive to the office, pick up your truck, and then start earning windshield time. In any case, I do wonder what it’d look like for like a retail worker or something.
Of they live 4 hours away. Why are they applying for that job and why is that place hiring someone that fast away when commuting is a requirement.
I mean if I was a miner and instead of working in the mines I could just drive for 8 hours that sounds a little more doable. In any case, what if I just get a job somewhere and then move? As much as people on lemmy hate driving I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes it.
The real question is.
Why would the mine hire the guy who gets paid 8 hours of unproductive driving? They would only hire the closest individuals.
And what if you move? I guarantee there would be a contract stating you cannot change your home address by [X distance] without approval.
My husband has to drive to different sites every day. He clocks in when he starts his car, and starts getting paid either an hour later or the minute he gets to the job site, whichever is sooner. So if they schedule him more than an hour from home, he gets paid for that extra drive time, which is nice. First hour is just expected commute.
I pay for food delivery, they should pay for labor delivery.
And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
Guess we just have to make more shareholder value if we want nice things. We can’t talk too loudly though, just in case someone gets the idea that the workers should actually become the shareholders.
Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.
I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable
My company’s policy is that if you’re traveling to other offices, that’s paid time. If I go into the main office, but then midday have to drive 2 hours to one of our labs or something, it makes sense I’d be paid for that, right? Same with commuting during business trips. So, if I have the ability to WFH, how is it any different? I’m having to travel from one office location to another.
Are they driving for work? Or driving for personal reason?
Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.
Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.
It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution
If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair
If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away
I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it
It’s the rules of the game you’re mad at. Not the commuting equitably issue.
I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”
I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.
Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense
I don’t think you understand… The only difference is there are those who expect and demand to paid for their time and money spent getting to work and those who don’t. There are those who accept getting the raw end of the work-life and financial balance, and those that don’t. If the CEO can demand, expect, and get compensation. So can the boots on the ground worker. Only real difference is that you don’t. That’s capitalism.
Here’s a fun fact. Vasquez Rocks is a common shooting location for Hollywood. Particularly Star Trek; my wife and I make a game of pointing out when they’re using Vasquez Rocks for yet another episode.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”. If they shoot within the studio zone, people have to pay for their own transportation and meals. If it’s outside, the studio pays for all that. Vasquez Rocks is just outside the studio zone.
Slight correction, it’s just inside the studio zone. Studios wouldn’t prefer a place that requires them to pay more!