I think people should get paid for the time they spend commuting too and from work.
Companies would change their tune on WFH real quick if that were the case.
Companies would change their tune on WFH real quick if that were the case.
And what’s wrong with that?
Is every person on earth entitled to a job?
If yes, voice your concern with your local government.
Person 1 - childless, has a flat in the city.
Person 2 - couple kids, needs more space, lives 45 minutes from work
Why should person 2 be at a disadvantage?
I agree that commuting should be considered as part of "work", but I always took into account commute time when considering job opportunities. The pay obviously never had an explicit "commute" line, but my math was "this job + this commute for this pay". Figure if it's worth it or not.
If I work one extra hour, was that unpaid and my employer stealing from me? If I work one hour less, is that me stealing from my employer? No on both counts in my opinion.
When picking a job I consider a commute a cost already and would need to be compensated for it in the form of higher pay.
But I don't think we should artificially stack the deck in favour of people who live close to work, that just adds a totally fake and unneeded item to the long list of advantages e.g. non parents have over parents who need a bigger house or access to schools.
If you want to get paid more, negotiate it.
Seems like a non issue to me.
You could maybe make an argument only for minimum wage jobs as a special case, because the price for labor can't freely adjust downwards if you force companies to also pay for commute.
Employee salaries don't fluctuate continuously. In most cases, labor loading - the number of warm bodies paid to be there 9-5 - can't fluctuate much, quickly (with the exception of catastrophic business failure). Salaries and wages almost never go downwards for employees already hired. Etc.