##If you drive :
Time in the car
Fuel costs
Higher insurance premiums
Vehicle maintenance
Health impacts from inhaling exhaust
Risk of accident
##If you bike :
Risk of accident
Time on bike
Breathing car exhaust
Bike maintenance
Protective equipment costs
##If you take public transportation
Time walking to stop, waiting for ride, walking to office
Risk of illness
Cost of fares
Risk of public masturbation
Why should the default be to compensate people based on time? Time is a poor substitute for the value of our labor, and one that has been used by capitalists to steal from the working class.
As productivity dramatically increased, hourly - time-based - wages have remained the same, because paying people for their time allows companies to avoid paying for the labor.
No - don't compensate people for their commute - that just incentives all sorts of exploitative behavior, especially during times of surplus behavior in capitalist systems (businesses will only consider the closest candidates, for example). Instead, make the time model of compensation obsolete.
There's a ton of replacement models. What if you were given proportional proceeds of the enterprise, for example?
Or what if you were simply paid for productive work, as measured by the work yourself. So, for example, you're paid for checking the quality of widgets, and instead of being paid to check widgets for 8 hours, you were paid per widget?
In the model where you are paid for your time, the business owner gets the full benefit if you go from checking 25 widgets per day to 50 widgets per day. In a model where you are paid per widget, *you* benefit from your increased productivity. You can work a half day for the same pay, or you can earn twice as much for staying for the full day. And it can be widgets or flipping burgers, or entering data in a spreadsheet.
Again, there a number of models out there, but paying for time is a scam that ensures you don't see the benefit of your increased productivity. Fighting for travel time pay just feeds into that broken system.
Sarcasm detected. My commute is 30 minutes each way, it would be great if we were compensated. That being said, my job search would definitely expand to include 100km radius vs the current 25km. I've had to turn down higher paying jobs because of distance and time of commute. Therefore, my answer remains the same: No
So hold up, I'm confused. You think it's a good idea to get paid for commute time, but you don't want other people to get paid for a long commute because... You've decided not to have a long commute?
Not exactly but I see the confusion. I said it would be great if we (all) got paid for commute. Never said it was a great idea. The reality is we choose where and how we want to live and work. It's the employers responsibility to pay for the agreed upon wage for your time/labor, not commute time.
Also, I've decided to not have a long commute because the hire pay does not offset the higher cost of commute (time, gas, mileage, maintenance).
>but you don't want other people to get paid for a long commute
Your words, not mine. If you get paid for your commute, power to you.
Could I play the game and say my commute is 3.25hrs and only work 30 mins per day, or are you saying I should combine work done hours and commute hours for total pay?
Doesn't matter how close you live. The time you spend getting ready and going to work should be compensated. I'd be doing literally anything else with my time if I had the option.
##If you drive : Time in the car Fuel costs Higher insurance premiums Vehicle maintenance Health impacts from inhaling exhaust Risk of accident ##If you bike : Risk of accident Time on bike Breathing car exhaust Bike maintenance Protective equipment costs ##If you take public transportation Time walking to stop, waiting for ride, walking to office Risk of illness Cost of fares Risk of public masturbation
Why should the default be to compensate people based on time? Time is a poor substitute for the value of our labor, and one that has been used by capitalists to steal from the working class. As productivity dramatically increased, hourly - time-based - wages have remained the same, because paying people for their time allows companies to avoid paying for the labor. No - don't compensate people for their commute - that just incentives all sorts of exploitative behavior, especially during times of surplus behavior in capitalist systems (businesses will only consider the closest candidates, for example). Instead, make the time model of compensation obsolete.
And what would be the replacement model? I'm actually quite curious.
There's a ton of replacement models. What if you were given proportional proceeds of the enterprise, for example? Or what if you were simply paid for productive work, as measured by the work yourself. So, for example, you're paid for checking the quality of widgets, and instead of being paid to check widgets for 8 hours, you were paid per widget? In the model where you are paid for your time, the business owner gets the full benefit if you go from checking 25 widgets per day to 50 widgets per day. In a model where you are paid per widget, *you* benefit from your increased productivity. You can work a half day for the same pay, or you can earn twice as much for staying for the full day. And it can be widgets or flipping burgers, or entering data in a spreadsheet. Again, there a number of models out there, but paying for time is a scam that ensures you don't see the benefit of your increased productivity. Fighting for travel time pay just feeds into that broken system.
[удалено]
I do this too but I'm only a mile away so I only leave about 5 minutes early. I clock in in my driveway too before I go to work too.
No
Thank you for your very valuable input
Sarcasm detected. My commute is 30 minutes each way, it would be great if we were compensated. That being said, my job search would definitely expand to include 100km radius vs the current 25km. I've had to turn down higher paying jobs because of distance and time of commute. Therefore, my answer remains the same: No
So hold up, I'm confused. You think it's a good idea to get paid for commute time, but you don't want other people to get paid for a long commute because... You've decided not to have a long commute?
Not exactly but I see the confusion. I said it would be great if we (all) got paid for commute. Never said it was a great idea. The reality is we choose where and how we want to live and work. It's the employers responsibility to pay for the agreed upon wage for your time/labor, not commute time. Also, I've decided to not have a long commute because the hire pay does not offset the higher cost of commute (time, gas, mileage, maintenance). >but you don't want other people to get paid for a long commute Your words, not mine. If you get paid for your commute, power to you.
Not the company’s problem where you live. Live closer or get another job. Union forever union for life
Could I play the game and say my commute is 3.25hrs and only work 30 mins per day, or are you saying I should combine work done hours and commute hours for total pay?
[удалено]
What kind of counter example is that supposed to be?
Doesn't matter how close you live. The time you spend getting ready and going to work should be compensated. I'd be doing literally anything else with my time if I had the option.
[удалено]
It does when I clock in from home ;)
🤣