Hacker News Reader

Comment by rqtwteye | Hacker News Reader

" I'd rather take a 50% paycut than go back to the office."

People should stop saying this. Otherwise it will soon be the standard to take a serious paycut for WFH. .

This. Companies are already catching on to this and starting to use this as a reason to pay less.

In my latest performance review, my manager actually told he and other managers were being forced to ask the question "Do you consider WFH as part of your compensation" by HR/upper management to all his reports (including me).

I'm convinced this is in preparation to either lower salaries, or artificially lowering them by giving lower raises/bonuses to those who work from home since they are starting to call people back to office who aren't remote by title. Most people are back up to 3-days a week, even though 90% of them are very unhappy. I'm fully remote hence why he asked me this question and anyone else who is designated full remote.

I've been remote for 11 years.

Remote work was always an excuse to pay less, much to my chagrin. The fact is that as remote work became more popular, with the increase in positions, pay has actually increased. I'm not surprised that more people are seeing pushback on in the office vs remote compensation as this has been the standard play for years.

I find it doubly frustrating since remote employees are less of a cost sink due to less office space and all the costs that come with it. Remote employees are the most efficient type of employees from that perspective and so it always felt like such a flimsy excuse.

My suggestion is push back on any perceived pay gap between in office and remote work. The work done is at parity (if not more so due to efficiencies of remote work) and so there is no valid excuse to pay less.

"you'd have to double my pay to get me to commute everyday?"

As well as "I'd rather leave my current job than go back to the office."

My company has spent the last 8 months trying to explain why they want us back in the office for hybrid work. At first it was, "mentoring young staff." And lately it is, "It doesn't look great to potential clients when they visit an office and the office is empty." This new argument sounds like a BD edge case.

It seems to entirely be senior leaders and senior empty nesters pushing for this, while everyone else is not in favor.

If they previously worked in some expensive city like San Fransisco and had in writing that their work from home arrangement was permanent they could move to a forest somewhere with negligible housing costs and still come out ahead.

Although most people don't work in San Francisco with inflated salaries so I'd still rather not make this the norm.

It's worse than that, I didn't just gain space and scenery. I went up an entire socioeconomic class.

Previously I was priced out of the housing market, renting a small basement suite.

Now I own a large detached home, and thanks to the rental suite, spending less each month than I did before.

And this is all before you consider the equity myself and my tenant have paid down, or even any home appreciation. It's effectively doubled my TC since I moved.

Next thing you know you'll be showing up to city council meetings to try and prevent apartments from being built down the street ;)

Your employer should actually pay you more to WFH.

Aside from saving them rent on the office space, you should be able to expense several office-supply things that they would have provided previously. Office chair and desk, internet bill (pro-rated by usage), maybe printer ink.

not really. Companies pay more in expensive cities where they locate offices because they need to attract local talent, and they have to compete against other companies. Many national companies have cost of living adjustments baked into their salary bands because of this.

Which aside from office space if you feel you need to rent/buy a bigger place in an expensive area are utterly trivial for any decent white collar job and are almost certainly counterbalanced by commuting costs for the vast bulk of people who can't just walk/cycle to their jobs.

>Aside from saving them rent on the office space, you should be able to expense several office-supply things that they would have provided previously. Office chair and desk, internet bill (pro-rated by usage), maybe printer ink.

Let's not get carried away. Back then you were paying for your own transportation costs and your commute time. Which is more valuable? Commuting to work every day to enjoy free office supplies and coffee, or WFH but paying for your own chair and desk?

I'd take the latter any day of the week as the chair & desk is a one time cost anyway and lasts 10+ years.

aye, and the difference is the commute and its resources -- gas, new tires, oil changes, etc. -- ain't coming back.

meanwhile, i bought a standing desk and it's mine, and it'll go to my next house and next job.

they can drop ship me a laptop and docking station, and if they wanna be nice throw me a couple hundred as a "office stiped", which would be way cheaper than buying business grade furniture.

You're neglecting to consider that many companies consider their office buildings to be a real estate investment, expecting big returns.

I've seen some employers try to get people to take a 50% paycut for WFH and then STILL bait and switch them back into the office.

That's the thing, if the employer tries to bargain on WFH then they just won't stop on an agreement but keep pushing.

This was always inevitable. The demand for fully remote jobs will always be higher than for in-person. With more demand for those positions, the companies can afford to pay labor less. WFH was always going to come with a pay cut. I don't know why people are simply expecting the other shoe never to drop. I'm not saying that it should, I'm saying that it will.

Not with unemployment where it is. Instead it's more likely that companies will offer more money to software engineers to compensate for a must-commute policy.

It's already happening. Pinterest had top of market pay but realized they could cut total comp substantially by agreeing to remote.

I mean.. -50% would make US competitive with India, and I'd much rather have people in US timezones than the worst timezone imaginable for US-West.

People are foregoing pay to WFH but not that much. Relax people are not dumb.

(Shrug) If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. Commuting is for suckers, regardless of how many numbers are on your paycheck.

agreed. unless its like an easy 20 min walk or bike or something, i don't plan on commuting regularly for anything less than a Director role.

on the Dir level? fine, different story, and being present to have official off the record chats may be required.

Pay cuts are for suckers too.

I mean, yes, that's the obvious take, but can you honestly say there's nothing you could be doing that would make you more money, but that would completely suck, prompting you to do something else instead?

Just today I'm seeing stories about how the UPS truck drivers have managed to negotiate themselves pay and benefits up to $170,000/year. Would you rather make $150,000 a year at your desk at home, or $170,000/year schlepping packages for UPS?

If your answer is "$150K," you're taking a pay cut for a better work environment. Does that make you a sucker? No? Well, that's what WFH is about. If you have to leave your current job and find another one to make it happen, it could make sense as long as your paycheck and future prospects aren't too badly hurt. (And assuming you want to WFH, of course, which many people will not.)

>regardless of how many numbers are on your paycheck.

I dunno, 7 is a lot of numbers. Work for 5 years, and be close to retirement. Definitely have my house/car and even a few luxury projects paid off in that time. I could work part time/contracts and let the rest of the money gather interest.

But I suppose you're basing this on reality, not a true ultimatum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com