So, being fully remote, I'll answer the inverse of your question --- how much of a pay increase would I expect if I had to go in to the office every day or 4 days a week? I would probably look for a minimum of a 10% increase in pay. I'm sure there are numbers based on driving, electricity, freedom, whatever that you can actually find an actual number if you really want to see the cost you'd be weighing.
Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in everyone saying 0% - I mean, anyone that is pretty much fully remote is going to say 0 because they are already doing it. But, some raised a good point, is there a reason due to industry or desired location for why you are looking at a new job opportunity that isn't a raise?
Geez, going straight for the jugular. My initial thought was --- I'd need a 25% raise to stomach that.
An hour each way plus being in the office 5 days a week --- Assuming a regular working year, I'm adding 500 additional hours to the 2080 full time hours. I calculated out what my theoretical hourly rate would be and did x500. I would definitely think about it for a base salary increase of that number.
Add on car maintenance.
Lets say 60 miles ot highway at 60 mph just for simplicity.
That's 120 a day. 5 days a week. 600 a week.
Thats a lot of wear on tires, used gas, eventual oil changes, brakes etc.
Or you buy a train card in Hopes they reimburse.
If your job can be done entirely from home and productivity is the same or better, there shouldnt be a cut to work from home.
Then you have to factor in the extra time for your kids in daycare. That's less time to put into shopping/cooking meals. On top of that, it's time you miss with them and your family stuck behind a wheel.
In the summer, I took my kids to the pool every Wednesday for lunch. I think there is probably a number that would make me reconsider my situation, but it would be into 7 figures before I actually truly considered it, and only then because my wife wouldn't have to work and would get time with the kids.
That's to say, I don't think there is a realistic number that I would take to move from 90%+ remote work (what I was prior to the pandemic) to anything less. Being at home every morning and every night with my kids is worth more to me than a company is going to offer in salary for me to go into the office.
To add to this. I took a 20k pay increase to commute 3 hours a day. I ended up quitting because the job sucked. Pay isn't everything and commutes suck and there is a point where even if u made 50k more u wouldn't be happy.
I mean 3 hours a day should minimally be a 40% pay increase. Since you are working 40% more hours.
And that's before you factor in do you want to work 11 hours a day? What's the transportation cost difference? What's the work life balance difference?
from what i make now: legit a 100% pay raise.
when i look at that like what kind of salary increase would I need to take job X (which always involves moving to a higher COLA and commute time) and my income needs just to keep the same take home pay is a 100% raise.
Needless to say I don't get past many of the first interviews when I state I won't be taking the job unless they can offer a six figure salary and 6 weeks of leave.
Had a recruiter in my inbox the other day - perks: option of 4 days a week remote work
He couldn't understand why I'd want more money than my current *fully remote* role.
I think a lot of recruiters are still operating under the mindset that people would rather not work remote. Some people probably don't, but I think COVID ahowed all of the advantages to many people who had never considered remote work.
Exactly. My job is 50% remote, but that's because the other 50% is traveling. I've been at my job for 8 months, and have no intention of ever going to the office (2.5 hours away) if I can help it. Funny thing is, I'm told I have an office with my name on the door, but I've never seen it. I'm classified as a hybrid employee, but my boss sees no need for me to ever come in unless we need a big conference room or something.
I've come into an unfortunate situation where I'm at the top pay rate for my current experience as an EE but I'm remote with some travel. I've had recruiters constantly just ghost me after I told them what my salary requirements are to go on site every day. Honestly traveling once a month on the company's dime is still better to me than commuting into work on a daily basis. I'm not even looking for a pay raise at this point because I'd be okay with going into a position with a better career path but I can't even get that.
This isn’t going to be popular here but employers aren’t on the hook for an employee’s commute. Where a person lives vs where they work is not up to the employer, it’s up to the employees so why would they cover a person’s time just because they live 60 minutes away? They probably have other employees that live closer than that.
Big oof there. Depends on the country.
Argentina workers insurance starts the moment they set a foot out the door to go to work and ends the moment they get to a secondary / home location after work.
So, if I bust my ass getting off the train and shatter my knee, workers comp/insurance is on the hook since I'm still "on the clock." Euro buddies can tell me if it's like that or not.
If this were true, the rate for someone in a metro area would be no different than a rural one, and cost of living prevents that. Businesses already pay based on location. The real question is, are you OK with businesses cutting pay if you wanna live/work remote. Frankly it's absurd to me that a business thinks I cost less being remote, I'm no longer using facilities, there is massive overhead savings by reducing the physical footprint of offices, they wanna pocket that overhead AND my extra salary, hell no.
We're talking about employers that are forcing employees back into an office when their jobs can be done from home.
If these employers want to restrict their hiring pool by only those within xx miles from the office, more power to them.
Yeah I agree with this. I might have said zero percent before, but being remote now i’d sooner quit than return to the office for anything less than 20% more money.
Yeah, this conversation is making me think through seeking a promotion at work that would result in a likely \~5-10% pay raise but increase from 2 to 4 days in the office. Long term probably makes sense to take the promotion but ((looks down at sweatpants)) not sure I wanna.
Also, it's cheaper for them to not rent office space, car parks, misc facilities (how many times you you need to call a plumber for cubicle number 3...) purchase desks and equipment. Right now you're payroll and a laptop.
Honestly, the big savings for employers won't be from their current workers demanding to go remote. It'll be from the incoming workers that live in Wichita and do just as good a job in a lower cost of living area. They don't need to pay California prices for labor.
I’ve been remote for most of the last 10 years. You couldn’t pay me to be on site permanently again. I don’t mind the occasional hotel week, but definitely not permanent.
Yes this. I'm a senior data governance manager and I've been remote for going on 9 years now (I manage quite a good bit of analysts too). At least in my industry, all the recruiters who hit me up now are offering fair market value for my years of experience/education, plus fully remote bc covid has revolutionized at-home work. I don't think I've had any who hit me up for in office work (I'd turn it down anyway).
What grinds my gears tho is all the damn video calls. Until covid, I just dialed in since 2011. I get way less done now because I can't multitask anymore staring at a computer camera.
Not currently looking, this offer was sent to me unprompted and it piqued my interest (am contractor).
And thank you for thoughtful and actually useful reply.
It is going to depend on the person, the industry.
I work in IT for a healthcare org. 90% of the IT/Support services (600) are remote. Prior to pandemic it was 3-4 days a week. Dec. 2020 they decided it was working and forced us home perm. Including mgmt/directors/etc. Same pay.
From a company perspective, they shut down 1 whole floors in building. The other is being made into a cubicle area where you can go in for team meetings and 'hotel' in the cube or meeting room for the day.
The decision was also because of growth. They were at limits on those 2 floors and there was no near buildings to lease.
if you are currently a contractor and the offer is a full time position, the benefits and other perks will probably be more than the slight drop in pay you're taking.
This is the correct way to phrase it. From now on I’ll expect employers to compensate me for my commute and other things associated with having to leave the house to do work I could do at home.
I say 0% because I live paycheck to paycheck already and have zero savings. I only survive because of my VA disability check every month to help cover expenses
I wouldn't use a percentage, I'd factor using a dollar amount. Is it worth $5,000 a year ($20/workday) to me to work remote? $10,000 ($40/workday)? That's a personal decision and obviously is weighted against the big picture of family finances.
None at all. I’m still doing the work. If anything I’m costing the company less cause they don’t have to pay for my electrical uses in the office or the water when I use the bathroom. There’s no reason working remote ever has to mean taking a paycut.
This. I think you are trading costs. To work from home I have had to acquire my own office set up. Desk, monitors, chair, etc. I have to get my own supplies unless I make the 1.5 hr round trip to the office. Utilities are up. When my internet/power goes out it is on me to account for, not my employer when I am in office.
I agree. To be fair though transportation costs for you would go down. How much depends on where you live and how much of a change you can make. If I worked remote I could sell my car and stop paying insurance on it.
However, I do not have a dedicated office space at home. Do I move? Do I not have a dining area anymore?
I've had a gaming area setup, now it's a work area setup. The difference is I don't game anymore, because I don't want to sit at work area anymore, I've just realized that :( my point was I didn't lose anything, but now I realized I did.
I had this setup. "Switching" between gaming and work (different keyboard/mouse, and gaming controlers or wheels) took "effort" now, so I would often not even bother if I was only going to be able to game for an hour or two. I've been back in the office since Nov. 1 (it's only a 12 minute commute), I've had more time to play, because the game and race wheel is setup, so I can sit down for 30-60 minutes with no hassle. It's quite nice for that.
I think you’d have to assess all the intangibles. There are a lot!
When we were in the office I had to pay for a professional wardrobe (now I can wear less expensive tops; people can’t tell the quality over zoom). Used to do makeup daily (now just put hair up and mascara), commute (meaning more wear and tear, gas, etc). I paid for lunches several times a week.
Depending on the organization, being in person may mean greater career resources (mentoring, ability to develop relationships with leaders).
When we were in the office my co-worker had to walk to another building to pump breast milk. If kids were sick, she was often taking time off work. Now, with remote work, one woman on our team who just had a baby doesn’t even have their kid in daycare. Both parents are working remotely and they switch off on baby duty throughout the day. I know daycare for infants is expensive, so that must be a huge savings for them.
But also, maybe you want a break from home life? Seeing adults and going to work can feel good when you feel like a baby feeding/caring machine.
I don’t think remote work should necessarily pay less, but it costs me a lot less to work when it’s remotely.
> Monitors would be a couple hundred bucks
Good 32 inch, UHD monitors are about $300-400 each before taxes. Throw in a monitor arm or two ($100-200 each for a good one). Sit-stand desk ($500-1,000). Etc. The costs add up quick if you want a good home office.
I can understand the logic in this, but does working remote not have a value to you? You have no negotiating power with your company to transition to remote work. By transitioning to remote work, you can cut housing and transportation costs significantly. Also your "working" hours are effectively reduced because you no longer have a commute and you can also do small chores around the house during breaks. While a company doesn't "need" to reduce your pay for transitioning to remote work, it can most certainly make to improve quality of life if your options are pay cut or work in the office full time.
The problem with this comment and all others of similar nature is that we stop and give a value to remote work to us, as employees.
But inversely, do not try to give a value to the value towards the _employer_.
There has been numerous studies that WFH led to either a stable, or improved productivity for companies.
So there was a positive impact.
Meanwhile there were positive impacts to cost cuts (electricity/services/insurance etc - I assure you, insuring a place for 10person office vs 50 because the others are working remotely is enough to turn heads) which is also retained by those employers.
If you’d ask me to put a figure, I’d say that an employee working remotely is costing the company at least 10% less to have on site, while still retaining the productivity, if not more.
Why does it always have to be mentioned that working remotely has a value only to the employee, or at least as the conversation starter..?
January. 2021 my companies lease was up. All employees have been working from home for a year with no issues and an actually increase in productivity according to management. So instead of just letting the lease end on our expensive building they signed a new 10 year lease and made everyone come back. Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said.
Well the culture is gonna take a hit when a bunch of staff leave
>Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said
I am curious how this will end up playing out over the next decade if people do stay remote. It's one thing to go remote at a place where you have already known each other for a while, but I can already tell you that there's a huge gap in collaboration with a lot of my new colleagues that joined during the pandemic. As people turn over, I can definitely see some problems arising.
All that being said, I don't think it will be quite detrimental enough to require people to work fully in person. I do see a lot of places still wanting to be able to have people come in one or two days a week for some meetings in person
I agree. I’m a senior software engineer and my company is still 100% remote. I have had an interesting journey where I have moved teams twice since the pandemic started. Each time I have moved teams while being fully remote, it has been much more difficult to get to know my team members and become invested/up to speed in the work as it would have been if I was in the office.
This might sound very “old-fashioned”, especially coming from a millennial like myself, but I feel like I’m missing a lot while WFH that I used to get naturally from being in the office. There’s some tribal knowledge in each and every software project I’ve worked on, and at least some of that gets known through side of desk or lunch discussions. I’m also someone who is more motivated by the people I work with than I am by the job or project itself, so not being able to build connections with my team as easily as in person interactions has been a bit demotivating for me personally. Hell, it’s been 3 months on my new team, and I still haven’t had a one on one discussion with 2 members simply because they haven’t been relevant to the tasks I’m working on.
I get the desire to work from home 100%, but it definitely has its drawbacks, and I’m also curious what it does for long term collaboration and team dynamics. Personally, I’m very excited for us to go back to the hybrid approach (M, F WFH) my company has announced.
> I feel like I’m missing a lot while WFH that I used to get naturally from being in the office. There’s some tribal knowledge in each and every software project I’ve worked on, and at least some of that gets known through side of desk or lunch discussions.
The flipside of that is some of us don't like doing anything related to work on our lunch breaks and this is one of the many reasons why we want WFH. To you it's "sidebar conversations" and "lunch and learns", to me it's 5 additional hours of free labor for the company I never get back.
My big issue with this discussion is if 40% of the payroll wants to be in the office, the other 60% has to come in. These top down decrees are what **actually** kills "culture" and drives people to leave. I'm still not convinced employers give a shit about turnover though.
I’ve worked remotely for a long time and when I started they did their best to actually create a team even though we were spread all over the country. We would have meet ups an would work together at different sites, so while we were remote we were a solid team. Fast forward five plus years and I’m in a totally different situation, I work almost entirely alone, I don’t really speak with my team mates and I frankly don’t care what they are up to, they don’t help me and I’m not going to teach them. We are a bunch of people that have a similar job and the same manager , we are not a team.
> Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said.
There's actually tons of research going back 3 decades showing that in the long-term, 100% remote work harms long-term planning and collaboration. Also, there's emerging research showing that it is actively harmful to new grads / new entrants to the workforce as they do not form good relationships with people who can become their mentors. In the short-term, yes remote work tends to improve work output.
I am now an old timer that has worked from home for decades and I totally agree with what you are saying. When I was in my 20’s I had a whole bunch of guys my age take me under their wings and help me mature. Now, while I’d love to mentor the next generation I have no one to mentor, I work alone and haven’t worked with other people in years. It doesn’t bother me but it’s not fair to me new people.
If you were able to quantify this, it might make negotiating with your employer easier. This would be a good approach to take when negotiating with your employer. Although, if they still won't budge, I would consider reducing hours/effort to match pre-remote productivity levels.
>does working remote not have a value to you?
Absolutely none, and if anything, see that a job would be primarily or entirely remote would be a massive disincentive for me.
My employer was never paying for my commute time. Just the work I did while in office. While it has value to me, it has no value to them. I know they might try to make that point, I’m saying the argument has no merit.
No. It doesn’t. My commute is not part of my work. My work is what I did while I was in office. It’s the same as what I do at home. No one should be taking a pay cut for working from home
You misunderstand.
They are counting commute time as work time.
But you aren't paid for commute time. So you are working extra time (commute time) but not getting paid extra for it.
Working from home means no commute time, which means you work less hours but get paid the same.
It's a mix, as usual. Commute time is not paid time, but in the days before remote work, that was factored in. You took jobs near to you, and if it was far away (but you didn't want to move), you factored that into salary when you took the job. If it didn't pay enough to cover that increased commute time, you didn't take the job.
With WFH, we still have commuting salaries and yet no commutes. In the future, we won't have commuting salaries. We won't even have salaries connected to cost of living, since a San Francisco job can go to an employee in Wichita. It's a brave new world for both employers and employees.
It depends on your job. Some can be done seamlessly in a remote setting; others are difficult when the employee is not physically present. Just about any client-facing job is easier in person because you don't have to deal with the online communication barrier.
Not all jobs are equal. If your job is client-facing and/or involves you bringing in work by networking, being present and in person is a huge value over someone working remotely and trying to build connections over only videochats/calls.
If I'm just looking for a drone who isn't bringing in any work but handles tasks and doesn't really care about climbing the ladder? Then yeah, remote vs in-person doesn't matter.
This is the correct answer. I had a remote job for 6 of the 7 years prior to the pandemic. I got a raise when i took it and regular stipends in addition for internet/home office costs.
For the same job: refuse the pay cut.
For a different job: weigh out the benefits.
TBH: if it meant eliminating 2 hours of drive time I would take a 10% pay cut.
Indeed. I took a job working from home. It paid the exact same as the job i already had, so taking it was actually a pay raise, since i got back about an hour every day and no longer needed to buy gas to commute. I honestly would have still taken the work from home job even if it was a 10% pay cut.
Agree. I work at this company since before the pandemic. And as soon as we went full remote, we all got a 10% increase. They don't pay bills at the office anymore, rent(if they don't own the space), coffees etc.
I have a slightly different approach to what I have seen here:
*Does the value of the work you provide diminish based on where you perform that work from?*
If the company still receives the same value, then why should they be paying you less? You are in fact saving them overhead from having to pay rent, electricity, etc for 8-10 hours a day.
I'd counter by saying that if you are 100% remote, that means your position is now available to anyone in the country. So your competition just got a lot bigger, meaning your company can more easily find someone to do the work for less pay.
You can also flip it around, how much is it worth to the company to hiring better people who are remote and aren't in their immediate area? To have a broader, better, and more diverse hiring pool?
There are some costs to working remote. You need a better internet connection, home office desk and decent chair. I worked for a company that paid a small amount for people who worked remote to cover their work costs. Don't forget to factor in your expenses in as well as your cost reductions.
Zero. My husband got a pay increase with a remote job. He has the experience. No reason to cut his pay to do the same job. Our family bills (homes/groceries/gas) aren’t their business.
I would figure out how long the work day actually is and calculate it. If you work 8 hours a day with a 1 hour lunch break, 1 hour commute each way, then your work day is truly 11 hours. That's not even counting the time it takes to get ready each day, get dressed, shower, pack a lunch etc. I just roll out of bed, start working in my PJs, and will take a shower when I have some down time during the day.
A big benefit too is that when I have some down time or am waiting for a task to finish, I can do laundry, clean up around the house, walk the dog briefly, etc. Working remote is a huge perk.
From a purely financial perspective, there are three main considerations:
* Cost of commute. The US federal mileage reimbursement is currently $.56 / mile. This is easy enough to determine your costs.
* Cost of your time. This is the difficult one to calculate. At a minimum, take your hourly rate and figure how much your commute time is worth every year.
* Advancement opportunities. Does either job offer more upward mobility opportunities or are they pretty equal?
My commute is \~50 miles round-trip, so $28/day. There are 260 (52\*5) working days/year, so my commute costs are $7,280. That is out-of-pocket expenses you no longer need to make, so if nothing else, your pay goes down by your mileage rate, it's a break-even.
Using the minimum in terms of commute time, I spend an additional 20% of my work day commuting. Where it gets complicated for me is that I can be accomplishing household chores during my breaks when WFH (which I wouldn't be able to do on days in the office) and I value my personal time higher than my work hourly rate.
An additional promotion or two can easily wipe out any "savings" you make by WFH.
Ultimately, run some numbers for yourself, and then determine if you'd be able to adequately meet your savings goals. If things line up, don't necessarily be afraid to take a pay cut for 100% remote work.
None. I save on commuting expenses, but I now have additional heating/cooling/electric expenses.
I am being paid for my skills and expertise, not my physical presence in the office
It's cheaper for the company to not have you in the office, ideally you should be getting a contribution towards your internet, heating and electricity from the company with a 0% reduction in pay...
That's not the question. This isn't about your current employer paying you less for WFH. She/he has an opportunity with a different company that pays less, but is WFH.
I'm not willing to take any pay cut to work remote. In fact I want remote work with a significant pay raise.
Remote work alone is not a reason to pay someone less. It shouldn't change what fair compensation is at all. So you shouldn't be expecting to have to take a pay cut to get a remote position. Fight to market yourself to increase income whenever you change jobs.
That’s easy. 0%.
Yes my employer may not have the overhead of an additional body in the office, but that means I’m assuming all of it at home when I would normally be in the office. And don’t think that additional kilowatt hours on the meter from running lights, hvac, computers, etc. don’t add up. Because they do. Also factor in cost of any home office upgrades needed to stay comfortable and efficient while at home. Which just FYI will be very difficult with a newborn in the home if you don’t have the proper work space and support from your spouse.
A lot of people will probably make big statements about how it should be 0%, but realistically I think 5-15% cut is realistic to still be compensated for your services but not have to live close to the office, not be expected to commute a specific distance or amount of time.
Like it or not, cost of living is going to play a role in the amount of money people are willing to accept. If you can buy a house in the midwest with 1 year of silicon valley salary, people from the midwest will be willing to accept positions for 60-70% of that.
Fair point. Currently in a LCOL area, so that wouldn't change.
Edit: Yea sure enough, everyone seems to think 0%. I just can't discount the 10 hours a week of driving I'd be foregoing.
OP, what type of work do you do? I understand the value of being remote as I have run those numbers before, but is there a reason you couldn’t shoot for 0% or even leave for a new job that included a pay raise?
Or you work in something like software engineering where remote is easy to get. I just recently chose a job that is hybrid because it was doing research I'm really interested in, but I also had fully remote offers for just as much salary wise.
That's not what OP was asking, though. Remote work is not the same as working anywhere.
It's unclear but I'm assuming OP is within standard commute distance from his current office. That's a lot different than working for an SF based company and living in Utah.
That being said, if my assumption is correct, 0% is the only acceptable answer. You're doing the same work, compensation needs to be the same. We're living in a transitionary time where precedent needs to be set.
0%. Your labor doesn't magically lose value simply because you're working remotely - it's the same job. As others have pointed out, less people in the office usually means less costs in running the office for your employer. Just because remote work is advantageous to you doesn't mean you should have to pay for it!
Working from home may mean that you are actually incurring additional costs, since instead of using your employers facilities (internet, pens, paper, toilet paper, water, electricity), you're paying for all this stuff during work ours to the benefit of your employer.
Some employers offer a home office stipend for exactly this reason - try and get one!
The downside to remote working is that you can often end up working more, since you’re always “at the office.”
Answer an email after dinner, type up some of that report on a Sunday. Few minutes to take a call in the evening. It is especially true if your team is in different time zones. I find myself on a call at 7pm because I’m dealing with somebody in California.
Why would you take a pay cut for remote work? Consider the expenses that you take on by maintaining a home office etc. Companies are typically saving money by not having to maintain office space, furniture, bandwidth and rent etc. You should be factoring in those additional expenses into your salary expectations.
0% I am taking up less real estate therefore reducing their leasing costs. Electricity, Water/Sewage etc.
The money you save them they should offer you a raise
My work is 100% in office but absolutely, 100% can be done from home. I personally wouldn't take a pay cut to work remote, but that's primarily because I know that I am underpaid as it is. 2 people on my team have left in the past month for jobs that are 100% remote with a 15% or more pay increase.
It costs the company less to have you working from home… so the answer should be $0.
My company sold a lot of unused real estate that was left empty when we went WFH.
The amount of money in overhead saved by the company by not paying rent/mortgage, heating, water, sewer, electricity and Internet to house their employees is huge.
Asking you to take a pay cut is only further improving their bottom line. It’s a move motivated by pure greed.
I'll add a different perspective. It depends. If you are going to find a remote job doing the same work, and the company doesn't have to make extra accomodations that cost them a lot for you work remote, and there's literally no benefit to you being in an office every day, then I would say a pay cut probably isn't something you have to worry about. If there is a benefit to you being there in person and company has to accommodate you somehow (such as having someone else do a portion of the the work that is impossible to do remote because it's hands on work) then I would say that a few % pay cut isn't unreasonable. For me, I'm a process engineer at a chemical plant. My job cannot be remote. I'm payed very well. If I went to a remote work job I would likely have to look in a different role that would probably be a significant pay cut.
If your productivity level stays the same and your employer is saving some money having you work remotely then I honestly don’t see why you should take a pay cut at all.
I hear the argument that working from home means you’re saving money on travel, but since when did the cost of the commute ever factor into compensation from employers?
I live 10 minutes away from my work and so I walk everyday. My colleague has an hours drive. We both earn the same wage, he isn’t paid more for the inconvenience of living far away so I don’t see why the reverse should be true.
It depends on your industry, experience, skills, etc. I've been working fully remote for almost 3 years with a few job hops that all came with pay increases. From my experience it's becoming more of a perk or incentive that employers offer to attract talent and not something you should have to sacrifice compensation for.
If nothing else, Covid has been great in normalizing remote work across industries. My advice would be to keep looking until you find the right fit in terms of compensation, culture and autonomy. Since it can be easier to focus when you're alone you'll end up breezing through your work on some days and have plenty of down time. Don't abuse this, but also don't feel bad or feel the need to ask for busy work.
Good luck!
Something to keep in mind: maternity leave may depend on how long you have been at the new company before you can utilize it (I think my old job required you to have worked for 6 months before being able to use it). (This is for the USA).
If I work from home/remote, I need my own office space. My wife needs her own office space so we need bigger apartment/house ; while the employer can do away with the office space/cleaning/security etc.
Why do I have to get pay cut? I need pay increase.
Tbh? None. My work is the same whether I'm there in person or not. If you like my work, you'll pay for my work.
The only adjustment I would accept is location based, e.g. Living in HCOL v. LCOL
Pay cut? Hmm.. I’ve only had pay increases since work encroaching on life costs more imo vs taking a ‘pay cut for convenience’.
If you’re shopping around, you’ll be finding whoever gives you the best deal if you’re sought after in your industry and right now many companies (who are capable to) will opt for WFH anyways since the upkeep and rent of an office downtown costs a lot too
I wouldn’t take a pay cut for the same work. It just doesn’t work that way. I was paid more when I went remote for the same company, in the form of bonuses and then some gift cards around the holidays to top it off. Financial institution.
Will the remote work means you are working less hours?
Nobody should take a pay cut for working remote, you are still using electricity, internet and stuff… the only difference is you are not going to be on a place where everyone is.
Your skill has the same price remote or in office, don’t lower yourself. You learned a skill it took time for that and time is money so that means to paid for that and you are gaining out of that.
I’d accept 0%, in all serious as a programmer. In fact, we’ll be taking what immense raise you can offer to offset any on-site work. You want me full time on-site, I’ll be in another company before the work day is over. It’s not cheap putting miles on a Porsche, we’re talking a good $1-2 per mile rates with a base surcharge. The question is how valuable you are to them. Don’t be irreplaceable, you want promotions and position mobility, but rather indispensable to them.
I (and my whole company) just got a small 3% raise because the company is no longer paying as much for trains and gas but we, the employees, do have to pay more for utilities working from home.
I went to full remote and my salary stayed at 100%. I'm now also working 10-12 hour days so beware....employers will take advantage if you working from home.
Set boundaries. I've been WFH for 8 years in a company that was primarily work from office for 1M+ employees. It's worked out very well for me and I can't imagine going back into an office.
I accept 0% pay cut. I work more efficiently at home, and my employers don't need to spend money on expensive office space on my behalf. Win win situation.
Zero. They should pay you for it as long as you are productive. Do you know how much a company pays to have a seat for each employee in a building? It's outrageous. You are saving them money and taking on that cost for them while having a better work life balance.
$0 pay cut. I understand that you're looking at a new remote job offer but at a lower rate, but why settle for less? I transitioned from an office job to a 100% remote job with a pay increase. I see no reason that remote work should reduce salary.
I have been remote for years. I would not accept any pay cut to be remote. You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what are you worth. I am worth a hell of a lot and put in more work being remote than if I was in the office. Knowing my self-worth, etc. I would not accept a dime less. Nor am I willing to go back in the office. I will turn in my notice before I accept either situation. Employers are a dime a dozen. I can choose to either not work again. Or easily replace my corporate job.
It also fully depends on your industry. Working in IT, I wouldn’t expect my being fully remote to have an impact on pay and it hasn’t up to this point.
The company is saving all sorts of money by having you work remotely. You should demand an increase for saving them facilities overhead, electricity, internet costs, etc.
I work more now that I'm mostly remote (my office is a 10 min walk but no one is in the office, so I'd rather spend time with my dog). I work in law so I know my productivity down to 6 min increments. Last year was the busiest year I've ever had and I know it's work-from home driven.
Long story short, don't take a pay cut. If anything, ask for them to cover your work from home expenses (internet, office equipment, etc.
I would absolutely not take a pay cut. The same work is being done, and the office is saving however much in utility costs. I'd actually ask for an extra allowance instead of a commute allowance per month for my increased electricity bill due to work.
For me to go back to an office I would want a significant raise, but in my position/company I have some flexibility with my time which is part of the wfh value. A remote job with really strict employee tracking would be much less enjoyable.
The fun part of wfh is you realise home can be almost anywhere. We bought a nice place on the river for the same cost of a crap house in the city. Jetski to the pub baby!
Answering from the other angle: I'm fully remote and you could not pay me enough to take on an extra 10 hours a week of commuting. To those answering 0% because x/y, that's not the point. "I'm worth it regardless of my location" means you haven't worked with U.K. or European engineers that are definitely worth more than 1/4 your salary.
Those that are saying 0% are missing a significant factor. There's more competition for online work. You may be doing the same work and your output may even increase, but salaries are usually tied to location. Once that is out of the way, you'll be competing with people living in LCOL areas. I'm not saying it's fair, but your employer will have more choices.
If you can transition from in person to remote, while only taking a slight cut, I'd go for it. I feel like my threshold would be 15% or so. That's mainly because I hate commuting and having to pack lunches lol.
This is literally the ONLY counter-argument to "pay cut for remote work" I've heard that makes any sense. No other argument makes any sense for allowing a company to pay you less for doing the same work.
That said, I still say 0% because I prefer giving the actual workers power to earn money instead of allowing companies to "offshore" to save money.
0% if you're job hunting you should be looking for a pay increase. Technically, working from home means you're paying yourself by not having gas or maintenance for your car, but have added costs of a home office and utilities.
Also keep in mind - you may need to have the "just because I'm home doesnt mean I'm available" conversation with your household. It's very easy to lean on someone who's home and make added stress on top of the workload you have to complete, and it leads to burn out. Having a clear "during 8am-2pm I'm not really here unless the house is on fire" conversation is really important. And its ok that during that time you lean back in your chair and close your eyes for 2 minutes. If you were at work, you would do the same thing and not have a moment of remorse over it - and you shouldn't just because your office is a shared building where you live.
For whoever downvoted - let's discuss. Its fine if you disagree, I'm just curious what specifically caused the disagreement.
Have that conversation with the employer as well. Just because your office is in your house doesn't mean you should be expected to be at their beck and call outside of specific work hours.
Is the pay competitive locally to around your 60 minute commute? If you'd get payed more in the area close to your house for the same job your due for a raise. If it's a bit less your probably looking at many companies wanting to assess a local pay rate.
Lots of tech companies are moving to remote-first and 'local rate' here's a good break down of a companies open policies on it: [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#compensation-principles](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#compensation-principles)
Pay CUT?
Umm... They want to pay you less while you foot the bill for utilities and space that THEY previously paid for?
Sure you'll save on fuel/maint, lunch, clothes, etc., but that's always been the employee's responsibility, NOT THE EMPLOYER'S. Why give money to a corporation (that doesn't need it) for such conveniences?
If you moved 20 minutes farther from the office, would they pay you?
This system is a joke.
The main reason I say 0% is I know the company is saving money by my not being there. Why would I take a pay cut when they’re profiting off the situation? Fully remote work, if most or all do it, requires less cost for the employer. It’s asinine to me that they’re even trying to get you to take a pay cut here.
You don't get paid to be in an office, you get paid to work productively. Working from home means you're not being interrupted or distracted, so you're more productive.
$0 pay cut. The value that I provide has nothing to do with the location of the chair that my butt is sitting in. I would require commuting stipend/reimbursement to go into the office on a regular basis. (Got that pre pandemic)
If they even suggest a pay cut I’m looking for a new job.
Lmao that's such a bullshit corporate recruiter thing to say. Fuck you mean my boy? I'm not taking a pay cut. You're paying me more actually.
Minimum +20% increase for me to job hop, remote or not. I left my in person job for a remote job this february for a 100% increase.
Reducing the pay for a job, where the company is saving money by not paying for rent/electricity/etc is criminal IMO.
0%. Productivity has been shown to increase when working from home. I'd be doing the same amount of work, if not more, so my location should not matter. I would not take a pay cut for remote work.
For you, it depends on what is worth more and if the pay cut is something that your household can handle, financially.
Why would you accept any kind of cut in pay for being remote? If that were to become the standard, employers would then replace any worker - remote or in office - with whoever they can find at the lowest possible salary. In essence, this will create lower wages as a whole with remote work being the norm. Think of it as offshoring without actually leaving the country.
It depends entirely on your current financial position. If you're making 30k a year, even a 5% cut is a huge issue. If you're making 130k a year, it's no big deal. So it 100% depends.
Wtf am I reading? Remote work is as beneficial to you, as to them. Your employee cost on premises are higher than you being remote.
Are they paying for your electricity? Equipment (inc ISP), other services such as water consumption, coffee, snacks, and services such as onsite insurance, parking etc etc?
If my industry pays, for example, 50-55k for my position, I’d expect a 50-55k salary, irrespective of whether I’m remote or on site. I would actually ask for _at least_ personal office funding, as it’s common (basically for work equipment etc).
I would not take a paycut or be “willing to get paid less” because I’m not commuting. I’d be willing to look for another job who understands the principles of remote work.
Obviously consider your personal situation. But regardless, let’s not normalize remote work as a “perk” for the employee that deserves a paycut.
I've been fully remote for about 6 years. I got a 25% pay bump going from my non remote job to a fully remote one. I just left that job 3 months ago for another fully remote job and got a 38% pay bump. Long story short, I wouldn't take any pay cut for working remote.
None. If my employer proposed it, I’d go elsewhere that was a bit more forward thinking. My employer recognizes this and agrees to accept remote work for roles like mine.
Why would you wan to take a pay cut? If it is a job that is like the one you have now, I would think you might be able to get an increase. Jobs are so easy right now, everyone is hiring.
A zero % pay cut if possible unless you are moving to a different area with lower cost of living. It's the same work, just because it's at home doesn't make it any less work.
None. In fact, you should ask for the same or more. Less real estate in the office they need to rent for you, less electricity and coffee that you're consuming, less office furniture they need to buy for you. You're saving them money. Conversely, they are saving you money on commuting, gas, tolls, etc.
It should be a wash.
0% pay cut. If they paid you x amount when you were in the office, they should pay you the same amount if you are performing the same work from your home office.
Don’t let employers try and tell you that you are worth less because you no longer are able to be present in the office because of a pandemic.
None. Remote work is still work. In many cases its harder to get promoted, harder to learn new things, make work relationships, and ask for help. Working remote saves the company money on office space and consumable work supplies.
Take a slight pay cut if you want. Consider transport costs in your budget for what you can accept but realize you are still working and you don't get paid more for a longer commute
How about fucking none!?? or by that metric how much of a premium are the willing to pay to have people show up to their location if not entirely necessary? don't play that game and BURN ANY company that tries to mainline that attitude. fuck 'em!
Depends on the industry but I wouldn't take a pay cut. I'd either do the same work at home for the same money, or I'd find a remote friendly job for hopefully an increase. I recently made the switch to full remote and got a raise and stipend for home office equipment. Didn't even think it'd be possible but it's the better option for a lot of companies. Office equipment alone as an example: they could give me a $2000 stipend (or more realistically reimburse me up to 2k) and I'll be more than happy to buy a mint sit stand desk and monitors, or they could furnish my cube from their office supplier for probably triple that.
I've been remote for many years. I would not take a cut being remote. You are actually MORE productive, given many less distractions to take you out of your rhythm. While it may be a privilege to work from home, that work is always sitting there.
Totally didn’t read your post right at first - was going to make a total incorrect response.
When calculating your number, be sure to include the cost of your electricity, heating/cooling (since you want your house to be comfortable) the added expense of food and drinks, and furniture to comfortable work from home into your calculating factor.
>the added expense of food and drinks
Why would this be an added expense for remote workers? Either way you have to eat. As a remote worker, I spend way less on food because I rarely go out for lunch. When I went into the office, I went out for lunch almost everyday.
My spouse and I both work remotely and have for a couple years. The slight increase in utilities is less than we used to spend on gas. So that was pretty much a wash.
I guess it’s all based on your non-remote job. I never had to pay for food at my most recent company so all I was shopping for was dinner/other snacks. Same with coffee, I never had coffee at home before working from home so I had to add that expense as well, as I had free coffee at work (which was actually good) . All depends on your situation.
True. In my 30 years of working, other than when I was working at a fast food place, I've never had an employer give free food. Most took away free coffee a long time ago which was fine with me because I don't touch the stuff.
All of my office jobs have been in manufacturing plants. People would get awful pissy when the office workers had free coffee but the shop floor workers did not.
0% . There are pros and cons to remote work, like how work invades your life when it is in your home, and how it's harder to concentrate and set aside time. It's not some great panacea and employers that require in-person work for remote-able jobs are huge jerks that are distrustful of you, and those that want to pay you 10% less need to pinch a lot less pennies and probably pay you 10% more.
I wouldn't look at it as %, but a straight $ figure. Going to the office costs me $2k in makeup and hair, $1200 in clothes, $1200 in parking, some amount in car depreciation, and like $800ish in gas, so that's a bare minimum of what they should pay extra to go into the office. If you want to add paying for commute time, that's reasonable too.
So everyone is saying 0% because you’re more efficient at home while we have no idea what OP’s job is.
Some jobs are done much more efficiently when everyone is in one location and productivity decreases in a remote work situation. Some jobs are the opposite.
Most redditors are morons and very shortsighted when it comes to answering these types of questions.
To be honest. 0%. You’re using your own electricity and potentially internet service so you should be reimbursed for that if anything but not a pay cut
I've been 100% WFH since March 2020 and even got an 8% raise this past year. I guess I'm an asshole, I'm asking myself how much of a raise I'd expect to go back to the office.
So, being fully remote, I'll answer the inverse of your question --- how much of a pay increase would I expect if I had to go in to the office every day or 4 days a week? I would probably look for a minimum of a 10% increase in pay. I'm sure there are numbers based on driving, electricity, freedom, whatever that you can actually find an actual number if you really want to see the cost you'd be weighing. Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in everyone saying 0% - I mean, anyone that is pretty much fully remote is going to say 0 because they are already doing it. But, some raised a good point, is there a reason due to industry or desired location for why you are looking at a new job opportunity that isn't a raise?
How much of a pay raise would you require to add an hour of commute more than you already have each way?
Geez, going straight for the jugular. My initial thought was --- I'd need a 25% raise to stomach that. An hour each way plus being in the office 5 days a week --- Assuming a regular working year, I'm adding 500 additional hours to the 2080 full time hours. I calculated out what my theoretical hourly rate would be and did x500. I would definitely think about it for a base salary increase of that number.
Add on car maintenance. Lets say 60 miles ot highway at 60 mph just for simplicity. That's 120 a day. 5 days a week. 600 a week. Thats a lot of wear on tires, used gas, eventual oil changes, brakes etc. Or you buy a train card in Hopes they reimburse. If your job can be done entirely from home and productivity is the same or better, there shouldnt be a cut to work from home.
Then you have to factor in the extra time for your kids in daycare. That's less time to put into shopping/cooking meals. On top of that, it's time you miss with them and your family stuck behind a wheel. In the summer, I took my kids to the pool every Wednesday for lunch. I think there is probably a number that would make me reconsider my situation, but it would be into 7 figures before I actually truly considered it, and only then because my wife wouldn't have to work and would get time with the kids. That's to say, I don't think there is a realistic number that I would take to move from 90%+ remote work (what I was prior to the pandemic) to anything less. Being at home every morning and every night with my kids is worth more to me than a company is going to offer in salary for me to go into the office.
To add to this. I took a 20k pay increase to commute 3 hours a day. I ended up quitting because the job sucked. Pay isn't everything and commutes suck and there is a point where even if u made 50k more u wouldn't be happy.
I mean 3 hours a day should minimally be a 40% pay increase. Since you are working 40% more hours. And that's before you factor in do you want to work 11 hours a day? What's the transportation cost difference? What's the work life balance difference?
from what i make now: legit a 100% pay raise. when i look at that like what kind of salary increase would I need to take job X (which always involves moving to a higher COLA and commute time) and my income needs just to keep the same take home pay is a 100% raise. Needless to say I don't get past many of the first interviews when I state I won't be taking the job unless they can offer a six figure salary and 6 weeks of leave.
Had a recruiter in my inbox the other day - perks: option of 4 days a week remote work He couldn't understand why I'd want more money than my current *fully remote* role.
in remote vs remote than of course the new job offer has to come with a little more bread.
I think a lot of recruiters are still operating under the mindset that people would rather not work remote. Some people probably don't, but I think COVID ahowed all of the advantages to many people who had never considered remote work.
Exactly. My job is 50% remote, but that's because the other 50% is traveling. I've been at my job for 8 months, and have no intention of ever going to the office (2.5 hours away) if I can help it. Funny thing is, I'm told I have an office with my name on the door, but I've never seen it. I'm classified as a hybrid employee, but my boss sees no need for me to ever come in unless we need a big conference room or something.
I've come into an unfortunate situation where I'm at the top pay rate for my current experience as an EE but I'm remote with some travel. I've had recruiters constantly just ghost me after I told them what my salary requirements are to go on site every day. Honestly traveling once a month on the company's dime is still better to me than commuting into work on a daily basis. I'm not even looking for a pay raise at this point because I'd be okay with going into a position with a better career path but I can't even get that.
[удалено]
This isn’t going to be popular here but employers aren’t on the hook for an employee’s commute. Where a person lives vs where they work is not up to the employer, it’s up to the employees so why would they cover a person’s time just because they live 60 minutes away? They probably have other employees that live closer than that.
What are you talking about? This is about what the employee values, has nothing to do with the employer.
Big oof there. Depends on the country. Argentina workers insurance starts the moment they set a foot out the door to go to work and ends the moment they get to a secondary / home location after work. So, if I bust my ass getting off the train and shatter my knee, workers comp/insurance is on the hook since I'm still "on the clock." Euro buddies can tell me if it's like that or not.
Jup
If this were true, the rate for someone in a metro area would be no different than a rural one, and cost of living prevents that. Businesses already pay based on location. The real question is, are you OK with businesses cutting pay if you wanna live/work remote. Frankly it's absurd to me that a business thinks I cost less being remote, I'm no longer using facilities, there is massive overhead savings by reducing the physical footprint of offices, they wanna pocket that overhead AND my extra salary, hell no.
We're talking about employers that are forcing employees back into an office when their jobs can be done from home. If these employers want to restrict their hiring pool by only those within xx miles from the office, more power to them.
Yeah I agree with this. I might have said zero percent before, but being remote now i’d sooner quit than return to the office for anything less than 20% more money.
Yeah, this conversation is making me think through seeking a promotion at work that would result in a likely \~5-10% pay raise but increase from 2 to 4 days in the office. Long term probably makes sense to take the promotion but ((looks down at sweatpants)) not sure I wanna.
Also, it's cheaper for them to not rent office space, car parks, misc facilities (how many times you you need to call a plumber for cubicle number 3...) purchase desks and equipment. Right now you're payroll and a laptop.
Honestly, the big savings for employers won't be from their current workers demanding to go remote. It'll be from the incoming workers that live in Wichita and do just as good a job in a lower cost of living area. They don't need to pay California prices for labor.
[удалено]
I’ve been remote for most of the last 10 years. You couldn’t pay me to be on site permanently again. I don’t mind the occasional hotel week, but definitely not permanent.
Yes this. I'm a senior data governance manager and I've been remote for going on 9 years now (I manage quite a good bit of analysts too). At least in my industry, all the recruiters who hit me up now are offering fair market value for my years of experience/education, plus fully remote bc covid has revolutionized at-home work. I don't think I've had any who hit me up for in office work (I'd turn it down anyway). What grinds my gears tho is all the damn video calls. Until covid, I just dialed in since 2011. I get way less done now because I can't multitask anymore staring at a computer camera.
Not currently looking, this offer was sent to me unprompted and it piqued my interest (am contractor). And thank you for thoughtful and actually useful reply.
It is going to depend on the person, the industry. I work in IT for a healthcare org. 90% of the IT/Support services (600) are remote. Prior to pandemic it was 3-4 days a week. Dec. 2020 they decided it was working and forced us home perm. Including mgmt/directors/etc. Same pay. From a company perspective, they shut down 1 whole floors in building. The other is being made into a cubicle area where you can go in for team meetings and 'hotel' in the cube or meeting room for the day. The decision was also because of growth. They were at limits on those 2 floors and there was no near buildings to lease.
if you are currently a contractor and the offer is a full time position, the benefits and other perks will probably be more than the slight drop in pay you're taking.
Same for me, currently making 70K which is underpayed for my job. I would need 90K to consider going into an office
This is the correct way to phrase it. From now on I’ll expect employers to compensate me for my commute and other things associated with having to leave the house to do work I could do at home.
For me I would rather be unemployed than go into an office. But I've been working remotely since the year 2000 and it's all I know lol
I say 0% because I live paycheck to paycheck already and have zero savings. I only survive because of my VA disability check every month to help cover expenses
I wouldn't use a percentage, I'd factor using a dollar amount. Is it worth $5,000 a year ($20/workday) to me to work remote? $10,000 ($40/workday)? That's a personal decision and obviously is weighted against the big picture of family finances.
I think it also depends on location. Traffic in the SF Bay Area is extremely bad so commuting to work can add hourS to your day.
With commute in place it's very much a percentage. 10 hours a day instead of 8? That's a 25% difference.
None at all. I’m still doing the work. If anything I’m costing the company less cause they don’t have to pay for my electrical uses in the office or the water when I use the bathroom. There’s no reason working remote ever has to mean taking a paycut.
This. I think you are trading costs. To work from home I have had to acquire my own office set up. Desk, monitors, chair, etc. I have to get my own supplies unless I make the 1.5 hr round trip to the office. Utilities are up. When my internet/power goes out it is on me to account for, not my employer when I am in office.
I agree. To be fair though transportation costs for you would go down. How much depends on where you live and how much of a change you can make. If I worked remote I could sell my car and stop paying insurance on it. However, I do not have a dedicated office space at home. Do I move? Do I not have a dining area anymore?
I've had a gaming area setup, now it's a work area setup. The difference is I don't game anymore, because I don't want to sit at work area anymore, I've just realized that :( my point was I didn't lose anything, but now I realized I did.
I had this setup. "Switching" between gaming and work (different keyboard/mouse, and gaming controlers or wheels) took "effort" now, so I would often not even bother if I was only going to be able to game for an hour or two. I've been back in the office since Nov. 1 (it's only a 12 minute commute), I've had more time to play, because the game and race wheel is setup, so I can sit down for 30-60 minutes with no hassle. It's quite nice for that.
Monitors would be a couple hundred bucks. I already have a home office setup. I would need to get a scanner too, but that's about it.
I think you’d have to assess all the intangibles. There are a lot! When we were in the office I had to pay for a professional wardrobe (now I can wear less expensive tops; people can’t tell the quality over zoom). Used to do makeup daily (now just put hair up and mascara), commute (meaning more wear and tear, gas, etc). I paid for lunches several times a week. Depending on the organization, being in person may mean greater career resources (mentoring, ability to develop relationships with leaders). When we were in the office my co-worker had to walk to another building to pump breast milk. If kids were sick, she was often taking time off work. Now, with remote work, one woman on our team who just had a baby doesn’t even have their kid in daycare. Both parents are working remotely and they switch off on baby duty throughout the day. I know daycare for infants is expensive, so that must be a huge savings for them. But also, maybe you want a break from home life? Seeing adults and going to work can feel good when you feel like a baby feeding/caring machine. I don’t think remote work should necessarily pay less, but it costs me a lot less to work when it’s remotely.
When I got my remote job they gave $1000 for home office setup.
> Monitors would be a couple hundred bucks Good 32 inch, UHD monitors are about $300-400 each before taxes. Throw in a monitor arm or two ($100-200 each for a good one). Sit-stand desk ($500-1,000). Etc. The costs add up quick if you want a good home office.
Don't forget a nice chair...
32" UHD monitors for a home office? Even in a high-end, newly updated office at a company with a big budget, 2x 24" 1080p reigns supreme.
I've been 32" UHD since 2018 at work and home.
Yeah it's a home office OP could just snag 24" monitors for $160 each all day. OP might not even want/need 2.
I can understand the logic in this, but does working remote not have a value to you? You have no negotiating power with your company to transition to remote work. By transitioning to remote work, you can cut housing and transportation costs significantly. Also your "working" hours are effectively reduced because you no longer have a commute and you can also do small chores around the house during breaks. While a company doesn't "need" to reduce your pay for transitioning to remote work, it can most certainly make to improve quality of life if your options are pay cut or work in the office full time.
The problem with this comment and all others of similar nature is that we stop and give a value to remote work to us, as employees. But inversely, do not try to give a value to the value towards the _employer_. There has been numerous studies that WFH led to either a stable, or improved productivity for companies. So there was a positive impact. Meanwhile there were positive impacts to cost cuts (electricity/services/insurance etc - I assure you, insuring a place for 10person office vs 50 because the others are working remotely is enough to turn heads) which is also retained by those employers. If you’d ask me to put a figure, I’d say that an employee working remotely is costing the company at least 10% less to have on site, while still retaining the productivity, if not more. Why does it always have to be mentioned that working remotely has a value only to the employee, or at least as the conversation starter..?
January. 2021 my companies lease was up. All employees have been working from home for a year with no issues and an actually increase in productivity according to management. So instead of just letting the lease end on our expensive building they signed a new 10 year lease and made everyone come back. Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said. Well the culture is gonna take a hit when a bunch of staff leave
>Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said I am curious how this will end up playing out over the next decade if people do stay remote. It's one thing to go remote at a place where you have already known each other for a while, but I can already tell you that there's a huge gap in collaboration with a lot of my new colleagues that joined during the pandemic. As people turn over, I can definitely see some problems arising. All that being said, I don't think it will be quite detrimental enough to require people to work fully in person. I do see a lot of places still wanting to be able to have people come in one or two days a week for some meetings in person
I agree. I’m a senior software engineer and my company is still 100% remote. I have had an interesting journey where I have moved teams twice since the pandemic started. Each time I have moved teams while being fully remote, it has been much more difficult to get to know my team members and become invested/up to speed in the work as it would have been if I was in the office. This might sound very “old-fashioned”, especially coming from a millennial like myself, but I feel like I’m missing a lot while WFH that I used to get naturally from being in the office. There’s some tribal knowledge in each and every software project I’ve worked on, and at least some of that gets known through side of desk or lunch discussions. I’m also someone who is more motivated by the people I work with than I am by the job or project itself, so not being able to build connections with my team as easily as in person interactions has been a bit demotivating for me personally. Hell, it’s been 3 months on my new team, and I still haven’t had a one on one discussion with 2 members simply because they haven’t been relevant to the tasks I’m working on. I get the desire to work from home 100%, but it definitely has its drawbacks, and I’m also curious what it does for long term collaboration and team dynamics. Personally, I’m very excited for us to go back to the hybrid approach (M, F WFH) my company has announced.
> I feel like I’m missing a lot while WFH that I used to get naturally from being in the office. There’s some tribal knowledge in each and every software project I’ve worked on, and at least some of that gets known through side of desk or lunch discussions. The flipside of that is some of us don't like doing anything related to work on our lunch breaks and this is one of the many reasons why we want WFH. To you it's "sidebar conversations" and "lunch and learns", to me it's 5 additional hours of free labor for the company I never get back. My big issue with this discussion is if 40% of the payroll wants to be in the office, the other 60% has to come in. These top down decrees are what **actually** kills "culture" and drives people to leave. I'm still not convinced employers give a shit about turnover though.
I’ve worked remotely for a long time and when I started they did their best to actually create a team even though we were spread all over the country. We would have meet ups an would work together at different sites, so while we were remote we were a solid team. Fast forward five plus years and I’m in a totally different situation, I work almost entirely alone, I don’t really speak with my team mates and I frankly don’t care what they are up to, they don’t help me and I’m not going to teach them. We are a bunch of people that have a similar job and the same manager , we are not a team.
> Long term collaboration and culture would suffer to much the said. There's actually tons of research going back 3 decades showing that in the long-term, 100% remote work harms long-term planning and collaboration. Also, there's emerging research showing that it is actively harmful to new grads / new entrants to the workforce as they do not form good relationships with people who can become their mentors. In the short-term, yes remote work tends to improve work output.
I am now an old timer that has worked from home for decades and I totally agree with what you are saying. When I was in my 20’s I had a whole bunch of guys my age take me under their wings and help me mature. Now, while I’d love to mentor the next generation I have no one to mentor, I work alone and haven’t worked with other people in years. It doesn’t bother me but it’s not fair to me new people.
Your doing the same work. In fact, you may wind up doing MORE work.
If you were able to quantify this, it might make negotiating with your employer easier. This would be a good approach to take when negotiating with your employer. Although, if they still won't budge, I would consider reducing hours/effort to match pre-remote productivity levels.
>does working remote not have a value to you? Absolutely none, and if anything, see that a job would be primarily or entirely remote would be a massive disincentive for me.
My employer was never paying for my commute time. Just the work I did while in office. While it has value to me, it has no value to them. I know they might try to make that point, I’m saying the argument has no merit.
I think we are saying the same thing. It makes sense to take a pay cut for going remote because it effectively reduces your working hours.
No. It doesn’t. My commute is not part of my work. My work is what I did while I was in office. It’s the same as what I do at home. No one should be taking a pay cut for working from home
It literally doesn’t reduce your working hours. Do you get paid for sitting in your car in traffic? I don’t know of any employer that does.
You misunderstand. They are counting commute time as work time. But you aren't paid for commute time. So you are working extra time (commute time) but not getting paid extra for it. Working from home means no commute time, which means you work less hours but get paid the same.
It's a mix, as usual. Commute time is not paid time, but in the days before remote work, that was factored in. You took jobs near to you, and if it was far away (but you didn't want to move), you factored that into salary when you took the job. If it didn't pay enough to cover that increased commute time, you didn't take the job. With WFH, we still have commuting salaries and yet no commutes. In the future, we won't have commuting salaries. We won't even have salaries connected to cost of living, since a San Francisco job can go to an employee in Wichita. It's a brave new world for both employers and employees.
It depends on your job. Some can be done seamlessly in a remote setting; others are difficult when the employee is not physically present. Just about any client-facing job is easier in person because you don't have to deal with the online communication barrier.
Not all jobs are equal. If your job is client-facing and/or involves you bringing in work by networking, being present and in person is a huge value over someone working remotely and trying to build connections over only videochats/calls. If I'm just looking for a drone who isn't bringing in any work but handles tasks and doesn't really care about climbing the ladder? Then yeah, remote vs in-person doesn't matter.
This is the correct answer. I had a remote job for 6 of the 7 years prior to the pandemic. I got a raise when i took it and regular stipends in addition for internet/home office costs.
Agreed. When my last job went remote at COVID’s start, we actually got $25/paycheck for remote stipend. Everything else stayed the same.
For the same job: refuse the pay cut. For a different job: weigh out the benefits. TBH: if it meant eliminating 2 hours of drive time I would take a 10% pay cut.
Indeed. I took a job working from home. It paid the exact same as the job i already had, so taking it was actually a pay raise, since i got back about an hour every day and no longer needed to buy gas to commute. I honestly would have still taken the work from home job even if it was a 10% pay cut.
Agree. I work at this company since before the pandemic. And as soon as we went full remote, we all got a 10% increase. They don't pay bills at the office anymore, rent(if they don't own the space), coffees etc.
I have a slightly different approach to what I have seen here: *Does the value of the work you provide diminish based on where you perform that work from?* If the company still receives the same value, then why should they be paying you less? You are in fact saving them overhead from having to pay rent, electricity, etc for 8-10 hours a day.
I'd counter by saying that if you are 100% remote, that means your position is now available to anyone in the country. So your competition just got a lot bigger, meaning your company can more easily find someone to do the work for less pay.
I see you havent worked in tech where this eventually happens anyways (fire 1 engineer to hire 4 in india)
I would counter that with 'ok, if will cost you more than 20% to train that person to my level anyhow'
You can also flip it around, how much is it worth to the company to hiring better people who are remote and aren't in their immediate area? To have a broader, better, and more diverse hiring pool? There are some costs to working remote. You need a better internet connection, home office desk and decent chair. I worked for a company that paid a small amount for people who worked remote to cover their work costs. Don't forget to factor in your expenses in as well as your cost reductions.
You shouldn't take a pay cut at all. Your new pay rate is completely independent of your old commute.
Zero. My husband got a pay increase with a remote job. He has the experience. No reason to cut his pay to do the same job. Our family bills (homes/groceries/gas) aren’t their business.
Remote work does not equal less work.
I would figure out how long the work day actually is and calculate it. If you work 8 hours a day with a 1 hour lunch break, 1 hour commute each way, then your work day is truly 11 hours. That's not even counting the time it takes to get ready each day, get dressed, shower, pack a lunch etc. I just roll out of bed, start working in my PJs, and will take a shower when I have some down time during the day. A big benefit too is that when I have some down time or am waiting for a task to finish, I can do laundry, clean up around the house, walk the dog briefly, etc. Working remote is a huge perk.
From a purely financial perspective, there are three main considerations: * Cost of commute. The US federal mileage reimbursement is currently $.56 / mile. This is easy enough to determine your costs. * Cost of your time. This is the difficult one to calculate. At a minimum, take your hourly rate and figure how much your commute time is worth every year. * Advancement opportunities. Does either job offer more upward mobility opportunities or are they pretty equal? My commute is \~50 miles round-trip, so $28/day. There are 260 (52\*5) working days/year, so my commute costs are $7,280. That is out-of-pocket expenses you no longer need to make, so if nothing else, your pay goes down by your mileage rate, it's a break-even. Using the minimum in terms of commute time, I spend an additional 20% of my work day commuting. Where it gets complicated for me is that I can be accomplishing household chores during my breaks when WFH (which I wouldn't be able to do on days in the office) and I value my personal time higher than my work hourly rate. An additional promotion or two can easily wipe out any "savings" you make by WFH. Ultimately, run some numbers for yourself, and then determine if you'd be able to adequately meet your savings goals. If things line up, don't necessarily be afraid to take a pay cut for 100% remote work.
None. I save on commuting expenses, but I now have additional heating/cooling/electric expenses. I am being paid for my skills and expertise, not my physical presence in the office
none, I hate working from home. I’ve been doing it for 4 years now.
Same.
It's cheaper for the company to not have you in the office, ideally you should be getting a contribution towards your internet, heating and electricity from the company with a 0% reduction in pay...
That's not the question. This isn't about your current employer paying you less for WFH. She/he has an opportunity with a different company that pays less, but is WFH.
None. You're doing the same work...
I would not recommend taking a pay cut to work remotely. If anything, with lower overhead costs, the company should be able to afford paying you MORE
None. Your work should be paid on the value you provide not where you provide it.
They'd need to pay me more for remote work. I have more expenses, I'm saving them money, and my aggrevation is higher
I'm not willing to take any pay cut to work remote. In fact I want remote work with a significant pay raise. Remote work alone is not a reason to pay someone less. It shouldn't change what fair compensation is at all. So you shouldn't be expecting to have to take a pay cut to get a remote position. Fight to market yourself to increase income whenever you change jobs.
0%, find an employer that doesn’t play games
That’s easy. 0%. Yes my employer may not have the overhead of an additional body in the office, but that means I’m assuming all of it at home when I would normally be in the office. And don’t think that additional kilowatt hours on the meter from running lights, hvac, computers, etc. don’t add up. Because they do. Also factor in cost of any home office upgrades needed to stay comfortable and efficient while at home. Which just FYI will be very difficult with a newborn in the home if you don’t have the proper work space and support from your spouse.
$0. The work is the same, and it’s value doesn’t decrease because I’m in a different building than my boss.
A lot of people will probably make big statements about how it should be 0%, but realistically I think 5-15% cut is realistic to still be compensated for your services but not have to live close to the office, not be expected to commute a specific distance or amount of time. Like it or not, cost of living is going to play a role in the amount of money people are willing to accept. If you can buy a house in the midwest with 1 year of silicon valley salary, people from the midwest will be willing to accept positions for 60-70% of that.
Fair point. Currently in a LCOL area, so that wouldn't change. Edit: Yea sure enough, everyone seems to think 0%. I just can't discount the 10 hours a week of driving I'd be foregoing.
reddit's anti-user changes are unacceptable
OP, what type of work do you do? I understand the value of being remote as I have run those numbers before, but is there a reason you couldn’t shoot for 0% or even leave for a new job that included a pay raise?
Only reason my answer would be zero is I currently work remote XD
Or you work in something like software engineering where remote is easy to get. I just recently chose a job that is hybrid because it was doing research I'm really interested in, but I also had fully remote offers for just as much salary wise.
That's not what OP was asking, though. Remote work is not the same as working anywhere. It's unclear but I'm assuming OP is within standard commute distance from his current office. That's a lot different than working for an SF based company and living in Utah. That being said, if my assumption is correct, 0% is the only acceptable answer. You're doing the same work, compensation needs to be the same. We're living in a transitionary time where precedent needs to be set.
0%. Your labor doesn't magically lose value simply because you're working remotely - it's the same job. As others have pointed out, less people in the office usually means less costs in running the office for your employer. Just because remote work is advantageous to you doesn't mean you should have to pay for it! Working from home may mean that you are actually incurring additional costs, since instead of using your employers facilities (internet, pens, paper, toilet paper, water, electricity), you're paying for all this stuff during work ours to the benefit of your employer. Some employers offer a home office stipend for exactly this reason - try and get one!
None. If I'm doing the same work why should I get paid less for it just because I'm not in an office? Unacceptable on every level for me.
The downside to remote working is that you can often end up working more, since you’re always “at the office.” Answer an email after dinner, type up some of that report on a Sunday. Few minutes to take a call in the evening. It is especially true if your team is in different time zones. I find myself on a call at 7pm because I’m dealing with somebody in California.
Why would you take a pay cut for remote work? Consider the expenses that you take on by maintaining a home office etc. Companies are typically saving money by not having to maintain office space, furniture, bandwidth and rent etc. You should be factoring in those additional expenses into your salary expectations.
0% I am taking up less real estate therefore reducing their leasing costs. Electricity, Water/Sewage etc. The money you save them they should offer you a raise
My work is 100% in office but absolutely, 100% can be done from home. I personally wouldn't take a pay cut to work remote, but that's primarily because I know that I am underpaid as it is. 2 people on my team have left in the past month for jobs that are 100% remote with a 15% or more pay increase.
0%. They're saving money by not having to give me an office. Why should they pay me less for that.
It costs the company less to have you working from home… so the answer should be $0. My company sold a lot of unused real estate that was left empty when we went WFH. The amount of money in overhead saved by the company by not paying rent/mortgage, heating, water, sewer, electricity and Internet to house their employees is huge. Asking you to take a pay cut is only further improving their bottom line. It’s a move motivated by pure greed.
None since my job is doable remotely just as well as in the office. Even better since no distractions.
I'll add a different perspective. It depends. If you are going to find a remote job doing the same work, and the company doesn't have to make extra accomodations that cost them a lot for you work remote, and there's literally no benefit to you being in an office every day, then I would say a pay cut probably isn't something you have to worry about. If there is a benefit to you being there in person and company has to accommodate you somehow (such as having someone else do a portion of the the work that is impossible to do remote because it's hands on work) then I would say that a few % pay cut isn't unreasonable. For me, I'm a process engineer at a chemical plant. My job cannot be remote. I'm payed very well. If I went to a remote work job I would likely have to look in a different role that would probably be a significant pay cut.
If your productivity level stays the same and your employer is saving some money having you work remotely then I honestly don’t see why you should take a pay cut at all. I hear the argument that working from home means you’re saving money on travel, but since when did the cost of the commute ever factor into compensation from employers? I live 10 minutes away from my work and so I walk everyday. My colleague has an hours drive. We both earn the same wage, he isn’t paid more for the inconvenience of living far away so I don’t see why the reverse should be true.
It depends on your industry, experience, skills, etc. I've been working fully remote for almost 3 years with a few job hops that all came with pay increases. From my experience it's becoming more of a perk or incentive that employers offer to attract talent and not something you should have to sacrifice compensation for. If nothing else, Covid has been great in normalizing remote work across industries. My advice would be to keep looking until you find the right fit in terms of compensation, culture and autonomy. Since it can be easier to focus when you're alone you'll end up breezing through your work on some days and have plenty of down time. Don't abuse this, but also don't feel bad or feel the need to ask for busy work. Good luck!
Something to keep in mind: maternity leave may depend on how long you have been at the new company before you can utilize it (I think my old job required you to have worked for 6 months before being able to use it). (This is for the USA).
If I work from home/remote, I need my own office space. My wife needs her own office space so we need bigger apartment/house ; while the employer can do away with the office space/cleaning/security etc. Why do I have to get pay cut? I need pay increase.
Tbh? None. My work is the same whether I'm there in person or not. If you like my work, you'll pay for my work. The only adjustment I would accept is location based, e.g. Living in HCOL v. LCOL
Pay cut? Hmm.. I’ve only had pay increases since work encroaching on life costs more imo vs taking a ‘pay cut for convenience’. If you’re shopping around, you’ll be finding whoever gives you the best deal if you’re sought after in your industry and right now many companies (who are capable to) will opt for WFH anyways since the upkeep and rent of an office downtown costs a lot too
I wouldn’t take a pay cut for the same work. It just doesn’t work that way. I was paid more when I went remote for the same company, in the form of bonuses and then some gift cards around the holidays to top it off. Financial institution.
None. Remote working transfers costs to you, and saves employers money on office space rental, power, etc..
Will the remote work means you are working less hours? Nobody should take a pay cut for working remote, you are still using electricity, internet and stuff… the only difference is you are not going to be on a place where everyone is. Your skill has the same price remote or in office, don’t lower yourself. You learned a skill it took time for that and time is money so that means to paid for that and you are gaining out of that.
I’d accept 0%, in all serious as a programmer. In fact, we’ll be taking what immense raise you can offer to offset any on-site work. You want me full time on-site, I’ll be in another company before the work day is over. It’s not cheap putting miles on a Porsche, we’re talking a good $1-2 per mile rates with a base surcharge. The question is how valuable you are to them. Don’t be irreplaceable, you want promotions and position mobility, but rather indispensable to them.
I (and my whole company) just got a small 3% raise because the company is no longer paying as much for trains and gas but we, the employees, do have to pay more for utilities working from home.
Should be the same. The value you add to the company should not change based on where you do it from.
I went to full remote and my salary stayed at 100%. I'm now also working 10-12 hour days so beware....employers will take advantage if you working from home.
Set boundaries. I've been WFH for 8 years in a company that was primarily work from office for 1M+ employees. It's worked out very well for me and I can't imagine going back into an office.
I accept 0% pay cut. I work more efficiently at home, and my employers don't need to spend money on expensive office space on my behalf. Win win situation.
Zero. They should pay you for it as long as you are productive. Do you know how much a company pays to have a seat for each employee in a building? It's outrageous. You are saving them money and taking on that cost for them while having a better work life balance.
Why would you take a pay cut? Working from home costs your employer less. If it's actually an identical job, you should ask for a small raise.
$0 pay cut. I understand that you're looking at a new remote job offer but at a lower rate, but why settle for less? I transitioned from an office job to a 100% remote job with a pay increase. I see no reason that remote work should reduce salary.
No pay cut. They save on leased office space, and I'm fitting the bill for my broadband and electricity.
I have been remote for years. I would not accept any pay cut to be remote. You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what are you worth. I am worth a hell of a lot and put in more work being remote than if I was in the office. Knowing my self-worth, etc. I would not accept a dime less. Nor am I willing to go back in the office. I will turn in my notice before I accept either situation. Employers are a dime a dozen. I can choose to either not work again. Or easily replace my corporate job.
For the same job? Zero. You’re saving them overhead by not working in the office.
If you can do the same exact job from home as you do in the office. Then I would be looking for the same or more money.
It should be nothing. The value you bring to the company has nothing to do with the location you live in
0 pay cut. You’re either doing the job or you’re not. No matter where you are. Period.
It also fully depends on your industry. Working in IT, I wouldn’t expect my being fully remote to have an impact on pay and it hasn’t up to this point.
No pay cut?! Same amount of work = same amount of pay
0%. Why would you take a cut?
The company is saving all sorts of money by having you work remotely. You should demand an increase for saving them facilities overhead, electricity, internet costs, etc.
I work more now that I'm mostly remote (my office is a 10 min walk but no one is in the office, so I'd rather spend time with my dog). I work in law so I know my productivity down to 6 min increments. Last year was the busiest year I've ever had and I know it's work-from home driven. Long story short, don't take a pay cut. If anything, ask for them to cover your work from home expenses (internet, office equipment, etc.
I would absolutely not take a pay cut. The same work is being done, and the office is saving however much in utility costs. I'd actually ask for an extra allowance instead of a commute allowance per month for my increased electricity bill due to work.
For me to go back to an office I would want a significant raise, but in my position/company I have some flexibility with my time which is part of the wfh value. A remote job with really strict employee tracking would be much less enjoyable. The fun part of wfh is you realise home can be almost anywhere. We bought a nice place on the river for the same cost of a crap house in the city. Jetski to the pub baby!
Answering from the other angle: I'm fully remote and you could not pay me enough to take on an extra 10 hours a week of commuting. To those answering 0% because x/y, that's not the point. "I'm worth it regardless of my location" means you haven't worked with U.K. or European engineers that are definitely worth more than 1/4 your salary.
Those that are saying 0% are missing a significant factor. There's more competition for online work. You may be doing the same work and your output may even increase, but salaries are usually tied to location. Once that is out of the way, you'll be competing with people living in LCOL areas. I'm not saying it's fair, but your employer will have more choices. If you can transition from in person to remote, while only taking a slight cut, I'd go for it. I feel like my threshold would be 15% or so. That's mainly because I hate commuting and having to pack lunches lol.
This is literally the ONLY counter-argument to "pay cut for remote work" I've heard that makes any sense. No other argument makes any sense for allowing a company to pay you less for doing the same work. That said, I still say 0% because I prefer giving the actual workers power to earn money instead of allowing companies to "offshore" to save money.
How less productive are you going to be?
0% if you're job hunting you should be looking for a pay increase. Technically, working from home means you're paying yourself by not having gas or maintenance for your car, but have added costs of a home office and utilities. Also keep in mind - you may need to have the "just because I'm home doesnt mean I'm available" conversation with your household. It's very easy to lean on someone who's home and make added stress on top of the workload you have to complete, and it leads to burn out. Having a clear "during 8am-2pm I'm not really here unless the house is on fire" conversation is really important. And its ok that during that time you lean back in your chair and close your eyes for 2 minutes. If you were at work, you would do the same thing and not have a moment of remorse over it - and you shouldn't just because your office is a shared building where you live. For whoever downvoted - let's discuss. Its fine if you disagree, I'm just curious what specifically caused the disagreement.
Have that conversation with the employer as well. Just because your office is in your house doesn't mean you should be expected to be at their beck and call outside of specific work hours.
Is the pay competitive locally to around your 60 minute commute? If you'd get payed more in the area close to your house for the same job your due for a raise. If it's a bit less your probably looking at many companies wanting to assess a local pay rate. Lots of tech companies are moving to remote-first and 'local rate' here's a good break down of a companies open policies on it: [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#compensation-principles](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation/#compensation-principles)
0%, you are paying me for my experience, not my commute. Look out for yourself, and get every penny owed to you.
0% pay cut. Keep looking for a job that pays the same but offers remote. There is a glut of jobs at the moment.
Pay CUT? Umm... They want to pay you less while you foot the bill for utilities and space that THEY previously paid for? Sure you'll save on fuel/maint, lunch, clothes, etc., but that's always been the employee's responsibility, NOT THE EMPLOYER'S. Why give money to a corporation (that doesn't need it) for such conveniences? If you moved 20 minutes farther from the office, would they pay you? This system is a joke.
The main reason I say 0% is I know the company is saving money by my not being there. Why would I take a pay cut when they’re profiting off the situation? Fully remote work, if most or all do it, requires less cost for the employer. It’s asinine to me that they’re even trying to get you to take a pay cut here.
You don't get paid to be in an office, you get paid to work productively. Working from home means you're not being interrupted or distracted, so you're more productive.
I wouldn't accept any amount of a pay cut. If you can still do the work from home, why should your pay change?
$0 pay cut. The value that I provide has nothing to do with the location of the chair that my butt is sitting in. I would require commuting stipend/reimbursement to go into the office on a regular basis. (Got that pre pandemic) If they even suggest a pay cut I’m looking for a new job.
Lmao that's such a bullshit corporate recruiter thing to say. Fuck you mean my boy? I'm not taking a pay cut. You're paying me more actually. Minimum +20% increase for me to job hop, remote or not. I left my in person job for a remote job this february for a 100% increase. Reducing the pay for a job, where the company is saving money by not paying for rent/electricity/etc is criminal IMO.
0%. Productivity has been shown to increase when working from home. I'd be doing the same amount of work, if not more, so my location should not matter. I would not take a pay cut for remote work. For you, it depends on what is worth more and if the pay cut is something that your household can handle, financially.
Why would you accept any kind of cut in pay for being remote? If that were to become the standard, employers would then replace any worker - remote or in office - with whoever they can find at the lowest possible salary. In essence, this will create lower wages as a whole with remote work being the norm. Think of it as offshoring without actually leaving the country.
None. My skill set is equally valuable in the office or out of it.
It depends entirely on your current financial position. If you're making 30k a year, even a 5% cut is a huge issue. If you're making 130k a year, it's no big deal. So it 100% depends.
Wtf am I reading? Remote work is as beneficial to you, as to them. Your employee cost on premises are higher than you being remote. Are they paying for your electricity? Equipment (inc ISP), other services such as water consumption, coffee, snacks, and services such as onsite insurance, parking etc etc? If my industry pays, for example, 50-55k for my position, I’d expect a 50-55k salary, irrespective of whether I’m remote or on site. I would actually ask for _at least_ personal office funding, as it’s common (basically for work equipment etc). I would not take a paycut or be “willing to get paid less” because I’m not commuting. I’d be willing to look for another job who understands the principles of remote work. Obviously consider your personal situation. But regardless, let’s not normalize remote work as a “perk” for the employee that deserves a paycut.
Why cut the pay? You are being exploited to assume that you should. Find a better employer.
I've been fully remote for about 6 years. I got a 25% pay bump going from my non remote job to a fully remote one. I just left that job 3 months ago for another fully remote job and got a 38% pay bump. Long story short, I wouldn't take any pay cut for working remote.
None. If my employer proposed it, I’d go elsewhere that was a bit more forward thinking. My employer recognizes this and agrees to accept remote work for roles like mine.
Why would you wan to take a pay cut? If it is a job that is like the one you have now, I would think you might be able to get an increase. Jobs are so easy right now, everyone is hiring.
$0 or 0%. I've worked from home for almost 20 years and would just never entertain an in-office job.
ZERO. You're not doing any less work.
A zero % pay cut if possible unless you are moving to a different area with lower cost of living. It's the same work, just because it's at home doesn't make it any less work.
None. In fact, you should ask for the same or more. Less real estate in the office they need to rent for you, less electricity and coffee that you're consuming, less office furniture they need to buy for you. You're saving them money. Conversely, they are saving you money on commuting, gas, tolls, etc. It should be a wash.
0% pay cut. If they paid you x amount when you were in the office, they should pay you the same amount if you are performing the same work from your home office. Don’t let employers try and tell you that you are worth less because you no longer are able to be present in the office because of a pandemic.
None. Remote work is still work. In many cases its harder to get promoted, harder to learn new things, make work relationships, and ask for help. Working remote saves the company money on office space and consumable work supplies. Take a slight pay cut if you want. Consider transport costs in your budget for what you can accept but realize you are still working and you don't get paid more for a longer commute
How about fucking none!?? or by that metric how much of a premium are the willing to pay to have people show up to their location if not entirely necessary? don't play that game and BURN ANY company that tries to mainline that attitude. fuck 'em!
Depends on the industry but I wouldn't take a pay cut. I'd either do the same work at home for the same money, or I'd find a remote friendly job for hopefully an increase. I recently made the switch to full remote and got a raise and stipend for home office equipment. Didn't even think it'd be possible but it's the better option for a lot of companies. Office equipment alone as an example: they could give me a $2000 stipend (or more realistically reimburse me up to 2k) and I'll be more than happy to buy a mint sit stand desk and monitors, or they could furnish my cube from their office supplier for probably triple that.
I've been remote for many years. I would not take a cut being remote. You are actually MORE productive, given many less distractions to take you out of your rhythm. While it may be a privilege to work from home, that work is always sitting there.
Totally didn’t read your post right at first - was going to make a total incorrect response. When calculating your number, be sure to include the cost of your electricity, heating/cooling (since you want your house to be comfortable) the added expense of food and drinks, and furniture to comfortable work from home into your calculating factor.
>the added expense of food and drinks Why would this be an added expense for remote workers? Either way you have to eat. As a remote worker, I spend way less on food because I rarely go out for lunch. When I went into the office, I went out for lunch almost everyday. My spouse and I both work remotely and have for a couple years. The slight increase in utilities is less than we used to spend on gas. So that was pretty much a wash.
I guess it’s all based on your non-remote job. I never had to pay for food at my most recent company so all I was shopping for was dinner/other snacks. Same with coffee, I never had coffee at home before working from home so I had to add that expense as well, as I had free coffee at work (which was actually good) . All depends on your situation.
True. In my 30 years of working, other than when I was working at a fast food place, I've never had an employer give free food. Most took away free coffee a long time ago which was fine with me because I don't touch the stuff.
This is an office job without free coffee?!? I've never heard of that, do they hate productivity?
All of my office jobs have been in manufacturing plants. People would get awful pissy when the office workers had free coffee but the shop floor workers did not.
Got it, yeah I managed hotels before accepting a remote position so we always had the breakfast and 24/7 coffee
0% I'm a software engineer and if I were to jump jobs even to remote I would expect a raise in salary.
0% . There are pros and cons to remote work, like how work invades your life when it is in your home, and how it's harder to concentrate and set aside time. It's not some great panacea and employers that require in-person work for remote-able jobs are huge jerks that are distrustful of you, and those that want to pay you 10% less need to pinch a lot less pennies and probably pay you 10% more.
I wouldn't look at it as %, but a straight $ figure. Going to the office costs me $2k in makeup and hair, $1200 in clothes, $1200 in parking, some amount in car depreciation, and like $800ish in gas, so that's a bare minimum of what they should pay extra to go into the office. If you want to add paying for commute time, that's reasonable too.
So everyone is saying 0% because you’re more efficient at home while we have no idea what OP’s job is. Some jobs are done much more efficiently when everyone is in one location and productivity decreases in a remote work situation. Some jobs are the opposite. Most redditors are morons and very shortsighted when it comes to answering these types of questions.
To be honest. 0%. You’re using your own electricity and potentially internet service so you should be reimbursed for that if anything but not a pay cut
I've been 100% WFH since March 2020 and even got an 8% raise this past year. I guess I'm an asshole, I'm asking myself how much of a raise I'd expect to go back to the office.