Facebook Says It Will Expand Remote Work To All Employees, But May Reduce Pay If They Move To Less-Expensive Area (bloomberg.com) 142
Facebook said it will let all employees work remotely even after the pandemic if their jobs can be done out of an office, but may reduce their pay if they move to a less-expensive area. From a report: Starting June 15, any Facebook employee can request to work from home, the Menlo Park, California-based company said Wednesday in a statement. If those employees move to a lower-cost region, their salaries will be adjusted accordingly and they will be encouraged to go into the office at times to enhance team building. Facebook said it will be more flexible for employees expected to return to the office. "Guidance is to be in the office at least half the time," the company said. Facebook also plans to open most of its U.S. offices to at least 50% capacity by early September and reopen fully in October. Until the end of 2021, employees can work as many as 20 business days from another location away from their home area, the company said.
The social network had more than 60,000 workers as of March 31, according to regulatory filings. Employees have been able to work remotely since offices were closed at the beginning of the pandemic last year. Facebook also is expanding the number of workers who are allowed to move to other countries. Later this month, any employee will be able to move from the U.S. to Canada or from Europe, the Middle East or Africa to anywhere in the U.K., according to the company. Previously, only employees in technical or recruiting roles were allowed to take advantage of this option. By January 2022, Facebook employees will be allowed to permanently move between seven more countries in Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
The social network had more than 60,000 workers as of March 31, according to regulatory filings. Employees have been able to work remotely since offices were closed at the beginning of the pandemic last year. Facebook also is expanding the number of workers who are allowed to move to other countries. Later this month, any employee will be able to move from the U.S. to Canada or from Europe, the Middle East or Africa to anywhere in the U.K., according to the company. Previously, only employees in technical or recruiting roles were allowed to take advantage of this option. By January 2022, Facebook employees will be allowed to permanently move between seven more countries in Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they move away, you're going to cut their pay, but also make them rack up travel expenses to visit the office? Depending on how frequently and how far away, that could end up costing more than just staying in an expensive area.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch out Zuk, in Canada (and likely many US states), an employee could then claim the legal principle of 'Equity' and demand an increase if he moves from Moosejaw to Toronto.
I was wondering the same thing - do you get a pay raise for moving to a higher cost area? I can see this backfiring if other tech companies all of a sudden offer more money; even though the someone may have the same or better standard of living they will see the smaller paycheck every month and likely get upset. I worked for a company that decided cut field engineer per diem by $5, or about 8%. No doubt some brilliant bean counter convinced their PHB of the great savings and got a reward for it. We field engineers pointed out that a pay cut would result in us looking for work elsewhere, at a time when you could basically call up a company and get a new job. We were told by HQ that "It's not a paycut and we don't get per diem." Well, you ass, which is overhead, sits in a nice air conditioned building instead of a trailer and isn't away from home for weeks at a time. A few month slater they came to our sites and asked why is everyone quitting? We'll we may have been smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to take it, but eventually we wised up, collected our annual bonus and then bolted.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't cost-of-living adjustment standard? High-cost areas like the SF Bay Area, or New York have higher salaries for the same job than low cost-of-living areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't cost-of-living adjustment standard? High-cost areas like the SF Bay Area, or New York have higher salaries for the same job than low cost-of-living areas.
Yes it's standard. That doesn't mean it makes any sense once the labor supply is no longer geographically restricted. We'll soon have a global market for software engineers. This global market will demand a globally consistent price. That means lower pay for those in high cost areas, but much higher pay for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for the government many years ago, yes it was standard...it was called a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA). You had a base salary, and a COLA based on the location of the position (this was obviously before teleworking became the big thing it is now). The important thing to consider though is that the base salary and COLA were known in advance; if you transferred to a different position somewhere else with the same paygrade, your base salary was unaffected but the COLA would change (up or down
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for the government many years ago, yes it was standard...it was called a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA). You had a base salary, and a COLA based on the location of the position (this was obviously before teleworking became the big thing it is now). The important thing to consider though is that the base salary and COLA were known in advance; if you transferred to a different position somewhere else with the same paygrade, your base salary was unaffected but the COLA would change (up or down).
Your final salary would never go below the base salary.
Yes. the Federal government used COlA as a norm. It also simplifies budgeting because all GS 10 Step 10's get the same base; so you know what the budget impact will be; it also means when you retire your retirement is based on base pay not what you actually get while working. The Navy did that as well, and also allow them to pay allowances such as sub and command pay, that did not impact retirement budgets; and was accepted since base salaries were standard and you really couldn't afford some areas on th
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering the same thing - do you get a pay raise for moving to a higher cost area?
I can't speak for Facebook but the company I work for does this. And, yes, you'll get a raise if you move to a more expensive area. The company has classified areas into "Normal", "Expensive", and "Really Expensive" (my terminology, not theirs). Because they're headquartered in the Bay Area, most of their employees end up in the "Really Expensive" category.
That said, the difference in pay isn't all that much. I asked about it because I may end up moving to help out my Mom. I'd be moving from "Expensive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be this dim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so and here's my reasoning.
Employees are compensated in a capitalistic model. Your VALUE to the company generally determines your wage. Your own negotiating skills and likability all come into play but let's set that aside and talk typical here.
If you move from Silicon Valley to North Dakota and your cost of living drops $100k overnight, you haven't changed your 'value' to the company too much. Less access to you etc but it's not a huge difference so long as your work still stands up. Your
Re: So... (Score:2)
I always thought a simple way that it was just bargaining around cost. Once you move to a cheap place they can't sit there and believe your lies about needing the same money. It's obvious you don't.
It's basically a bargaining game of your costs versus your charge. Your worth is not the absolute value but rather the delta between cost and charge.
A 60k employee in Michigan is a 30k charge, and lives in a 30k cost place. 30k delta.
In NYC that worker lives in a 100k cost place so should make 30k on top of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The job market is just that - a market. They can pay you whatever the market will bear. The market (ie, the other people living in your cheaper city who can compete for the same job) will bear less if your living expenses are less.
Re: (Score:2)
But the market doesn't want bears. It wants cougars. This is so unfair.
Re: So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The job market isn't a free market, coercion is involved. If you do not participate, your basic needs will not be met. I can choose not to buy a latte. I can not choose not to work.
Saying "Work or starve" is no different from holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Work or I shoot."
This is because there is no viable alternative, in the USA, anyhow. In the past, you could leave society and fend for yourself. Everyone was taught how to hunt and gather, from birth. Now, the entire world has been privatized, there is no place outside the system you can exist on your own. If you try, people with guns will come and force you back into the system, or into prison, where again, you can be forced into work you do not choose.
There is another factor involved in the labor market, the imbalance of information. It is identical to the seminal example of said imbalance, as outlined in the paper "The Market for Lemons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A worker is in the same position as a seller of a used car. He or she has far more information about their own worth than a potential employer. Because of this, employers automatically assume the worker is worth less than they claim, and underpay. This causes a systematic imbalance in the price of labor, similar to the systematic imbalance in the price of used cars. Both are undervalued because even a "free market" fails, in certain cases, to do what it says on the label. As with other modes of market failure such as externalities and natural monopolies, the real cost and value of things is not properly accounted for.
And that is without any active price fixing from the employers, who of course do conspire (and even have their lobbyists write laws) to reduce the cost of labor.
Of course, even if you fix all that, capitalists (those who live of the interest from owning things) still have the advantage over labor. As Picketty explained, as long as the stock market is growing faster than the GDP grows, there is literally no place else that excess can originate from, except the real economy. Money is being systematically drained from the workers who create it and siphoned into "the stock market."
Which, as anyone who has been paying attention recently can tell you, is a rigged game.
Head they win, tails you lose. They write the rules, and pay the guys with guns to enforce them.
Re: (Score:3)
Well it's not an either or. It's where in the middle. My point that market forces are involved don't change. I'm very pro regulation and think the ideal of any market being fully free doesn't exist and isn't wanted.
That said .. it's not NOT a market, which is all I cared to comment on. The rest of your post is ... eh, sure a lot of it is true but I'm not sure how it relates to the original observation that it's maybe not kookoo for coacopuffs that employers might offer to pay less to employees whose living
Re: (Score:2)
Employers are going to try to cheat workers out of every penny they can. Saying "But it's just the market, sorry bro. Now more people are competing for your job so you get paid less" just points out why we need more and better unions, and better protection for workers under the law.
Why should my living expenses matter to a company? If I choose to live in a shitty apartment with ten other guys, will they also pay me less? If I buy a McMansion, will they pay me more? It's just another excuse to cheat workers
Re: (Score:2)
Explain why you think you should make what you make, and not 10 dollars more. Or 500 dollars more. Or 500 dollars less. At the end of the day, you have to come to an agreement on what number. Surely if companies are trying to "cheat" employees (your loaded language does you no favours) then employees are trying to make the most as well. And they should! I really don't think you're saying anything, and I say this as a person who thinks wealth disparity is crazy-train out of control. I just don't see how havi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, we need a minimum wage hike and no one should be allowed to work for less than that per hour. And when companies try to screw workers, workers should band together to fight back. Letting someone work for less than a living wage means that all wages are depressed, for every worker. And it means the rest of us will need to subsidize that person, so they can live. Our tax dollars will be going, essentially, into the pockets of big business, because they don't have to pay t
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me for thinking we were talking about jobs that were well above minimum wage. (Which is criminally low in the United States, and needs to be substantially raised, but even then, I can't imagine a minimum wage butting up against Facebook hires)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook absolutely hires people for minimum wage. Not everyone who works for Facebook is a lead programmer. And you'd be gob-smacked by how little entry level programmers get offered these days.
Companies already use the threat of offshoring to get lower wages, even from programmers. If we did not have the H-1 visa program, all US programmers would be making much more money, which would just mean slightly lower profits for the very wealthy.
This is just another way for the very rich to say "You need to eat s
Re: (Score:2)
Even in prison they cannot actually *make* you work, they can at best only provide strong incentives for you to do so.
You won't die if you don't do what they want, it just gets really really really unpleasant.
Like I said... incentives.
Re: (Score:3)
It really, really depends on what prison you are talking about. In some, yeah, you would wind up dead if you did not play along.
The Thirteenth Amendment, Section 1 reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Slavery is legal and perfectly constitutional if you have been convicted of a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
> The job market isn't a free market, coercion is involved.
Sure. Because FB employees are such an oppressed underclass that they can be bullied by an employer.
Re: (Score:2)
A worker is in the same position as a seller of a used car. He or she has far more information about their own worth than a potential employer. Because of this, employers automatically assume the worker is worth less than they claim, and underpay.
That makes no sense, sorry. In several ways.
People notoriously overestimate their own skills and intelligence, for one thing. You may have more experience with yourself, but you aren't an objective judge of your own skills.
And an employer has more knowledge of what your abilities are worth to them than you do. You may be the greatest Rust programmer ever (or whatever) in your own mind, but they might not value that greatness as much as just getting the job done at a decent price.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. A complete inability to determine inactive from active results.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it like this. The same work could be done by someone in say Indian for 1/10th of the expensive American salary cost them. So does that mean that you should get paid the same as that person living in a much cheaper country? I mean, if they can get away with paying someone $30k USD for the same work, why wouldn't they? It's the same work. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It made sense when when work was connected to a place. If you wanted work done in San Fran and in Reno; even if the work was very similar in nature, the pay would be different. The level of competition both with similar work and alternative opportunities was different so the prevailing wages were different.
The question was were there reasons to justify doing the work in the higher cost area vs the other and were the marginal benefits enough to justify it.
However if everyone is working remote - that is much
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason a lot of these tech jobs paid that well was based on the fact they were in SV and surrounding areas in the first place.
Facebook is doing what many companies do. I work in San Diego but if I move up to the bay area I'll get a two or three dollar raise for the exact same job. Everything seems to cost more up there for some reason. Guess it's the place to be. I've only visited twice. It was okay but worse the second time.
Bay area is more desirable then LA and surrounding counties, though once y
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah this makes no sense. The salary is for the work, which has nothing to do with cost of living of the employee's location.
Unless you're doing gig work, I would disagree. But it's just my feelings about it, not based on fact.
I was chatting about this the other day--the difference between contractor and employee. As a contractor, I'm there to do a job for money. Period. You want me to use horrible tools? No problem. I'm here for the money. Do I think the design could be improved? Doesn't matter. I'm not here to improve your tools, processes, or anything else. I do work. I get money. That's it.
As an employee, I have a
Re: So... (Score:4, Insightful)
well... This will blow up so many different ways:
Wait... I live in Moosejaw and you cut my pay 10%. HE lives in Horse Ankle, right next door, and only got cut 5%. That will end up a transparency thing.
The Moosejaw and Horse Ankle will get involved: "The cost of living is the same in both places! FB, you're libeling out communities"
The lawyers are gonna get rich!
Re: So... (Score:5, Funny)
And the employees in Camel Toe got their salary split in half!
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO
Re: (Score:2)
Careful what you ask for here. You aren't THAT special that your job can't be done cheaper by someone out of the country, assuming it can be done entirely remotely. I'm sure some people on here might be and already are competing on a global level and demand very high compensation, but not the average Slashdotter.
Outside of the Slashdot crowd, a lot of jobs that can be done remotely could also probably be done by a clever script or two. Especially if we can take their average compensation and use that to dev
Re: (Score:3)
If they move away, you're going to cut their pay, but also make them rack up travel expenses to visit the office? Depending on how frequently and how far away, that could end up costing more than just staying in an expensive area.
There's a difference between "staying in an expensive area" and trying to afford the financial clusterfuck that is California.
Wood termites can't even afford to eat there due to the insect gluttony tax.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an attempt to set up a downward-ratcheting salary system. Reduce the pay of people who move to cheaper areas but don't increase it for people who move to more expensive areas, hire less people from expensive areas over time, and over time you reduce labor costs. It will actually be a good thing for the world, it will reduce geographic income concentration and all of the ills that come with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to re-examine your logic.
Reducing the pay of people who move to cheaper areas isn't the way to reduce geographic income concentration. It's a way to encourage it to continue because people will instinctively want to avoid having their pay cut even if the reduced cost of living would make up for the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The people applying from lower cost of living areas will still have an advantage in the hiring process. The existing employees in the higher cost of living areas only have the choices of staying where they are and working at the same job to keep their big salary, moving away and taking a pay cut (regardless on overall effect to COL), or leaving the job entirely. There's no way to make geographic income concentration worse with this system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
96 offices in 36 countries (Score:2)
Facebook has 86 offices in 36 countries.
Somebody working in Nashville is expected to occasionally show up to the Nashville office, not fly to - whichever office you were thinking of. London?
So you're basically admitting slavery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Slavery, lol. Chains and all, huh? Jesus, calm down there Debbie Drama Queen.
Your pay is based on supply and demand for labor. Part of that has been location - the supply of labor in, say, San Jose, is limited and the demand high so salaries are high. If you move to Missouri then the people you are competing with to supply labor has expanded, in general it expands once you open up the concept of remote work. Now you have a lot more people competing.
Simply put, people living in SV make a lot more money than
Re:So you're basically admitting slavery? (Score:5, Interesting)
It also depends on if a company has filed the paperwork to be able keep someone on the payroll in the state that the employee has chosen. Not every company is incorporated in all 50 states and/or provinces. My wife was going to hire a new FTE for her team, he moved from the Bay Area to Iowa after applying. She couldn't hire him because they don't have all the proper paperwork for Iowa and a single employee wouldn't have been worth all the hoops they'd have to jump through.
There are a lot of rules both state and federal that will have to change to make the "work from anywhere" a reality, it's not just about WFH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the job market isn't a market?
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is LOL (Score:4, Funny)
Why? (Score:2)
Control over their workers? Increased profits via salary cuts (are those who live in more expensive areas going to get proportional pay raises)? Are they trying to create more ZIP code exclusivity?
The only people to benefit besides FB shareholders will be those stuck in small towns that have been bought up by well-heeled employee transplants from wealthy coastal cities.
For being a technology company, they sure sound like they're stuck in the old ways of managing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Because companies justified paying large amounts of wages based on local living expenses (a progressive concept). It would only by rational that if living expenses were to drop that wages would go down as well.
I'm not saying it's the best, right, or most strategically advantageous thing to do, but you asked "Why?".
Mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
You thought they had high turnover before. This is the start of a reverse brain drain.
Re:Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally agree. If you want to keep attracting (and keeping) the best talent, you need to keep the pay at existing levels, regardless of work location.
My best guess is that managers are afraid that letting their employees move away will crash the over inflated home market in the valley. Spoiler alert, it will probably crash regardless.
I can support encouraging regular office visitation. Particularly for major planning sessions (quarterly goal planning comes to mind) and internal company conventions. Four to five business trips a year doesn't sound too bad to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The talent Facebook needs today is people without a conscience about tracking people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a risk they are taking, I guess.
Honestly, I think it's fair.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with reducing pay for employees that move to inexpensive areas is it allows companies in those areas to poach Facebook talent. You thought they had high turnover before. This is the start of a reverse brain drain.
Why aren't these people already living in these places working for those employers? This makes no sense.
Companies pay a surcharge for high cost areas. (Score:2)
Not sure why they should keep paying Cost of Living adjustments to people who don't qualify.
Money maker Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The company where I work does give you a cost of living adjustment if they relocate you to the Bay Area or DC locations. This is just that, but I suppose will get a negative spin since they started with the higher one in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they have taken over Tokyo and Oslo now?
Hidden Danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Set up a VPN service from Palo Alto, along with a Post Office Box or Address-Front for the Address
You have the kernel of a great idea there, however I fear if you are routing anything through California you'd be taxed as a California resident (especially since Facebook would be sending tax info there if it thought you lived there).
So, need to find some place with positive tax implications, but still a high cost of living. Maybe Singapore? There's gotta be someplace way more free that also has a high cost of living.
Re: (Score:3)
Better to just not play this game.
Walk. Find an employer who isn't going to resort to this kind of bullshit. Once you accept that *your* cost of living is any of their business, how long before they start auditing you to see how much you pay in rent/mortgage?
"Oh, we see that you are paying less in rent/mortgage than your co-workers, thereby meaning your cost of living is lower. We're cutting your pay to make things more equal."
"Oh, you chose not to have kids, so your money goes further. Well, out of fai
Re: (Score:2)
Set up a VPN service from Palo Alto, along with a Post Office Box or Address-Front for the Address, and just let FaceBook think you live there. Problem solved.
Which State do you pay income tax to? Tax fraud is a crime...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which State do you pay income tax to?
It depends on the laws of the states in question.
You may have to pay income tax in CA and your other state, or only in CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they call you in for an important meeting last-minute but you're 12 hours away...
Re: (Score:2)
Set up a VPN service from Palo Alto, along with a Post Office Box or Address-Front for the Address, and just let FaceBook think you live there. Problem solved.
For this very reason I have a cell number from Arlington, VA even though I live in Podunk, VA. I want the big salary. I also don't want an employer to think I'll be late for work or quit over my shitty commute - I chose where I live for a reason and the commute is my own problem. Funny thing is, no employer has ever asked me for my address before making an offer. They just assume I live in Arlington because of my phone number and resume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That won't work.
The domicile state is going to want state income taxes and unemployment taxes. The health care provider in-network coverage will only be for your home address.
"Encouraged" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From experience I can say that teams that function well can do so w/o team meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
From experience I can say that teams that function well can do so w/o team meetings.
Well, this is Facebook we are talking about here.
Just like government service (Score:5, Insightful)
A GS employee's salary differs based on location. Seattle gets a higher "salary" than Billings, Montana. Same with the military. The BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) differs depending on your duty station. Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is hardly a new concept.
Re: (Score:2)
A GS employee's salary differs based on location. Seattle gets a higher "salary" than Billings, Montana. Same with the military. The BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) differs depending on your duty station. Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is hardly a new concept.
Ya, but (a) isn't that for employees actually living/working in those cities and (b) if you're working remotely from Montana for a position in Seattle, presumably competing against people in Seattle, why should your pay/value be less simply because you live somewhere less expensive if you're doing the same work at the same competency as someone local? Won't this type of thinking lead employers to prefer remote employees from less expensive areas? That seems like a slippery slope to preferring people from,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because supply and demand will drive that pay down anyways. If someone lives in a low cost of living area with no sales tax (say Texas) they can compete with Californians for remote work. I'm reasonably sure the Texan will work for far less, get the job and still make a comfortable salary for their location. Why would a company hire the more expensive employee?
Did you mean income tax? Because Texas has sales tax but no income tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. That's how the system works. I'm simply informing you of that fact. I don't care one way or another how you justify doing or not doing it. The employers, in thus case government service and the military, have decided if you live in a cheaper place, your salary is less because the cost of living is less. In other words, cost-of-living is factored into your salary. VPNs and telework are not the issue. And yes, "this type of thinking" WILL lead to a preference in remote workers. Welcome to the
Re: (Score:2)
Going rate for Timbuktu? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adjusting pay based on a choice of area is dumb. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only dumb is your analogy. Stay home, your drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Less expensive (Score:3)
Private mailboxes and forwarding services are pretty cheap.
value of my work (Score:2)
Why does the value of my work change if I sit in a different chair or have my chair in a different place? My output and my value do not change.
Re:value of my work (Score:4, Informative)
When I was a hiring manager, I ran into this a few times where the value of the same job position would be paid lower in one area of the country and higher in another. Even worse when comparing countries.
Got so bad when the team started talking to one another and they found out that one country had car allowances that were a perk in one area but not others. Again, SAME JOB, different cultures and hiring incentives.
Even with higher cost of living in one area to another, it's REALLY hard to justify a 3x salary difference. Here's where it gets tricky. I had an employee want to move countries to make the higher wage and he was told he could move, but his salary wouldn't change more than 1.25x.
I also had an employee want to move the other way (to be closer to family) and was told that the company COULDN'T change their salary and that they would make 3x the amount of anyone else for the same role in the same office.
So depending on local laws, this action by Facebook might be illegal as a general policy and have been some of the most interesting HR conversations I've ever had in my life.
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't that special. If I don't need you physically near by, I can hire anyone in the world now. I'm sure there are brighter people willing to work for less.
Pretty sure that is discrimination. (Score:2)
Market reality (Score:2)
I came here looking to mod up an existing post talking about this being a good idea, but can find none. I would be willing to take a proportionate pay cut for moving to a lower cost area. I see it as a way to be competitive with other workers who already live in low cost areas, and globally. In the absence of regulation to prevent it, remote work will leave the country/area I wish to live, to go to some place cheaper. Asking for what is effectively a raise to go live somewhere will not help me when my c
Will they get paid more ... (Score:2)
if they move to a more expensive area ?
Do you suppose... (Score:2)
That Facebook would pay single workers less than married ones?
That they would pay workers without children less than those caring for children? Or less for those who neither had children nor supported any?
What about workers required to pay alimony? Student loans? No car?
Somehow this seems more interesting the more I consider it. Suppose the DOL, EEOC, and a few other fellow alphabet agencies might be interested in this policy?
Actually, NOPE. Facebook is 'one of them'. Professional courtesy dictates sensible
GOOD and this is why: (Score:2)
Facebook chasing away talent benefits some productive businesses. Facebook is parasitic so anything bad for it is good for humanity.
Talent will find employers. Talent is nature's collective bargaining.
Less pay for low cost areas - lawsuits. (Score:2)
My Experience (Score:3)
I'm a retired engineering manager for a F500 company. Our field engineers were billed out to customers at a rate known as "off-site", which was 30% less than our in plant rate. That's because the company didn't need to provide workspace and thus saved a large amount of overhead cost. Our employees were compensated for working in higher cost of living areas, but their salaries never decreased when going to low cost areas. Note that people were usually at a location for years. Some folks really made out because they had high salaries from being hired in in places like the DC and LA metro areas, and moved to a hole in the wall customer site with no pay decrease. We even had to incentivize some of those kind of moves because it could be difficult to get people to go live in crappy locations, working crappy hours...go figure.
I see a lot of companies making demands right now that they simply won't be able to push because employees really have most of the leverage with unemployment the way it is right now. We're not at Internet bubble craziness levels, and I don't think we ever will be again, but companies are going to have to start kissing some ass again.