Also, your commute time is your commute time. Your employer does not control how you go to your work nor what you do while traveling. Your employer also doesn't choose your housing.
> Some employers offer company buses to/from certain cities, with wifi, and they count that as working hours.
Yes, effectively your company is choosing to send your worksite to (a place closer to) your home, so that you can start working sooner and stop working later.
Hasn't the last couple years demonstrated that employers do exactly that?
- You can work remote, but you must live within X miles of an office.
- You can work remote, but you must live in one of these states / countries.
- You can work remote N times per week.
- You can work flexible hours! Choose any 10 consecutive hours from this list of 13 hours!
- You can work from any one of our N offices.
- We're closing this office. You can continue with your duties if you relocate to one of our other locations.
- Here's a laptop and travel bag. Give us your cell # so you can work from anywhere at any time we need you.
edit: I can't be bothered to fix the formatting of this message.
I bet that if employers were legally mandated to pay their workers for the time they commute that those employers would suddenly appreciate the importance of effective public transit and increased urban density.
> I bet that if employers were legally mandated to pay their workers for the time they commute that those employers would suddenly appreciate the importance of effective public transit and increased urban density.
I bet that if employers were legally mandated to pay their workers for the time they commute, that those employers would suddenly see effective reserved private transit as a competitive advantage.
Sure, just like how coal miners used to spend their paychecks at the company store, and came home to pay rent at the company town.
In society, we recognize that one cannot always have a fully 'consensual' agreement between parties of wildly different levels of power. The only reason this hasn't been extended to corporations is because our political system serves them, not the common man.
Software engineers in historically well-comped roles in the 21st Century: "My commute is exactly like being a 19th Century coal miner in a company town."
It's good to appreciate the privileges that come with being a well-paid 21st Century knowledge worker.
It's also good to appreciate what even a well-paid 21st C knowledge worker has in common with other labor, including coal miners. Solidarity helps achieve goals.
No of course not. I just took issue with the idea presented that an agreement between a corporation and worker is always 'consensual and voluntary'.
It's not. It never has been. If I disagree with the terms of my employment, me being unemployed is a far higher burden than the company not having one extra worker. To act like the employee and employer are equals in negotiation is laughable.
Pretty much the same power balance and probably even worse wealth gap exists in such a socialistic european country like Sweden.
Unions do exist there, however they probably do more harm than good for software engineers because they effectively do not allow raising salaries if needed (any rise in every employment contract needs approval by the union).
"wage theft" in general includes things like forcing employees to clock out before the end of their work or clock in after the start of their work (e.g. "first clock out, then do this long procedure, then you can leave"). People "opt into" those jobs too, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid for all of their work. It's not unreasonable to draw a parallel to commuting, and when the alternative is work-from-home, expecting to get paid for commuting seems perfectly reasonable.
Sure but both parties can be wrong. Saying taxation is not theft and commute expenses for salaried workers is not wage theft seems non-contradictory to me.
The cost of living is typically a factor in the wages offered though, with people considering the job having the opportunity to decide what trade offs are available and which ones to make.
Like if 2 people get hired into the same role at the same time and one decides to rent a small apartment near the subway and the other decides to drive 45 miles to a suburb, why is the company on the hook to then compensate them differently?
I think your argument makes some sense when it comes to high-paid, salaried jobs. I don't think this is the reality for low-wage earners, however. There often exists a significant gap between their pay and a livable wage for the area immediately around their workplace.
I guess I maybe implied an argument, but I didn't directly make an argument, I put forth a scenario and asked a question.
You've not answered the question, instead pointing out that some people have wages that encourage a commute (at the moment we can probably at least assume that they are choosing that job over other choices, for reasons left unexplored as of yet).
I'm arguing that, within many major urban areas, wage levels in certain classes of work necessitate a commute. Read the section "A persistent spatial mismatch for American low-wage workers" in this report: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/expanding-supply-af...
Right, we generally have terrible housing policy, but I still don't see an articulated theory of how employers should compensate workers that make different choices.
Like, the low paying jobs that don't have nearby housing options probably do have to increase compensation to make up for the lack of housing options. Why is it good policy to force the employer to treat the commute as part of the work day vs working to improve the generally available housing and transport options?
People opt-in to jobs and the associated commutes completely voluntarily and consensually.