I heard a new phrase... Employee Vendor = benefit, and policy changes for work from home status...

[kdonnel]

If you were making $150K in Montgomery prior to moving to Silicon Valley and the company agreed to pay you $300K because of the cost of living increase involved with such a move, I think it's within their rights to adjust your salary accordingly if you choose to move back to Alabama because the job has become possible to be done remotely.

Why?

Are you suddenly worth $150k less as an employee because of where you live? That doesn't make sense. I know it happens but it doesn't make sense.

 

[soccerdad72]

Why?

Are you suddenly worth $150k less as an employee because of where you live? That doesn't make sense. I know it happens but it doesn't make sense.

Are you worth $150K more because of where you live?

 

[kdonnel]

Are you worth $150K more because of where you live?

No.

A company has a need. They need someone with a particular skill set and a budget to pay a certain amount.

Today's WFH world has shown that you no longer need to look just at local talent to get the most talented employees.

 

[NotUrsula]

The simple answer is for companies to adopt a COLA allowance system like that used by government agencies. The reason for it is retention; they simply cannot get people to serve in those places without the extra money.

If companies need to pay more to get certain offices staffed in person, then it's fair to pay an allowance on top of salary for that reason, and if you leave that location, the location allowance does not follow you, as it is a separate part of your compensation.

 

[NotUrsula]

I understand the point... and the company is still carrying WC, for office employees, and when the WFH people are in the office, or meetings, conventions...

The problem lies within, How is the employer suppose to do safety inspections in someones home? make sure OSHA regulations are being followed, They can not control how you keep house? Plus how is an employer suppose to know if someone really got hurt doing a job related task? Normal if someone gets hurt on the job, someone is around, a witness, there are OSHA regulations, safety protocol, camera's, .. Yes, even for office people... wet floor signs when mopping or a sink overflows, safety check of office equipment, office chairs, desk, file cabinets, printer stands...

ohh , I slipped in water on my kitchen floor, fell and broke my arm during working hours, I was on my lunch break, its just like if I was in the break room? .... does workman comp cover this... there was no wet floor signs... how is the company suppose to prevent water on someone floor...

Ummm, Hey boss my office chair broke, or trip over the computer cords and I hit my head, hurt my back, and I need to go to the hospital... ? The office did not provide the chair, or put the chair together was it done correctly ? the office has no control over how the cords where laying at someones home, or how the chair was put together...

BTW - These things were are reported by WFH employees, thinking that workman's comp should cover it... when I was working... one guy who said the office chair broke, after a investigation was done, and he did not want someone investigating in his home, intrusion of privacy is what he stated... turns out he was working in the yard, and flip the riding mower over on top of him... One of kids said, "Daddy got hurt when the moooowwer flippededd over".

Unfortunately you can't just take people at their word...
As well this type of thing is what triggers owners, and business into making WFH folks... into private contractors...
Lots of unknowns...

People attempting to scam worker's comp is as old as worker's comp is; just because you ask for it does not mean you will get it, and more claims are denied than paid. However, you're kind of missing the point. Nowadays, a LOT of worker's comp claims are for things that have nothing to do with accidents, and instead are related to workload; there are a lot of claims filed for conditions like stress and repetitive motion injuries from operating a 10-key, and it doesn't matter what kind of desk that 10-key happens to be sitting on.

 

[LovesTimone]

The biggest thing to me, and what would also IMO constitute perhaps a complaint to the DOL, is that there was no warning that a decision to adjust to work from home would mean all these changes when the choice was given to employees. It was done in a shady manner IMO.

There was almost a year between the office downsizing to a smaller footprint, and these policy's and procedures being put into place.. Plus the owner makes the best decision for his business, In all my years working, never ever has anyone asked me what I thought, nor should they... those decision where made above me...

Things were in chaos, there were no policy or procedures in place to handle shutting down, and what the expectation of working from home are. Plus all the added pressure, kids at home and they had school work to complete, adults trying to work, and I think most companies realized this and where more lenient, with kids using mom or dad's computer for school work, let people work at all hours, and not pressing them to get it done... letting things slide... that became the new norm for some folks... Now that things are shifting back into normally, there are alot of changes in how we do business, and with that comes change in policy and procedures..

There has to some measure for business and employee's alike to be on the same page, and have understanding of what is expected, on each side and how keep things moving forward. I'm sure more adjustments will have to be made as time passes, and new issues crop up...business plans change... it a whole new frontier for sure...

 

[LovesTimone]

The simple answer is for companies to adopt a COLA allowance system like that used by government agencies. The reason for it is retention; they simply cannot get people to serve in those places without the extra money.

If companies need to pay more to get certain offices staffed in person, then it's fair to pay an allowance on top of salary for that reason, and if you leave that location, the location allowance does not follow you, as it is a separate part of your compensation.

I agree, it's like the folks who work different shifts... For instance Hospital staff that work at night or graveyard shift normally make more per hour, because no one want to work that shift, so they sweeten the deal... I know night nurses that made anywhere from 5 to 10 dollars more a hour than their day counter parts... who do the same job... shift differential...

 

[jrmasm]

There was almost a year between the office downsizing to a smaller footprint, and these policy's and procedures being put into place.. Plus the owner makes the best decision for his business, In all my years working, never ever has anyone asked me what I thought, nor should they... those decision where made above me...

Things were in chaos, there were no policy or procedures in place to handle shutting down, and what the expectation of working from home are. Plus all the added pressure, kids at home and they had school work to complete, adults trying to work, and I think most companies realized this and where more lenient, with kids using mom or dad's computer for school work, let people work at all hours, and not pressing them to get it done... letting things slide... that became the new norm for some folks... Now that things are shifting back into normally, there are alot of changes in how we do business, and with that comes change in policy and procedures..

There has to some measure for business and employee's alike to be on the same page, and have understanding of what is expected, on each side and how keep things moving forward. I'm sure more adjustments will have to be made as time passes, and new issues crop up...business plans change... it a whole new frontier for sure...

Did you not say on your very first post that wfh employees were not made aware of changes to their status and benefits until after the office space has been downsized?

 

[TwoMisfits]

Do pay adjustments make sense?

I am not being paid based on the cost of my commute.

I am being paid on the idea that I will perform a certain amount of work in an agreed upon amount of time.

If my co worker commutes 2 hours a day and I only commute 15 minutes does my co worker deserve more pay?

No, b/c you're paying for your entire office, utilities, parking, security, etc...if anything, the WFH employee should probably be paid more, if it's about "costs to the company"...

 

[SirDuff]

Now is the time to fight what I see as incorrect rather than just say well it has been done that way before so it is ok.

Now more than ever with WFH becoming the norm, people should not be paid more or less because of where they live.

When a company hires someone they definitely know what level of productivity they expect. If you exceed that you should get rewarded. If you don't meet it your reviews, pay opportunities, and advancement opportunities should reflect that as well.

If I get a job in Silicon Valley making $300k as a full time remote employee and then move myself to Montgomery Alabama while still performing at the same level, I don't believe the company should lower my salary to reflect the lower cost of living in Alabama. I fully understand it happens, but it is flawed and wrong.

Our salaries are directly tied to where we are working (everyone (at the same level/grade) get the same base salary but then there is a second piece based on your duty station. So, for us, it makes sense that there is an adjustment if you go to work remotely from outside your study station). There is a system whereby you can do it short-term (I think up to 90 days) without adjustments but after that, they will adjust your salary to adjust the duty station pay to reflect where you are actually living (or as close as they can - I don't know if we have duty station pay set for every city/town/village in the world (I suspect some are done at the country level rather than more nuanced).

I happen to work at the duty station with one of the highest post adjustments, so I could see that it would be fair to downgrade my pay if I moved somewhere cheaper.

And, yes, I know that my work is weird.

 

[LovesTimone]

Did you not say on your very first post that wfh employees were not made aware of changes to their status and benefits until after the office space has been downsized?

The employees where given the choice to work in the office or work from home... She made the decision to work from home going forward, this was in the middle of last year...


Yes... almost a year in between... around 10 months...


So I don't think it was like that... Him trying to take advantage of anyone, or being sketchy... most of the people that work there are like my friend who has worked there 15+ years...
For my friend, she said she is happy that there are now guidelines... and she is not the kind of person who would keep working somewhere if it wasn't the right type of environment. She thinks if anything he wanted to figure out the best method and accountability standards for everyone, and looked at the big picture ...

My friend said that there were so many problems, people not getting their part of the projects done, and passed on so that the next person can do what they need to do with it, one of the biggest issue people working at all hours, emailing response's at midnight or work that you needed to complete your work at the last minute, which resulted in late projects...

The business lost money on several projects due to this...

Now the way projects are handled, time sensitive - deadlines, accountability and responsibility now have been reformatted to clear and concise policy's so that everyone is aware of what the expectation is.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

There was almost a year between the office downsizing to a smaller footprint, and these policy's and procedures being put into place.. Plus the owner makes the best decision for his business, In all my years working, never ever has anyone asked me what I thought, nor should they... those decision where made above me...

Things were in chaos, there were no policy or procedures in place to handle shutting down, and what the expectation of working from home are. Plus all the added pressure, kids at home and they had school work to complete, adults trying to work, and I think most companies realized this and where more lenient, with kids using mom or dad's computer for school work, let people work at all hours, and not pressing them to get it done... letting things slide... that became the new norm for some folks... Now that things are shifting back into normally, there are alot of changes in how we do business, and with that comes change in policy and procedures..

There has to some measure for business and employee's alike to be on the same page, and have understanding of what is expected, on each side and how keep things moving forward. I'm sure more adjustments will have to be made as time passes, and new issues crop up...business plans change... it a whole new frontier for sure...

The employees where given the choice to work in the office or work from home... She made the decision to work from home going forward, this was in the middle of last year...

Once everyone had made their decisions

Then the owner of the company moved from a very fancy large office space to a smaller comfortable office space to accommodate the office people... Which is a bottom line business decision... less rent, less electric, less insurance -

So at this meeting... once the basic meeting was over they separated by work status - "Office Employee or Core Employee" and the " Work from Home or Employee Vendors"

You left out that information. I've quoted from the OP in the second quote. Multiple posters said the same thing (and before I did) same thing I did. The sequence of events as you laid out meant to multiple of us that the choice was given between office and work from home then the benefits were changed. That led to multiple of us thinking the rug had been pulled from under these employees.

FWIW however, prior to the owner opting to adjust benefits he should have discussed this with his employees and given them a choice to switch either from being in the office to going to work from home or vice versa. It's not that he made a determination to do what he did but that he didn't notify his employees that which directly relates to their benefits with the company based on their choice to either be in the office or work from home. I don't remember in your comments if you mentioned he gave them the opportunity to switch to either working in the office or working from home prior to these changes in benefits starting.

 

[LovesTimone]

You left out that information. I've quoted from the OP in the second quote. Multiple posters said the same thing (and before I did) same thing I did. The sequence of events as you laid out meant to multiple of us that the choice was given between office and work from home then the benefits were changed. That led to multiple of us thinking the rug had been pulled from under these employees.

FWIW however, prior to the owner opting to adjust benefits he should have discussed this with his employees and given them a choice to switch either from being in the office to going to work from home or vice versa. It's not that he made a determination to do what he did but that he didn't notify his employees that which directly relates to their benefits with the company based on their choice to either be in the office or work from home. I don't remember in your comments if you mentioned he gave them the opportunity to switch to either working in the office or working from home prior to these changes in benefits starting.

I'm not sure about if he gave them the opportunity to switch either way, my friend and I just talked about how these things will effect her, and her thoughts on them...

It's a great question, I'll ask her and find out and let everyone know...

 

[jrmasm]

The employees where given the choice to work in the office or work from home... She made the decision to work from home going forward, this was in the middle of last year...


Yes... almost a year in between... around 10 months...


So I don't think it was like that... Him trying to take advantage of anyone, or being sketchy... most of the people that work there are like my friend who has worked there 15+ years...
For my friend, she said she is happy that there are now guidelines... and she is not the kind of person who would keep working somewhere if it wasn't the right type of environment. She thinks if anything he wanted to figure out the best method and accountability standards for everyone, and looked at the big picture ...

My friend said that there were so many problems, people not getting their part of the projects done, and passed on so that the next person can do what they need to do with it, one of the biggest issue people working at all hours, emailing response's at midnight or work that you needed to complete your work at the last minute, which resulted in late projects...

The business lost money on several projects due to this...

Now the way projects are handled, time sensitive - deadlines, accountability and responsibility now have been reformatted to clear and concise policy's so that everyone is aware of what the expectation is.

It’s crappy to make changes to Benefits etc after people have decided where they will work unless they have the opportunity to switch back.

 

[LovesTimone]

OP here..

Yes, they were given the opportunity to switch either way...

She said that one office women was going have to resign due to pregnancy complications... so they offered her a different position that is more flexible and more of a research, and support role, same pay with bonus, so she is able to keep working, which she was super happy about..

1 of the WFH employees left all together...

Pretty much everyone else stayed where they were at...

 

[sam_gordon]

OP here..

Yes, they were given the opportunity to switch either way...

She said that one office women was going have to resign due to pregnancy complications... so they offered her a different position that is more flexible and more of a research, and support role, same pay with bonus, so she is able to keep working, which she was super happy about..

1 of the WFH employees left all together...

Pretty much everyone else stayed where they were at...

It sounds like a company that actually cares about it's employees. I wonder if those posters who say "I wouldn't want to work for a company like that" still feel the same.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It sounds like a company that actually cares about it's employees. I wonder if those posters who say "I wouldn't want to work for a company like that" still feel the same.

Yup still feel the same way. Some things are understandable in changes other things nope.

Would you want to only be able to take sick pay if you were hospitalized? And for 3 days? That doesn't say to me the company actually cares about the employees. That says to me they want to avoid giving sick time but still have it on the books.

To others a change in pay scale based on work from home doesn't say to them a company cares about them.

Oddly enough a small snippet of a pregnant woman (which maternity leave often gets companies on hot water so not sure that's a good OMG this is an amazing company example) does not note to me that a company actually cares about its employees, wonder why it would for you

 

[LovesTimone]

Yup still feel the same way. Some things are understandable in changes other things nope.

Would you want to only be able to take sick pay if you were hospitalized? And for 3 days? That doesn't say to me the company actually cares about the employees. That says to me they want to avoid giving sick time but still have it on the books.

To others a change in pay scale based on work from home doesn't say to them a company cares about them.

Oddly enough a small snippet of a pregnant woman (which maternity leave often gets companies on hot water so not sure that's a good OMG this is an amazing company example) does not note to me that a company actually cares about its employees, wonder why it would for you

OP here..
This wasn't maternity leave, she is having medical problems at the beginning of her pregnancy ... It was the company saying... Hey, We have a option for you.... not as stressful, and can be done from home,..so you can keep working, and bring home a paycheck which take some stress off... to which I say that's pretty stellar in my opinion...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... and above all you can not make everyone happy...and you have the right to choose whether or not to work some where. Finding a good fit for both the employer and employee takes a bit of work... Nothing is perfect, Apparently this would not be a good fit for you, so you would just choose work else where...

I personally feel, that the pandemic created a different perspective for employers... things like - if you can get on face book, and complain about being sick, tweet and twitter until your eyes bleed, Instagram yourself silly, snap chat, tik tok and rock around the clock... and on and on it goes... if your up to all of this, then maybe you can put in some work while your at it... just throwing it out there...

I think that this is just the beginning of how things are going to change over the next few years...

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This wasn't maternity leave,

I wasn't saying it was maternity leave just that maternity leave is something that often gets companies in hot water so a woman with pregnancy complications is along the same lines. I'm not going to have a benevolent outlook on a company as a whole just because of what they did, not when they have other policies on the book that are completely unrealistic.

What kind of message do you think this company sends when they do this for a woman with pregnancy complications and yet won't let you take time as sick time unless you're hospitalized for 3 days? Hence why I mentioned maternity leave and hot water. The image of a woman with pregnancy complications gives a different PR image. But if you're out with some illness and yet not sick enough to warrant a 3 day stay in the hospital (incurring medical bills I might add) it's not considered a good enough reason to pay out as sick time.

I'm not saying anything about changes as a whole, I'm speaking about this company since it's the one you brought up.

I don't why you're bringing up FB, twitter, etc with being sick because that's like a distractor to the topic. I was sick with food poisoning for 36 hours but was advised by the nurses hotline to let it run it's course unless ABC then I could seek medical care. One of the ABC was a fever high enough. I finally got one so I went to the ER. I was in the ER for 3 hours while they gave me 2 bags of IV fluid due to severe dehydration, anti-nausea pills and potassium. I spent the night before on the bathroom floor and didn't eat for more than 36 hours. I was so weak. But your friend's sick policy would mean none of that time would be allowed for sick pay because it didn't end up with a hospital stay for 3 days. When I had the flu in early 2020 I certainly couldn't have worked but no it wasn't a situation for the hospital.

A policy such as what your friend has would be something I would consider complaining to the department of labor as that's a policy intended to not have to pay out sick time by setting up unrealistic parameters to paying it out, not about some work ethic mantra you brought up.

 

[LovesTimone]

I wasn't saying it was maternity leave just that maternity leave is something that often gets companies in hot water so a woman with pregnancy complications is along the same lines. I'm not going to have a benevolent outlook on a company as a whole just because of what they did, not when they have other policies on the book that are completely unrealistic.

What kind of message do you think this company sends when they do this for a woman with pregnancy complications and yet won't let you take time as sick time unless you're hospitalized for 3 days? Hence why I mentioned maternity leave and hot water. The image of a woman with pregnancy complications gives a different PR image. But if you're out with some illness and yet not sick enough to warrant a 3 day stay in the hospital (incurring medical bills I might add) it's not considered a good enough reason to pay out as sick time.

I'm not saying anything about changes as a whole, I'm speaking about this company since it's the one you brought up.

I don't why you're bringing up FB, twitter, etc with being sick because that's like a distractor to the topic. I was sick with food poisoning for 36 hours but was advised by the nurses hotline to let it run it's course unless ABC then I could seek medical care. One of the ABC was a fever high enough. I finally got one so I went to the ER. I was in the ER for 3 hours while they gave me 2 bags of IV fluid due to severe dehydration, anti-nausea pills and potassium. I spent the night before on the bathroom floor and didn't eat for more than 36 hours. I was so weak. But your friend's sick policy would mean none of that time would be allowed for sick pay because it didn't end up with a hospital stay for 3 days. When I had the flu in early 2020 I certainly couldn't have worked but no it wasn't a situation for the hospital.

A policy such as what your friend has would be something I would consider complaining to the department of labor as that's a policy intended to not have to pay out sick time by setting up unrealistic parameters to paying it out, not about some work ethic mantra you brought up.

I respectfully see your point view, and do you have valid points... I guess only time will tell, and as always things are changing, and can and will change...
My friend at this point is happy with the changes... as she put it... they could have just cut us all loose, and we would loose all benefits... Then I would have to compete for each project... So for her it works out... I guess everyone has to choose for themselves what they can live with.. not saying it's right... just what is happening...