The back-to-office backfire: Companies ending WFH perks lose out on top talent, who view flexible work as equivalent to an 8% raise

And your gas and car wear and tear

I couldn't believe how much more time it felt like I had in the day just cutting out the short work commute. You don't really realize the extent of how much time you waste going into work until it's gone. Even a short commute adds up quick when you include all the time to get ready in the morning and decompress at night. Plus all the extra maintenance on a daily driver and gas... Companies making people go into the office when it's not even necessary are just power hungry morons. That's all there is to it.

I did. I always knew.

Companies forcing people back to the office are a red flag for bad management, so I'm sure that's another reason they're seeing people leave.

My company realized that they can remove office space and use that money for more employees. What a fucking crazy concept.

Control is another thing. I can't tell you the amount of execs I've heard say "they're losing control of their company" or "I don't feel I have the same control over my people". It's crazy that they think that. What do they think the past 3 years have been when they've gotten record profits "oh, but our profits would be even better if we had people back in the office". Sadly no amount of data will override the entrepreneurial "it could always be more" what if that they throw out.

Can confirm. I quit my last job because they told us to come back to the office. In 2020, when COVID was still in full swing. And being remote was our company's entire business model.

People don't quit jobs, they quit managers.

I'm on my second probationary period entirely WFH, you shouldn't be required to work in the office unless the job physically requires it. Return to office is very often a big power grab by shitty management that don't know how to measure outcomes properly and instead prefer to micromanage. It is one of the biggest red flags.

I agree with almost everything hog say, and strongly think WFH is the future and worth the costs.

But I think physical security concerns are a fair one for some companies to hold for WFH, if they handle sensitive data where leaking is a concern.

I love those benefits. I would be extremely upset if I had to go back to the office. I'm more comfortable at home and I'm able to help my wife care for my son who is special needs. I save on gas and wear and tear on my car. The fact that I can listen to my music while just wearing shorts and a t-shirt was a game changer. IMO people in general suck and it's nice not to have to interact with them face to face on a daily basis. Some of my coworkers say they miss being in the office. I think they're nuts.

Also for people that can't WFH. I'm stuck in a traffic jam every day because of office workers that arbitrarily have to go to office.

7 hours a week and I didn't even have that bad of a drive.

$50 in gas. $50 in food minimum. That's happiness lost + costs increased.

I had 2 offers and one was not only a 15k bump vs the other, but the lower one was in the office 2 days a week. That was a pretty easy decision

I have not read the article yet but the headline saying “equivalent to an 8% raise” does not just have to mean some kind of soft value. I have to drive 50 km each way to my office. I am much more likely to eat out while at work ( or to hit a drive-thru on the way home ). Given the price of gas where I live, going to the office probably costs me $50 a day more than staying home. That is $50 after tax so you can simplistically double that in terms of salary that it consumes. If I have two jobs to choose from, from a purely financial stand-point, my current job and a fully remote one that pays me $100 less per day are equivalent in terms of the value they bring to my family.

Crap. I have been a “want to be in the office some of the time” guy but making me actually type this out has made me question that. I think I need to start shopping my CV.

The push has nothing to do with anything but getting money back into real estate. The majority of wealthy people's money is tied up in either oil or real estate. Billion dollar office buildings going unused is unexplainable to the oligarchy. And I don't use the word Oligarchy lightly. Combined with less oil being used moving people around, and you have the most powerful people in the western world yelling at business executives to get their workers back in the office or they'll be unable to barrow money from the 0.0001% small companies don't have a lot of debt from the Oligarchy so they don't have to listen to them. But if you know anything, wealthy people don't like it when the poors don't filter their money upwards so this fight is long from over.

I'm right there with you. It's just incompatible with how I want to live my life and the cost savings and time savings are unbelievable.

It might be the average. Some pepole like working from office beacuse they feel lonely at home or they want to separate their work space from their home space.

That's what I'm saying. Unless they talk about hybrid then yeah it's equivalent to 8%, but if we're talking full remote try more like 800% raise to get me back into an office. lol

You could triple my pay and I'd still probably say no.

I prefer to think of myself as top talent though

My parent company issued an RTO for everyone stating the typical corporate talking points (we did great during COVID but now we need to all come back within a month because we all work better together, blah, blah, blah). A half hour later an HR rep had to clarify it was meant to apply only for the parent company. I imagine the parent company is doing poorly and is trying to shake off some workers to cut down on its payroll. The only reason I can think of why they can't force my smaller company is because we're actually making them a lot of money so far.

I spend $400 a month on gas because of my long commute. Work from home is definitely a raise in my situation. Gas bill goes down to $100 a month. Works out directly to a 5% raise just in gas alone. Car insurance can be switched to leisure only saving money further. Gain an extra two hours a day which were unpaid before, so my workday is now only 8 hours instead of 10, that is another equivalent to 25% on an hourly rate indirectly.

Then there is all the other benefits such as just being happier and more productive.

I think it's basically saying companies need to pay more if they want people in-office. Which makes sense to me. If you want someone to spend time and money to commute they need to compensate for that. You can't ask someone who has been WFH to start coming in without some incentive or else you're basically cutting their pay.

That said, many people won't switch from WFH to in-office for any amount of money.

It could be considered a raise in terms of the amount of time you dedicate to work and the amount you get paid for it.

8 hour shift plus 1 hour commute both ways means you effectively dedicate 10 hours to your job. Replace the commute with a 30 second walk from your bed to your desk and you are now making more money for your time.

Mind you, I still agree that remote work should never be actively viewed as a raise or a perk. It should be the default for jobs that are compatible, which is a ton of them.

In terms of time returned, gas, wear & tear, etc., I would consider being told to go back to the office as a pay cut.

If I'm being asked to sit somewhere else, then I would definitely want to be compensated for that.

Well, financially it can be a raise

But emotionally, it has no equivalent and is like losing a toxic work element

I get paid about $200 (miles, after gas) to go to work so even any office work is extra money for me

I view it as a benefit, and I'm willing to make concessions on salary for additional or better benefits. Arguably you could have both, but I think unionization is required for that and I'm in a low unionization industry.

It is in the sense that commute time is not paid so compared to commuting jobs your effective hourly wage goes up. Also, commuting time is actually a negative wage.

Especially galling since if I were to move to a cheaper region my company would want to pay me less. It's "we only pay you for the value you bring" when cost of living goes up, but "we want some of those lifestyle savings" if I can get my costs down.

How convenient.

Many people also seem to forget that not everyone has a dedicated room or otherwise extra space to work in. Sure, if you live alone it doesn't matter but with other people living in the same apartment/house and perhaps them also working remotely, you suddenly need extra space just for good working conditions. Working space has a cost, be it in an office building or at employees' homes. Also good ergonomics means one needs a good desk and a great office chair which are not cheap to buy. Sure, I wouldn't necessarily demand more pay just for WFH, but I would never ever ever take a lower compensation in exchange either.

That said, I love working remotely from home and wouldn't go back to office. It's just that even if you save time and money in commutes, there are other costs in place that wouldn't otherwise necessarily exist.

Holy smokes, working from home is not a “raise.”

Sure it's not a raise, but that's not really the question. The question is the hidden cost that companies are imposing on themselves by demanding that employees come into an office. If employers are going to demand that out of their employees, they should do that with the expectation that employees will ask to be compensated or will leave.

Before the pandemic I was spending almost 2 hours a day on my commute to office, while being on site for 9 hours with an unpaid one hour lunch break. That’s 20% of my working hours.

I can use this time for entertainment and side projects

There’s not enough money in the world to pay for the time I save.

Besides, I save a lot on gas and food, and gain much more comfort (my house, my coffee, my chair, my screens, my toilets)

To be perfectly clear, if my company wants me back to office they will have to raise me more than 30%.

It's because they need the real estate money, they built a lot of buildings on long term leases which are now expiring. Also, who is going to rent a space for a restaurant when no one is using restaurants for lunch in business districts?

My boss wants me to leave him alone, lol. He trusts me to get my work done so he can focus on his own stuff.

jeez, using boomer at every sauces is so cringe. grow up, little fluid-anime keyboard warrior.

Honestly I wouldn't. I can't think of anything that would make me work in an office again. I can't do it.

My office had a window and a door. Wouldn't trade WFH to have them back.

Honestly yeah, having my own door really helps me survive my new job even though it can't be WFH.

The giant multinational corporation that owns the company that owns the company that owns the buildings is the same multinational corporation that owns the company that leases the office space.

How are they going to surreptitiously pull money out of the country otherwise?

Government officials either owned or had friends own office buildings and it made monetary sense for them to force workers back to the offices.

Even that is sunk-cost fallacy. If they own the buildings, that means they're already paid for. The only money they lose is theoretical and non-existent.

Edit: In fact, it costs them more money as you have to pay for utilities, maintenance, overhead, etc. when you fill a big building with people 5 days a week.

Dude chill, that's not how you negotiate

Your suppose to say it's a %8 paycut and work your way to 0% change in pay, but still he to work from home

Shhhhhhhh

300 hours of sick leave? I think I feel a fever coming on.

"Yeah, boss. Weird thing... There's a thunderstorm in my house, gonna take me about 41 hours to figure this out."

Yeah, just keep in mind that in some countries, paying out vacation hours results in a large portion of that sum being paid to the tax-man. In the Netherlands that's about 40% (from the top of my head).

The upside to these empty buidings is they can - and should be - transitioned to housing. It's just the rich companies who own the buildings don't want to have to invest any money in that.

Gov'ts should force them to, but that won't happen either. :/

For double the salary, I'd need to think long and hard about it tbh.

Lol, my family can't afford to live on $50k a year. So that's a hard no for me.

You do you, there's no way I'd take a $50k pay cut under any circumstance

My job requires me to go in bc I physically fix machines, so wouldn't be able to complete my tasks from home. I've convinced myself I like it because it gives me a definitive separation between work and home. But I've never had a WFH job and would probably end up liking that a lot more tbh

I've suggested to my work that if they really want people back in the office full time, they should offer those that return a 4-day work week as a meaningful incentive to compensate for the lost time and money to commuting. Still waiting for them to implement that one...

I'd say probably a four day work week. I mean 4x8, not 4x10.

A shorter than 40 hour work week would be the biggest draw.

According to a study conducted by Zippia.com (1,000 full-time workers), the average worker is only productive for a little over 4 hours per day, with productivity capping out at 6 hours. This article on studyfinds.org references another 2,000 employee study done by OnePoll (no link given) that says "A new survey finds office workers are at their most productive by 10:22 a.m. each morning — but start to slump by 1:27 p.m."

Letting employees who commute to the office every day work 30 hours per week instead of 40 would be a HUGE draw for a lot of people. Less traffic on the commute, less "fluff" time where you're not doing anything, time to take care of personal errands during the week while businesses are still open, and I'm sure other benefits.

it wouldn't cover the opportunity cost of 3-4 hours a day for me, and while commuting direct costs are about 4% of my wage, that means a 4% incentive to lose 15-20 hours a week. absolutely not enough for me and to be honest I would consider it a disrespectful insult if my employer tried to justify that

That's an extra 500/mo for me.

Factoring in needing to (re)buy office clothes/makeup/hair products, the extra time to get ready every day, commute with the time and money costs, as well as increased food costs?

Hard pass. That "extra" money is only going to pay for those extra costs.

Let's look from a time perspective. Being conservative in estimating a typical commute (for my area) and getting ready time, that's an extra 1.5 hours to my day. 500 a month over that extra 30 hours a week is 16/hr. Not terrible, but not worth it to me. I'm not going to trade 3 hours of my off work time for $48.

Now, if you're willing to trade that time for that cost, I'll def find 3 hours of chores around my place to hire you for!

Why should they earn less than somebody who is in-office? A remote employee costs less in physical resources like office space, heating and cooling, electricity and internet.

Ultimately it's the end result that matters, not where it's done.