Hacker News Reader

Comment by us-merul | Hacker News Reader

It also turns remote work into a negotiated benefit, which may be preferred over actual raises.

Well, if we're going to negotiate, let's negotiate both ways. You want me in the office? Then I have to commute, and my time's not free. Are you going to pay me for my commute time?

Right. If employers set RTO as the default, you may be able to negotiate remote time instead of a pay raise. They’re less willing to pay you more to commute and would rather see the commute as the expectation.

Salary isn’t a meter ticking from 9 to 5, and it’s not a line item of “WFH credits” vs. “commute debits.” Salary is simply the number that convinces you to show up and do the work. Whether you sit in an office, in your kitchen, or on the beach is irrelevant - the company pays because they need outcomes, not because of your postcode or chair type.

That’s why all this “WFH as benefit / RTO as cost” chatter is sleight of hand. It nudges you into negotiating around scraps instead of the only thing that matters: total compensation for total output. Companies push that framing precisely because it distracts you from asking for a bigger number.

My point is that, from the employee's point of view, the commute has to be factored into "total output". So if I've been getting $X for Y hours WFH, and now they want to give me $X for Y hours in the office, that's (Y+C) hours to me, and that's the same pay for more of my work - though part of the work doesn't benefit the company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com