WP gift link expires in 14 days.
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/119697
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
WP gift link expires in 14 days.
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/119697
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
Well, I did say “within reason”. So the company would need to factor in how close the nearest available housing that the employee can afford is to the office, and/or where the employee lived before they were hired. So they can define a maximum distance that they’ll make payments for, but it has to be sane.
If there isn’t enough housing for their employees within a sane distance of their office building, maybe the company should move.
(There’s also a whole discussion in there on the extent to which employment is a choice, and who has the decision-making power.)
> the company would need to factor in how close the nearest available housing that the employee can afford is to the office
Define “affordable”.
Are we talking for a studio apartment with a fold out single bed that converts the dining room into a bedroom, or are we talking enough land for your teenage kids to ride their motorcycle around without noise complaints - because the neighbours are too far away to hear it. Something in between perhaps?
There’s plenty of housing on the same city block as my office. And I can afford to live there. No way in hell would I choose to live there though.
My boss, by the way, lives so close to work he uses the company wifi network at home. He also starts work before breakfast and finishes work several hours after dinner, every day. And works weekends too. Your probably don’t want to get into a debate with your boss about working conditions - chances are they work under far worse conditions than you do, even if they have a private office.
That’s an implementation detail, but I would say: two-bedroom apartment or small detached house in decent condition (no bugs, rot, mold, etc, water and electrical working, not in the middle of a crime hotspot or environmental disaster, reasonable access to shops and services, no oddball problems like being on the approach path for a major airport) for no more than a third of the employee’s after-tax salary. A place where it wouldn’t be torture for the average person to live, with maybe one or two other people if it suits them.
This feels like a disingenuous argument formed to prove WFH is the better answer. Similar to the argument that salary shouldn’t be based on COL wherever the person lives.