Facebook Will Let Employees Work From Home Until July 2021 (cnn.com) 61
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Facebook is extending its work from home policy until July of next year, becoming the latest tech giant to commit to letting staff work remotely in response to the coronavirus pandemic. "Based on guidance from health and government experts, as well as decisions drawn from our internal discussions about these matters, we are allowing employees to continue voluntarily working from home until July 2021," said Nneka Norville, a Facebook spokesperson, on Thursday. Norville also said Facebook is giving employees $1,000 for "home office needs."
Zuckerberg pitched the idea to Facebook staff as both a matter of satisfying employee desires and also as an effort to create "more broad-based economic prosperity." "When you limit hiring to people who live in a small number of big cities, or who are willing to move there, that cuts out a lot of people who live in different communities, have different backgrounds, have different perspectives," Zuckerberg said on a livestream posted to his Facebook page in May. Google also recently extended its work from home policy until July 2021. And some companies, including Twitter, said their staff may work remotely indefinitely.
Zuckerberg pitched the idea to Facebook staff as both a matter of satisfying employee desires and also as an effort to create "more broad-based economic prosperity." "When you limit hiring to people who live in a small number of big cities, or who are willing to move there, that cuts out a lot of people who live in different communities, have different backgrounds, have different perspectives," Zuckerberg said on a livestream posted to his Facebook page in May. Google also recently extended its work from home policy until July 2021. And some companies, including Twitter, said their staff may work remotely indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
Cable news in general is bad. As it targets the lowest common denominators (basically an 8th grade education) in which you are smart enough to understand what is happening, but not smart enough to care for the finer details. FOX News is worse because it isn't a news station it is entertainment. (check the Terms of Use on the website) and they can get away with just saying whatever they want people to think.
However CNN while dumb jurnalism, doesn't consider itself as an entertainment entity, so it tries to
Re: (Score:1)
...they can get away with just saying whatever they want people to think.
Making people think in a certain way does not earn any money. Telling them what they want to hear does.
Re: (Score:2)
That was really easy to check so you did no looking into so you did not come up with it but got that misinformation from some other site. So what was that site? If not that then you are knew about it and are lieing or trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry, in the year 2020 sarcasm is a bad idea. The problem is there is a critical mass of people who tout this stuff not sarcastically but think it is true. Anti-Vax, Flat Earthers, Anti-GMO, Creationist, Bible Thumpers and Eco Terrorists. Have hooked onto ideas that we use to consider witty sarcasm, and becomes a call to arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outsourcing is next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Outsourcing is next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Working *remotely* sure does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can do your job from home and there is no regulation or licensing that forces your boss to use US-based employees you can be all but certain that your job will be outsourced in the near future. So polish your resume and update your LinkedIn now.
Well, they could have already been doing that ... and no doubt were to some extent. How does this change anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can do your job from home and there is no regulation or licensing that forces your boss to use US-based employees you can be all but certain that your job will be outsourced in the near future. So polish your resume and update your LinkedIn now.
This may be true for some, but it really doesn't apply to companies like Facebook and Google, who already hire globally.
Re: (Score:3)
If they could have they would have already. This protects jobs by making it cheaper to employ Americans due to needing less office space and perks like free refreshments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect some bosses know that once they push to outsource their teams, they will be next.
Would everyone be paid equally? (Score:4, Interesting)
If Facebook expands their work from home, so in essence anyone could work for facebook without moving. Would an Employee who lives in NYC or LA be paid the same as someone who works in Gilbert Arkansas?
Where I live a good condition updated 2,000 sqft home costs about $250k. If I were to drive 100 miles South or West that same price would get me a rundown shack. My salary for my area is really good, however my college colleagues who got jobs in major urban areas are getting paid about 50% more than I am. However I have a larger home, with land, while they have a small but nice 2 bedroom unit.
However not all things are proportional. While housing is variable based on location, things like automobiles, appliances, etc... are about the same price around the US. So My Urban Colleagues are driving Benz and BMW's while I am in a Toyota. Because the cost of a Car takes up more of my income percentage.
I think the general problem with economies today, they are focused on the dollars, but not the quality of life of the employees per say. With people working from home from different locations this will make setting salaries far more complicated. Because While I may be Happy with a 110k facebook job. My colleagues who are in the Same State as I am and with the same skill sets will need 190k because the job with the skill sets, should provide people with an upper middle class lifestyle.
Then that creates the problem, of Facebook to begin targeting Areas with lower cost of living. Which in some ways is a good thing, because these areas should be getting more attention and investments. However on the flip side, it will make it hard for people who lives in Expensive areas to get good jobs.
Re:Would everyone be paid equally? (Score:5, Informative)
In short, no. Facebook is not a government with numbered positions and mandated pay scales. As a private company, they set salaries by supply and demand.
(correction) (Score:2)
I meant to say corporation, not private company. Sorry. They are a public corporation (NASDAQ: FB)
Re: (Score:3)
But still the supply of workers is higher in expensive areas, and they will demand a higher price to get them.
They are two Supply/Demand curves going on.
One for Facebook, Supply or Workers, and demand for the Workers.
One for the Workers, Supply of Jobs, and Demand for the Jobs.
Facebook opening Work From home, Increases its supply of workers to higher level lowering its pay, as the demand for the workers remains constant.
While for the workers this is just one more company so the Supply of jobs for them is mu
Re: (Score:2)
So just what would your Government intervention look like in this case?
Personally, I don't see where there is any type of Government intervention that would not have long lasting & misbehaving effects. I say this because there are so many far reaching effects that if you try to control a few, the rest will eventually react wildly.
Re: (Score:3)
If this shown to be a problem, Governments could rule that US businesses pay consistent wages and account for cost of living adjustments. As well rules preventing companies from discriminating employees from their location.
Such rules can also help make sure that Foreign workers are getting paid a living wage, as well allow for competitive workers in the US to compete against them based on skill and maret vs just abusing the different cost of living in different areas.
However I am not saying the Government s
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha. We are pretty much on the same page then.
Re: (Score:2)
well, the government could begin by requiring ALL business selling goods within the united states to adhere to minim wage and osha laws.
( that would probably have a very positive effect on the lives of many people overseas while also equalizing the playing field a bit for State side employees).
Enforcement would be hard I suppose but there would be ways to do this. It is also kind of a 'back door terriff' so you would need to implement it in stages so as not to shock the economy to solidly and let things
Re: (Score:1)
Let's stop pretending that we're all smarter than the spontaneous order of the market.
Re: (Score:1)
You are assuming that regulations happen without businesses reacting to them and adjusting their practices. Such regulations would create ample incentives for businesses to simply stop hiring within the US and attempt to move as many positions overseas as possible... and potentially close up shop in the US. It wouldn't happen overnight and would depend on the severity of the regulation, but the incentive would clearly exist. An attempt to regulate what foreign workers are paid would create an incentive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ability to work remotely will balance salaries and real estate prices across the nation.
No, it will not. It may result in some partial leveling, but it will not balance them.
If there is no need to live in the cities as a job requirement, there will be massive exodus first to suburbia
People choose to live in cities. They want access to what's there. And what's there is there because of high population density. Many businesses just aren't viable without a large number of nearby potential clients/customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Some "People choose to live in cities." Many go to chase the money. Then they realize the $4k/month in rent they are spending could go to a nice retirement fund. They often also get a family/kids and choose to not live in cities.
It's true that most people who are in NYC/SanFran will not move to rural Arkansas, many would happily move 2-4 hours away from the metro area where they can get more bang for their buck assuming they don't have that 2-4 hour commute each way daily.
Re: (Score:3)
Cities are often for the Young, This isn't about kids doing stupid things.
However for the path of a professional.
A person will go from Schooling and living at home, under tight supervision from parents, and having all their needs and services met.
To college, where the Student has a lot of Services so they can focus on their studies, but not as much as when they lived with their parents.
To a City life, where there are services available but less than college.
Finally they will move out to raise a family. Th
Re: (Score:2)
People choose to live in cities. They want access to what's there. And what's there is there because of high population density.
See, I don't get this argument. I live on the outside edge of a major metro area. If I want to catch professional sports, it's about a 30 minute drive into town for me, not horrible. At least pre-covid there are several venues within walking distance of my house that would do live music. Also in walking distance are plenty of restaurants, bars, etc (with even more a short 5 minute drive or less). There's even a farmer's market on Saturday mornings. I'm less than a 5 minute drive from parks, walking tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I live out in the boonies. There is cable, which is okay-ish. Then there's DSL, but all the pairs out my way are buggered up, which means the connection drops frequently, and the telco is absolutely in no hurry to fix. If I stand out on the road with one foot in the air leaning at a 12.5 degree angle, I can get just enough cell signal to check my email.
There are a lot of lovely things about living in the sticks. Internet connectivity is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really live in the boondocks? Last time I did, there was only AT&T cellular (mediocre) or GEO satellite, you could not get a phone line let alone DSL, nor cable. Nor, in fact, USPS, although FedEx and UPS would both deliver there. Rural route, my ass.
Before that I lived where I could get Verizon (mediocre) or satellite, or access through a local WISP which got bought out by another local WISP, which in turn got bought out by a regional WISP which sucked eggs (Digital Path.) I could get dialup the
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really live in the boondocks? Last time I did, there was only AT&T cellular (mediocre) or GEO satellite, you could not get a phone line let alone DSL, nor cable. Nor, in fact, USPS, although FedEx and UPS would both deliver there. Rural route, my ass.
Before that I lived where I could get Verizon (mediocre) or satellite, or access through a local WISP which got bought out by another local WISP, which in turn got bought out by a regional WISP which sucked eggs (Digital Path.) I could get dialup there, but not DSL.
My grandmother lives out in the boonies. No mail service (has to drive a couple miles into town to the post office). I don't even think her house has a street address, it's up a private drive in the middle of a big field in a valley. We had some family up there that didn't even get indoor plumbing until the 70s. Even she gets pretty good internet access, plenty good enough to work over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have something called Fixed Wireless. It is essentially a small (18 inch or so) satellite dish on my roof that picks up radio frequency signals that internet data travels on. The advantage over something like HughesNet is that the latency is much, much better and I have no data caps. I typically get speeds around 40-45 mb/sec. It isn't any good if you are a gamer (I'm not) but for work and Zoom meetings it's fine. Certainly a lot better than what DSL has to offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the whole remote work situation somehow doesn't result in massive outsourcing. Ability to work remotely will balance salaries and real estate prices across the nation. If there is no need to live in the cities as a job requirement, there will be massive exodus first to suburbia, then to rural areas with good internet access and low taxes.
Yeah, this might lead to outsourcing, but not necessarily international outsourcing. Why pay someone in New York or San Francisco $200k a year, when you can pay someone living, say, in North Carolina or Oregon half that for doing the same job? You're saving money and still hiring American.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying about quality of life is very true. The logic should be extended to minim wage law, which really needs to have some way of indexing the minum wage for an employee to geography and cost of living in a specific area. ( possibly with an eye to reducing commuting because if your min wage is indexed off area near where the site the person is homed out of then there is an assumption about what is a reasonable commute, which needs to be worked in as well.).
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook expands their work from home, so in essence anyone could work for facebook without moving. Would an Employee who lives in NYC or LA be paid the same as someone who works in Gilbert Arkansas?
No. I'm sure Facebook already has different salary scales for different areas. Google does.
Re: Would everyone be paid equally? (Score:2)
"Then that creates the problem, of Facebook to begin targeting Areas with lower cost of living. Which in some ways is a good thing, because these areas should be getting more attention and investments. However on the flip side, it will make it hard for people who lives in Expensive areas to get good jobs."
Pre-pandemic, a lot of offices have already been opening up in places like Austin for example, and jobs have been "in-sourced" to branches in other countries. You don't hear about it unless there are mass
Re: (Score:2)
If the worker in NYC or LA or Silicon Valley is highly desired, Facebook will pay more. This is because said worker will have plenty of other opportunities in NYC/LA/SV/etc and thus Facebook will have to pay to get and keep that worker.
The worker in Arkansas though, likely doesn't have as many job prospects.
Re: (Score:2)
All things are negotiable.
Are you worth more? Demand it. Willing to work for less? Great!
If you are looking at an entry level position, the company may be able to dictate that they are paying $xx,xxx and that's it -take it or leave it.
Once you move beyond that, your skill set vs market demand sets the rate -they wont pay you more than a comparably skilled person, but you have no reason to take less than other companies will offer either.. Negotiate.
Trending (Score:2)
I hope to see this trend catch on everywhere it is plausible, and become permanent. Gathering in a common area, with people who would otherwise mean nothing to you, to perform remote work anyway, is perhaps the epitome of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Gathering in a common area, with people who would otherwise mean nothing to you,
None of your friends or romantic partners would mean anything to you either if you hadn't met them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully you don't have romantic partners at the office. That is complicated, frowned on by most companies, and can open you to all kinds of HR lawsuits.
Friends are generally friends because they share common interest. You might make a few at work, but there are a lot better places, including the internet to meet people who are like minded and share common interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh?
The OP was complaining that his co workers wouldn't mean anything to him if he hadn't met them. That applies to literally everyone though. If you haven't met them, they mean nothing.
I've got a collection of friends that I've met in various places of work over the years. Most co workers I never saw after leaving, but some became permanent friends.
Re: (Score:2)
None of your friends or romantic partners would mean anything to you either if you hadn't met them.
1) Don't find your romantic partners at work. That's just asking for trouble. My wife and I met on a dating site, which suits us both great.
2) I haven't been the "hang out with friends" kind of person since the late 1980's. My wife is the only friend I have that matters. Everyone else is just someone I've been thrown together with to earn a living. Without the need to share a common workspace, I would hardly think twice about them. And they would hardly think twice about me.
Re:Trending - another benift. (Score:2)
There is much less 'friction' when you don't have to deal with other people politics/ religious ( or lack there of ) beliefs. When work is no longer a 'social event' and you are all working on common projects, mutual respect based on technical skill becomes the primary motivator of action and a the companies laity for things like 'hostile work environment' are greatly reduced. Given the current political environment, that alone is nearly a good enough reason to keep as much office work as possible @home.
Re: (Score:2)
what?? (Score:2)
"When you limit hiring to people who live in a small number of big cities, or who are willing to move there, that cuts out a lot of people who live in different communities, have different backgrounds, have different perspectives," Zuckerberg said on a livestream posted to his Facebook page in May.
What ... the perspectives of people in flyover country??
That is NOT the kind of diversity we had in mind, mister!!!
Make it permanent... (Score:2)
Seriously. There is little to no downside to it. Okay, you could use this as excuse to outsource, but getting rid of a large amount of talent that way is a death sentence to any tech companies.
Remote work focuses people on effective collaboration versus enforcement of management hierarchy via meetings and processes. It allows people to choose the communities they want to live in and support. Workers are provably more efficient (for those that truly can't adapt, provide reduced offices). There is less traffi