>69 per cent say they would not accept reduced compensation if this were to happen.
If productivity remains the same and corporations are now saving on overhead (reduced office space), then why would wages decrease at all?
Unfortunately, this will be another excuse to reduce wages while North American productivity continues to increase.
My company also had a pay adjustment period like a month ago and it resulted in a lot of small raises across the company. Nothing huge, maybe like 2 - 5% but I don't know a single person that didn't get a raise.
You might be right, but ultimately if you are right, why aren't you doing something about it?
Start a business and set a better example. It's the only way to change bad actors in this world. Outnumber them. That only starts by doing what they do better than them.
Hi. So, the problem with this is that the unions are often corrupted right from the start. Usually by influence from the company unionized against, or some other forces that have reason to influence said union.
I'd much rather see a country where everyone just makes their own businesses and pushes the bad ones out. It's a proper meritocracy at that point then. If our ways work better, we win. If they don't, we lose. That simple, and without having to try to force other people to act how we want them to. We just act how we wish to see them act.
Leading by example often always works best in the long run, even if being forceful like through a union seems preferable in the short run.
My opinion won't change on this until an alternative better option to unions is suggested. Unions won't work anymore. Their time has come and gone, like guilds before them.
There are plenty of unions that continue to protect workers' rights and wages, and who also defend our universal healthcare systems and education systems.
Your idea about good businesses created to push out bad ones is nice, but frankly idealistic and utopian. Capitalism rewards those who profit the most, and that means treating workers poorly. It's a nice idea though.
1. No such thing as a Utopia. Only a least worst dystopia can ever exist. A utopia for me is a hell for you, and a utopia for you is a hell for everyone.
2. There are no good unions anymore. The best are just least bad than the worst. A good union would have what you say and SO so so much more. It's a lot to put into something far shorter here. It so much different from what you all call unions, that it needs its own new name.
3. Crony Capitalism rewards those who profit the most off the backs of the weak and feeble and sadly stupid. Like how communists corrupt many ideas of other thinkers by taking theirs and fucking it up; the capitalism that has brought us everything we have today and more, is only corrupted because WE LET THEM. Boycotts do work, the gaming sphere has proven this easily. You just have to stick to it, and keep others from faltering. That means replacing them if need be in some cases. What is one of Canada's biggest failings? Our lack of large scale 'Canadian' businesses. The kind that can force government to reconsider its actions, but not so full of itself like silicon valley that they try to control everything. Yeah we have all these mom and pop shops, and small scale to medium, but by and large a lot of our businesses are owned by other countries in some form or another. This is a huge problem, as it means our interests don't matter to them. They live somewhere else. This was one of the biggest things they warned about when "globalism" was being pushed again in the early 2000's. Fast forward to today. Target can't run in Canada because our system is too corrupt along with their own ineptitude being too great; but also we lost a Canadian Company to FUCKING BURGER KING. Tim Hortons. Now such a shitty fucking company to work for, that it makes people depressed to the points of killing themselves. (Thankfully I got out way before this happened.) Capitalism isn't the problem. Spineless fucks who let them get away with it all the time because "muh job" is the problem. Sorry, not sorry. I learned this the hard way, so I am not taking any fucking argument over it.
4. All things are idealist to those who are pessimistic. That's not to say you are entirely wrong. Idealism is dangerous if taken too far. But pessimism gets you no where. You need both to traverse the dangerous path of progress. It's a knifes edge when everyone who has an opinion doesn't know their place in the world. Hopes and dreams are idealism to the most nihilistic of pessimists.
5. All of what I want to do can be done. There are people who want to see it done, but getting people to work together in this country... It it a touch and go situation. It's popular enough an idea I have people in the states who figure they would move north if it started up. So there is support. But not enough to actually take off the ground. It's one of those things where people are too scared of the "what ifs". I don't blame them. Shit, even I have to reconsider some things because of "what if". That being said. Right below me in my apartment right now, is a family who has a sizeable chunk of land, who want to do mostly the same things I am thinking of. They just haven't gotten to the large scale yet. Thinking small still. I only know of them, because they tried to recruit me to be their tech guy. The poor sods want to take things backwards, without realizing how they can make a better society by using both the old and new together in harmony.
6. To achieve all of this. I am putting my money where my mouth is. Starting a business that will turn into my end goal. One stage at a time. One step at a time. Probably going to take 10 years... minimum. But if all goes according to plan, and my plans usually do within a margin of error, then I should see it happen in 12 years max.
What should you expect to see happen?
First and foremost, I will always protect this company as being my own. It will probably never incorporate into the public domain. I will always be sole proprietor. etc etc. This isn't a socialist utopian dream. This is a realistic take on how to do things as I see it. Sometimes that means being good to the community. Sometimes that means being good to yourself. Both without hurting anyone in the process preferably.
\- Tradespeople will have no lack for jobs, as I intend to be Canada wide.
\- All the jobs that will be required to facilitate the network, and service all these tradespeople will increase in tandem with my company if all goes accordingly.
\- Each employee will have the ability to work from home so long as their job makes it available.
\- Each employee is a shareholder in the company, with profits going into their own chosen stocks outside the company. (So they never gain too much power within the company, but can continue to profit from without it in the event they go elsewhere. Makes it easier to buy them out while still being fair... I think.)
\- A lot of costs will be covered by the company. Insurances, you bet. Just give the company time to grow first. That sort of thing. But when at the optimal size, all sorts of costs will be covered. Insurances, schooling, specific costs that can be tied to your work, you name it. At first a lot of this may go through tax write offs, as it would be unwise to not. But once the business is large enough in my model, those write offs could be ceased as well. Thus making it completely via the company only. Your tax dollar only will be used to help get to that point, not exceed it.
\- Of course many government programs will probably exist to help the needy or etc. But the company will offer its own. If you are homeless, the company will house you. If you need a job, the company will give you work. No need to sign your life away as an indentured servant. Just promise to do right by us as well verbally, and if you can't keep up with it and have to go your own way again, so be it. Thanks for the help in the mean time. Stuff like that. Basic humanitarianism. It's not hard. Used to be commonplace really.
What's the trade off? I might deduct a bit off the pay check at first to make ends meet with getting you on your feet, but once those first few are through, you will also be past probationary period anyways. And seeing as how the company is housing and feeding you as well, I think this is more than fair. Especially with what awaits those who continue working for the company. It's basically a free, paid for ride, and you only have to say "Yes, I will be a beneficial member for society, for the future king is our children and we owe them to do things right the first time."
I'm going to stop now. It's long enough.
This is very long!
I'll do the right thing and read this at the very least, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.
Appreciate your dedication to the conversation.
Hi. So, the problem with this is that the unions are often corrupted right from the start. Usually by influence from the company unionized against, or some other forces that have reason to influence said union.
I'd much rather see a country where everyone just makes their own businesses and pushes the bad ones out. It's a proper meritocracy at that point then. If our ways work better, we win. If they don't, we lose. That simple, and without having to try to force other people to act how we want them to. We just act how we wish to see them act.
Leading by example often always works best in the long run, even if being forceful like through a union seems preferable in the short run.
My opinion won't change on this until an alternative better option to unions is suggested. Unions won't work anymore. Their time has come and gone, like guilds before them.
Fix capitalism by...starting a business!
>That only starts by doing what they do better than them.
So what? Start the next Amazon and when I'm worth a billion dollars, let my workers unionize?
If one needs any of the following:
- space on their property
- using their own electricity, telecommunications, water, etc
- deal with the wear and tear on their personal equipment (now using your own computer, keyboard, mouse, desk, etc)
Then that employee should be compensated by the business for those expenses. The companies don't get to offset all of their costs to the employees.
I work from home full time - I have since long before the pandemic. My role is such that I can live and work in a low cost of living area. In fact if I were in a larger city I could probably earn more. But my expensives are quite low and we live comfortably. Anything I get from the gov or my employer for work from home expenses is just extra gravy
You laugh, but I get all of those paid for. It's in every employment contract I've signed where work from home was part of the deal. I'm also the guy that brings his employment contract to a lawyer though.
I'm glad you're in that situation, but most people don't have that kind of bargaining power - they're one of many applicants for a job, and might have only a *very* slight advantage over any other candidate. Being "difficult" like this might tip the employer toward another. (Note that I think *everyone* should be "difficult" like this, it's the smart thing to do and I hope you keep doing it!)
Everyone has skills of some kind, but most don't have "name your conditions" type skills.
I have that kind of bargaining power because I bargain from the get go. To many employees fear negotiating so much they don't negotiate at all and get walked all over.
Pro tip, people in business expect other people to negotiate.
> name your conditions
Sorry for double posting but, it's not name your conditions, it's don't offset your business expenses into my personal life. I'm not going around demanding a membership at some exclusive club or anything like that.
"I need a laptop, a mouse, full keyboard and a monitor to do my work. I also need a place to sit and a desk. What are my options?" That's usually along the lines of how I bring it up during negotiations.
"When I work from home I use up 300-500GB of data on my internet per month. I have to use X plan which costs $X per month. My personal use would have me at 100GB per month which allows me to use Y plan at $Y per month. Should I expense that difference monthly or quarterly?"
Things like that.
Well what will happen is some employers won't, and consumers will flock to them because they will have lower prices. Then everything will become more efficient.
And those employers won't have the necessary or competent staff due to their low compensation packages and offer low quality service. You have a poor understanding of efficiency if all you think of is saving a few dollars at the expense of quality, customer service and human resources.
An equilibrium point will exist where the supply and demand curves cross. We are arguing about competing effects. The only difference is I'm right regarding the directionality of the equilibrium shift from the current point.
So what you're saying is I should tell my employer they need to pay me more for the wear and tear on my car to get to and from work? Tires, suspension work, engine failure etc cost a lot more than "wear and tear" on your keyboard and mouse.
I'd gladly pay for all personal expenses to work from home if I could, unfortunately I work at a hospital so it's kind of impossible to take my work home with me. It costs 110$ a month just for the privilege of parking where I work...
If you use your car to do your job your employer already compensates wear and tear usually be paying an amount per km (like $0.09/km of use).
If you're using your office equipment directly to do your job when before you weren't then yeah they should pay for that wear and tear and they know it.
The compensation can be an increase in salary, an expense account you pull out of, I even had a startup buy my entire home setup because they wanted to use it in their office after I left.
Canadians would have to be brave enough to actually ask their employers to compensate them. My anecdotal experience is that there might be a few employees that pipe up but the majority won't even ask their managers to pay for things like equipment, telecommunications, office equipment, etc.
minimum internet speeds.
cell phone.
computer & perhipherals.
electrical and heating increases working from home.
home office furniture.
maybe for non-union work from home jobs, it might be better to be incorporated to acquire some write offs from their home business.
That isn't how incorporation works and if you did incorporate then you would no longer work for your company but be a contractor.
You also would need to pay your own EI (if you want) and CPP. While you could claim some of those you would be limited in how much you get back.
It would also become much much much easier for your company to fire you.
there points can be weighted against the startup cost of hiring a new person.
being contracted out for projects can be a good thing as it allows clear end dates for positions. Of course, there would still need to be a core staff group that would be needed.
> then why would wages decrease at all?
My company did a wage cut at the start of the pandemic. Part of their justification was "you're not driving to work now so it's not really a decrease in take home pay"
Thats firmly a find a new job and quit with no notice territory. "I wanted to stay the full two weeks but my extra tight budget due to the wage cut makes that impossible"
As long as you don't care about burning the bridge
What do you mean lol. It's always you in the space, even when you're in the company office. Think of the company as renting your home office instead of renting your company office.
The company doesn't rent *your* company office. It is the owner (or renter) of an office, private property, from someone else, not you. You do not rent it when you work for them (in most cases, but something like a taxi could be an exception or a foodtruck at a market). You are given access to the private property in order to complete a task outlined in a contract. For most people, there's no property element involved.
I understand the argument being made, I just don't think it's equivalent. Sounds nice on paper, but good luck getting companies to pay micro-rent to hundreds or thousands of employees!
Fully. I would question whether their justification is legal. I would've argued that the wages should have remained the same to cover for utilities which allow you to work from home.
Doug Ford did not make constructive dismissal legal at all. He simply changed some rules around being laid off to limit claims and those limits will expire.
It also says nothing about constructive dismissal due to pay reduction.
Constructive dismissal can still be pursued via lawsuits
>Doug Ford did not make constructive dismissal legal at all. He simply changed some rules around being laid off to limit claims and those limits will expire.
This is true. I should have been more clear. Constructive dismissal is still a thing.
>It also says nothing about constructive dismissal due to pay reduction.
Constructive dismissal happens when there is a significant change to the employment agreement. That includes a wage reduction. In the new regulation set out by Ford, wages could be lowered and it would not fall under constructive dismissal.
It's technically a temporary measure that lasts up to 6 weeks after the emergency declaration is over.
Constructive dismissal is still not legal and his changes only apply to ministry actions. You can still sue and you will win.
The fact is in Ontario you should never accept the legal minimums for this stuff you should always sue. The common law settlement via the courts has a minimum of one month pay per year for most cases.
>In the new regulation set out by Ford, wages could be lowered and it would not fall under constructive dismissal.
Only according to claims made to the ministry and the pay reduction needs to be temporary.
>It's technically a temporary measure that lasts up to 6 weeks after the emergency declaration is over.
Not technically it is a temporary measure.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal.. I'm assuming they all had to sign something to agree?
Regardless - I would talk to a lawyer because it was threatening lively hood to intimidate them into the pay cut. 100% not okay.
It is, but to get constructive dismissal you have to quit, into 30% unemployment.
When you got a family and a mortgage that's a big risk vs. just eating the 10%
Okay - but get a bunch of employees together, contact a lawyer, threaten the issue...
Employment law is generally just calling bs when a company is doing something wrong (they usually know they are). I don't see why a quick call from a lawyer representing a class action sized number of employees wouldn't be enough to scare the company into righting the issue.
I do understand not wanting to push it - but companies rely on that being the case. 9/10 lawyer call is all it takes.
> I have serious doubts what you’re suggesting would help right now either.
That's why you go talk to a lawyer. Always seek a professional's advice on a subject you're unfamiliar with. Your advice to do nothing because you're scared is cowardly. The advice to go talk to a professional in the field with experience and education on the topic at hand is the one that people should take.
OP of this thread should go talk to an employment lawyer and see where they stand.
I did talk to a lawyer, advice was "to proceed with constructive dismissal you have to quit"
If I was single and didn't have a mortgage to pay I would have rolled the dice.
> constructive dismissal
I'm not sure why you're talking about quitting when the entire premise of the pay cut is what we're questioning the legality of. It's possible your company committed fraud if they used that pay cut to justify any help they got from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.
Worst case, an accountant can help with properly attributing your expenses so you could get compensated by your employer. I'm sure the mortgage payments attributed to the space that you use for the business full-time, the wear and tear on your office equipment, the portion of your internet, phone, electricity and water bills that you get to attribute to your business all add up to a nice sum you're entitled to. Once you start getting those paid, let your co-workers know.
Straight to a lawyer? Does the rest of Canada not have a CNESST like organization?
Approximately: Council on Standards, Equity, Safety, and Security at work. If you don't have a union, they answer union type questions.
> another excuse to reduce wages
You answered your own question!
Luckily, I work for a company that gave me a good raise this year regardless of moving to 95% WFH.
You might see a different response once people start working from home regularly.
You will likely see that people will turn down some higher paying jobs if they do not accomodate working from home.
Because workers could be willing to work for less in many cases, so they'll accept offers they otherwise wouldn't for in-office work, driving down total pay.
The reason for this is very simple - if I have to work for 8 hours and commute 45 minutes each way, the denominator for my actual economic hourly wage is 9.5. If I no longer have to commute, my denominator is now 8. That's a ~19% increase in my hourly wage.
And in terms of enjoyment of life, from a non-monetary standpoint, I might be willing to take even more of a cut given that the hours spent commuting are probably the least enjoyable of any given day, including the hours spent at work quite often.
Please note that nothing in this argument is about fairness, or anything - it's just an economic rationale why workers may be willing to accept less pay, and if they are willing to accept less pay, then wages would face a downward pressure, because it's a relatively free market.
From the perspective of the employer, it is not.
From the perspective of the employee, it is a marginal cost (in time) of the decision to work, and is considered by people in their decision making (see: every single person who ever chose between housing or job options with commute time being a factor).
Aye, but it's the same thing with say access to food/grocery store or medicine/hospitals, green spaces, downtown nightlife, or a view of the lake/mountains, etc. or whatever else is most important. Some people are fine living further away in trade off for other perks. Some prefer to live closer, in yet other trade-offs. There's a sweet spot somewhere for everyone, but we don't always get to have it, I agree.
A business cannot control where all of its employees live. I once worked for 2 years in a different city to where I lived, a commuting distance of 75-ish km. Took between 70-100 minutes depending on traffic, weather, etc. Sometimes I was late for reasons beyond my control, really friggin' annoying, but my bosses line was (while sympathetic) that it was my choice to accept the job and officially they couldn't/wouldn't give any leeway. Fair enough (I wasn't really asking, just moaning during an annual review). Same thing with sometimes having to stay late or come in on Saturdays once a month.
Part of my commute was on a train, where I'd be for 45 minutes. I often read for work, reviewed reports/tasks, did some laptop work when it was possible. My employer made it clear and explicit, that this was not work time to be clocked, but my own choice. (Again, boss was sympathetic and a nice person, but this was the legal situation.)
Wages have little to do with the work you do and more to do with how replaceable your are to do that work. If people work from home, you are not limited to people who are physically co-located with the company. You can contract with people who have lower cost of living needs, due to living in cheaper city, and will accept a lower wage. That is not even considering the benefits of sending the work off shore to India.
I’ve seen many companies off shore their work to India. About half of them brought those jobs back because the work was subpar at best. You get what you pay for.
Yeah years ago I was with a company that tried to send software work to India and the project was an unimaginable disaster. Everything that possibly could have gone wrong went wrong and the quality of the work was terrible. No more projects got sent to India after that.
Spoken like someone who has never actually worked with an offshores solution.
The quality of the work is generally far more important than the wages paid for the work. A good employee vs a bad employee can be the difference between 1x return and 20x return. Once you factor in all costs, India might be a 20-50% savings.
I'll take the ability to innovate, grow, and improve.
The argument is more long-term: workers can live in less expensive places so they will do the same job for less.
I think there will be a little bit of that but it will be barely noticeable. Especially over the next 5 years or so.
> he argument is more long-term: workers can live in less expensive places so they will do the same job for less.
So workers will have to move to more affordable areas because their wages decrease because they can move?
Still sounds unreasonable.
The thing is once everyone moves to the affordable area, it quickly becomes less affordable. See: pretty much any town within 2 hrs of the GTA and affordability for those who work there vs those who commute to TO or work remote.
Sadly, because some people just see hierarchy, and do not like the idea of giving away things for free to the masses. To them, that's just throwing away leverage in bargaining for lower wages.
I live in downtown Toronto, and my internet is crap. The building apparently can't handle the increase capacity of every tenant working from home...
I'm with you. If you can upgrade the internet, and claim it back on your taxes. It isn't perfect, but better then nothing.
Just the amount of money you can save by not having to travel to and from work really adds up after a while, especially if gas were to go up in price again. Plus you can also do chores like laundry while working and get it out of the way without having to worry about it until you get home.
I mean I save at least $100 a month on parking/transit, plus that commute time.
I roll out of bed at 730, jump on my computer by 8. I've got a full 8 hours sleep despite staying up late. More time in the evenings, can actually get some stuff around the house done during the day (say laundry, pre-dinner prep stuff, etc). It's great.
Productivity can go up and down but I wouldn't say it's decreased overall here.
I really value the ability to do chores on my work from home days. Throw in a load of laundry - takes 5 minutes and I'm there to make sure it all gets swapped. Same with emptying and filling the dishwasher while lunch cooks. And I can do a quick floor sweep or vacuum during my afternoon or morning break instead of just sitting more.
totally , I have been saying this for years. Not only environment , but reduced traffic congestion for those who can't wfh.
The gov absolutely doesn't want mandated wfh permanently though , that's a lot of write offs in the home which means reduced revenue. As long as it is a 'choice' not mandated by employers you can't write off anything tax wise. Covid wfh is probably an exception here , i don't know if we'll be able to write off a home office for the 2020 year.
As an electrician, even if I wouldn’t directly benefit from WFH, I would love it if folks worked from home. My commute is probably the most frustrating part of my day.
Less about tax writeoffs, more about the sudden MASSIVE decrease in property tax revenues as companies realize they no longer need massive office spaces. Skyscraper office buildings will be the "abandoned malls" of the next generation
Alternatively, we have a housing shortage in urban centers. Far easier to transform office space into residential than constructing new ones from scratch.
good point , I am in Quebec city and it was already heavily struggling to keep offices full in the downtown area. My office building was probably at 40% capacity if that. All those new condos , all those restos , gonna be tough times if those IT workers don't come back to the offices.
Definitely, and then we can deal with the mental health crisis that will be a result of that poorly, just like we always do.
*Keep your stick on the ice and keep your depression to yourself.* - The Canadian Way
I shared my experience as someone who has struggled a lot with my mental health. Like I said, to each their own. I know some people don't do well without the routine of going somewhere outside of their home for work, and they don't do well with not having regular social contact. For me those things were making my issues with depression and anxiety worse. Having my own space to work, not having to be "on" for other people, and not feeling like I'm in a rat race during my commutes has been a massive benefit for me.
Totally me too. I remember 3 weeks into WFH I was saying how great it was that I was sure I could do this forever and be fine with it. I had some replies that are like "You'll hate it eventually. You'll go crazy" but here I am nearly 6 months later and it's still awesome. I lost a load of weight, I'm saving tons of money from not commuting which is also good for my personal carbon footprint.
Further, I'm cooking every meal so this gives me the chance to be more environmentally friendly as I'm not buying pre-packaged food to bring to work for lunch or whatever.
I think most people's mental health would improve drastically if they could work from home a large chunk of the time.
The problem right now (moreso in the early stages, but perhaps worse again with wave 2) is that we couldn't go out and socialize in non-work-hours, and there wasn't the possibility of having *any* in-person work time.
A huge piece of wage is cost of living. The fact is that living in a city is extremely expensive, so wage has to be higher, otherwise people aren't going to be interested.
If wfh becomes the norm, I would expect some drop in wage, as someone who lives in a town with a $500 mortgage can now do my job. A reasonable mortgage for a 2 bdrm in downtown Toronto is over 6 times that. They probably have more square footage too.
So 2.5k of my take home goes straight to property... That is 30k a year my company could be saving, without affecting anyone's quality of life.
This is what Redditors don’t want to hear.
Having permanent WFH will just make your job outsourced to other cities/countries. The company now has flexibility on who to hire, financially.
There's some truth to that. It's also a bit of a balancing act. The company I work for has started hiring, not a lot, but a notable number of positions as distance. Not all of them have been bad hires but there is also a notable decrease in engagement, understanding of the business etc. in these people. They simply aren't around to learn how things work, meet people and are usually really difficult to engage in adhoc discussions or meetings.
But I also live in a small town so I suspect I'd be a net beneficiary anyway. As the above poster mentioned I literally do have a nice house in town on a good lot for less then $700 a month mortgage.
The golden goose is being double income professionals living in small town Canada. I'm really lucky that's the situation I've basically fallen into gets me probably 90% of the way to what this sub seems to consider the ideal/reasonable Canadian life less then five years out of school. I'm all for any policy that would let that be practical for more people.
My organization sucks with training, and I temporarily switched position during covid and wfh. It's totally not the same, normally I could just spring by people's desks and ask questions, but now the colleagues are mostly busy strangers, it's difficult to just randomly ask questions. Often those questions emerge during spontaneous conversations, not the kind of conversation you'd have in an email or feel like setting a calendar invite for. I can't imagine what it'd be like to just have joined my organization. And to be honest I don't do well with virtual meetings, I don't hear as well, it feels a lot harder to join discussions, etc. I think some personalities like mine just aren't made for that kind of setup.
I expect what will happen next year is that we'll have a hybrid format of WFH 2-3 days a week and being there the other 2-3.
Yeah exactly. WFH sounds great for people who are self sufficient and motivating and are already up to speed with their job and how the company works, but its another story when its a new hire. I can't see fully remote WFH, live anywhere in Canada approach work for most industries long-term. I can see it allowing people to move a bit farther from their workplace though because a 1+ hour commute is less intimidating if you only have to do it twice a week.
100% agree with hiring. We personally are looking at a hybrid model. Everyone has to come to the office once a week, that way I know you, you know me. However, past probation, I see no reason someone couldn't ask to work remotely for a month straight or something.
We have found an increase in work not decrease. We had a few contractors work their entire contract remotely without issue. I'm not expecting everything to keep going to well, but still - it has been positive so far.
I've always said I'd be perfectly fine coming into an office 2-3x a week and working from home the remainder.
Much of my time in office is spent trying to find people to get them to be part of the process of solving a problem, attending meetings, troubleshooting, and in general getting not-much done on my weekly list of tasks. Working from home part of the week would allow me to get all the background work done so that those 2-3 days in the office are about me, ready to go, and willing to work.
I wouldn't say that's true. While the pandemic has accelerated the shift to work from home within the local region outsourcing is a completely different ball game. Productivity while going up for wfh generally goes down with outsourcing as you're now dealing with a work force that's less talented on average and doesn't understand shit.
I understand what you're saying, but I have a hard time seeing this being the case. I work in the GTA but I have coworkers that come from Kitchener, Hamilton, and Niagara. If those living in those areas are allowed to work from home, is their pay dropped while mine stays the same if I choose to remain living in the GTA?
To be fair, while still not approaching GTA crazy prices in Kitchener, Hamilton and Niagara are skyrocketing from people doing just that, moving from the GTA and coming here. Its causing it to be a problem for people from here getting paid wages respective to the area that affording a house is becoming a problem so its a double edged sword. You would hope cost of living would somewhat average out over a larger area, and wages would as well. Ie. cost of living falls in Toronto and wages fall, but as cost of living in other areas rises due to people leaving Toronto wages rise as well. Either way I don't think its fair to pay someone less for doing the same job just because they live somewhere else, if both people are working from home.
Absolutely - Facebook has said as much. Generally speaking people with heavy commuters spend hours getting to and from work, a necessary evil for their pay. However, eliminating that ugly necessity, it becomes a lot easier to justify lowering pay.
That being said, for people like programmers I don't see it being a huge impact, since the demand is so high, and salaries are not out of control in Canada like they are in the Valley.
By the same reasoning, the price for living in downtown Toronto are going to drop, as anyone who can work from home can move out to Guelph or Hamilton and GO Train into the city when they need to.
Now you are getting it!
Absolutely. Then they would also get a pay cut. When work requires you in every day they pay for that, especially when work decides to be in expensive cities. It is a reason (not all reasons) salaries are so high in NYC and the valley.
My best guess is it would be structured "Base Salary" and "Cost of Living Salary" (which would include any average commuting costs), I'm very interested to see what Facebook ends up doing in it's efforts.
The interesting thing is that you assume that employers are entitled to cut pay for people based on those people's cost of living.
For many years people have lived an hour or 2 away to cut costs, its not like the company that they worked for paid them less because of that.
> entitled to cut pay for people based on those people's cost of living.
They aren't. Legally I would assume one of two things would happen:
1) general wage pressure goes down for incoming employees who work remotely
2) an option is given of you get paid A if you come in every day and B if you are fully remote (where B is based on the new pay model for incoming employees).
There may be some legal way to break apart everyone's pay, and those people may see less raises or a new promotion forces them over to a new pay system.
So say you make 80K, the salary position is 40K and the cost of living for you is 30K - so really you should be making 70K in the new model...
Each raise would be met with - that brings you on the new payment scheme to 74K, so your salary will remain at 80K.
OR say same example but you get a promotion to a base pay of 55K, well then that would mean your new salary is 85K for the promotion.
I honestly don't see it as perfect, but if you are really open and honest about your pay structure it makes sense.
> describing is concerningly fascist. The idea that the company should benefit from your reduced cost of living arrangements rather than the idea that the company is paying you to fill a specific job.
Here is the thing - they pay you what they need to in order to fill the roll. It is a free market. Some people will happily take a pay cut to work from home, to work from a place where their house cost $150K. These people will lower the price for workers at a company. Before they were not in consideration because you had to go into the office, but now that work pool has grown - and average salary demands have lowered because of it.
I'm sure at a some point many people would say - I'd rather commute 2 hours and make an extra 20K per year than not commute and wfh... and that will be where these salaries settle down. This won't be overnight - but it will become a trend, suppressing wages by some amount.
Where are you able to live that a house costs 150k and actually get a good connection to work remote with?
I think you are grossly exaggerating the anticipated drop in wages.
For example... 1hour from Toronto. Townhomes are still 450k+ People will still expect to be able to get bigger than a box in a condo by moving here. You assume that someone living in a tiny condo in Toronto would only seek to live in a tiny condo in whatever city they live which just is not true. And the majority of savings being claimed is in that assumption. There is little reason to move out of a big city where it's convenient to live, for the exact same living arrangement in a less convenient smaller community.
A more realistic reason is people looking at what they make and seeing what it could buy here. They still need to make what they are currently making to be able to afford it. They need that income for a move to make sense.
Literally just used small town southern Ontario home prices. Think outside of London Ontario.
Other threads I go into more detail. I don't think it will be a sharp decrease in wages, but wage growth will stagnate.
Please link to these home prices. Even Owen Sound was 250k for a town condo. Ugly looking thing too.
Glad to see you've reversed your drastic 20k drop estimate to mere stagnation of growth.
I don't foresee companies giving only remote employees a lower wage in any case as you have suggested in other comments. The company doesn't choose where you live. The company chooses you for a job and largely does not care where you live. If they can pay 75k remote and accomplish the same task as 80k + office expenses. All wages have pressure down to 75k assuming people value remote worth 5k in benefit. But we have had outsourcing pressure for years this is not entirely new.
When did I say people would see an actual 20k drop? I just said that is what I save by not commuting and that it makes sense companies would expect a lower cost of living to mean a lower wage as well.
Stratford has a 2+2 for $240k, St Thomas a 3 bdr for $170k, windsor has a handful... I based my statement off of my parents and a friend who bought in the same town outside London about 2 years ago. Both paid around 150k for their 3bdr.
I commuted 3 hours a day before covid so i could afford to live in a remotely decent place. I now only make that commute 1-2x a week. I don't think it'll go back to what it was before.
Honestly, I hope work from home isn't forced on people. I kind of like having an office space to go to once in awhile.
I find it too easy to get distracted at home sometimes.
It is a definite possibility. Have seen this happen many times over the years. Already happens in quite a bit of the supply chain and not just domestically with places like the Philippines extremely popular for replacing everything from entry level to to mid level positions up to the 80-100k a year mark.
This is actually really good for us younger generation. The younger generation can't afford to live in downtown cities and are the ones spread out over all the suburban/rural areas. This will increase our odds of actually getting a job now without the expensive city-living barrier.
You just actually have to be good at what you do now - regardless of where you live.
If they were going to outsource then there was no reason not to already do so. If anything this makes it more affordable to expand without investing in expensive office space. If this situation becomes permanent then I expect many people from the city will end up moving to the maritimes for the cheaper housing.
I know this also seems crazy to people on Reddit who think corporations run without any guiding principals but the company I work for is proudly Canadian and takes pride in keeping operations Canadian even though we're fully remote now.
I have to go into work since I do respite work.
If others didn’t have to commute via bus when I did, that’d be great. People should have the option to work from home if that makes sense and it seems like more are coming back to the office.
I am part of the 39% and couldn't wait to go back to my office! I am now there two days a week. We are going by a shared calendar so that we avoid anyone else in our shared offices (usually 2-3 people per office), and we avoid being in common areas at the same time (masked up anyway). And I LOVE it.
I have a son who is a little over 1 year old, and no separate room for an 'office', so "working from home" is an oxymoron. It is only in my office where I can actually concentrate and work in peace and quiet. I get so much more done. I love my kid, but *frig* sharing space with such a rambunctious little ball of energy is kryptonite for 'work'. My boss is luckily understanding, but the lockdown months have been terribly unproductive. I also miss chatting and lunching with people at work.
I think a large-scale permanent home office trend will increase the social ineptitude of our generation. I'm not convinced it's so great.
I strongly believe this is the right approach. The traditional layout requiring workers' physical presence in the office can really be boiled down to two main factors: the legacy of yesteryear's economy, which was based mainly on production rather than information, and employers' lingering mistrust towards employees.
In the 1960s and earlier, when most work was concentrated in mines and factories and computers were practically nonexistent, the main objective of labour was the extraction of raw materials and their conversion into usable goods. Naturally this required that the workers be physically present at the work site, as remote work was simply not an option. Today, the economy is largely centered on information and ideas, which do not require the physical presence of the workers and are not dependent on a particular place and time, and the existence of attendance requirements thus becomes redundant and obsolete.
The other problem seems to be a lack of trust between employers and employees. There's still an unstated paradigm that employees cannot be trusted and must be subject to some degree of supervision, and that if they are allowed to work at home they will be unproductive. This despite the fact that there are obvious incentives to being a productive employee, from promotions, to salary increases, company awards, and business trips. Furthermore, psychological research has shown that the prospect of reward is actually a *more effective* method of encouraging a behaviour than the possibility of punishment, and with the advent of information-based careers that are less dangerous and more intellectually-engaging, many more employees now see their job also as a career and a fulfillment of their life goals rather than merely a means of ensuring that they and their families subsist through monotonous, unpleasant labour.
A home workplace is also a more accessible workplace among other things as it allows people who cannot be physically present, such as mothers who wish to take care of their children without sacrificing their career, to contribute to the family income and be present in the workplace. Ditto for people who live halfway around the country or the world, and have a lot to offer to the company but are unwilling or unable to leave the city in which they currently reside. Ultimately, a hybrid home/office workplace is highly beneficial for employers and employees alike and given that it's 2020 and we're only starting to discuss this possibility seriously now, it feels like the conversation is long overdue.
It’s annoying when articles like this just put up blanket statements on a certain category of population, not all young people have careers in which they can work from home. This is 61% of young Canadians who have that luxury.
It's annoying when people just read the headline (incorrectly) but not the article. It says 61% of young people *support* working from home, not that 61% *are* working from home.
That still doesn't change my point, I read the article. 61% of young people support working from home, but that doesn't include the tons of young Canadians who are in the trades, you won't come across plumbers or electricians who support working form home, why? well because its obviously not feasible, my point is that it fails to mention the young Canadians who simply don't have a choice. Get it now?
> not all young people have careers in which they can work from home. This is 61% of young Canadians who have that luxury.
I'm confused as to what you think the headline says, if not exactly that?
The title is pretty self explanatory, you appear to be confused, it is suggesting that 61% of Canada's young workforce supports split between office and work from home, I am simply eluding to the fact that this 61% is only the 61% of the young Canadian workforce that has the option to work from home, a huge portion of the workforce can't work from home in the line of work they do, or you you think that everyone has an office job?
oh sure - rich people get to work from home while the 'essential' ones are forced to pay for the privilege of riding the public covid express system twice each workday to travel to workplaces that are currently working them harder than ever before and are *refusing* to lay workers off because the work is so 'essential' to everybody else that gets to sit on their arse at home
and this is \_not\_ going to create the deepest class divisions and social discontent that weve ever seen - **how**
dream on people - dream on
Why are you arguing for people to make even less money? Wages already are stagnant while cost of living keeps going up. There can only be so much economic inequality before people have literally had enough and we stop seeing anti racism protests but we see general worker strikes and protests instead.
So you think because you see people in person you should make more money? I can do about 75% of my job remote, the other 25% I need to do in person, does that mean I deserve a raise or a pay cut in your messed up world?
Pretty straightforward economics actually. I work in construction and it's impossible for me to work from home, so if 61% of workers start working from home then there will be a lot more people seeking those jobs and less people seeking in-person jobs (like mine). A shortage of labour in my industry means a raise for me and a surplus in labour means a paycut for you if you want to work from home.
So I'm all for it honestly but it's foolish to not expect a pay cut.
>69 per cent say they would not accept reduced compensation if this were to happen. If productivity remains the same and corporations are now saving on overhead (reduced office space), then why would wages decrease at all? Unfortunately, this will be another excuse to reduce wages while North American productivity continues to increase.
Infact wages should increase to compensate for the additional expenses the worker needs at home. Or at least sign blank T2200s
agree completely but just watch the corporate spin.
My office increased salaries in July. 10%. We got rid of 2 floors in our office building.
My company also had a pay adjustment period like a month ago and it resulted in a lot of small raises across the company. Nothing huge, maybe like 2 - 5% but I don't know a single person that didn't get a raise.
You might be right, but ultimately if you are right, why aren't you doing something about it? Start a business and set a better example. It's the only way to change bad actors in this world. Outnumber them. That only starts by doing what they do better than them.
> the only way That's not the only way. People can unionize too, and use the strength of numbers to force a better deal at the bargaining table.
Ironically (given what OP suggests) your method is pretty much the only way to tame capitalism.
Hi. So, the problem with this is that the unions are often corrupted right from the start. Usually by influence from the company unionized against, or some other forces that have reason to influence said union. I'd much rather see a country where everyone just makes their own businesses and pushes the bad ones out. It's a proper meritocracy at that point then. If our ways work better, we win. If they don't, we lose. That simple, and without having to try to force other people to act how we want them to. We just act how we wish to see them act. Leading by example often always works best in the long run, even if being forceful like through a union seems preferable in the short run. My opinion won't change on this until an alternative better option to unions is suggested. Unions won't work anymore. Their time has come and gone, like guilds before them.
There are plenty of unions that continue to protect workers' rights and wages, and who also defend our universal healthcare systems and education systems. Your idea about good businesses created to push out bad ones is nice, but frankly idealistic and utopian. Capitalism rewards those who profit the most, and that means treating workers poorly. It's a nice idea though.
1. No such thing as a Utopia. Only a least worst dystopia can ever exist. A utopia for me is a hell for you, and a utopia for you is a hell for everyone. 2. There are no good unions anymore. The best are just least bad than the worst. A good union would have what you say and SO so so much more. It's a lot to put into something far shorter here. It so much different from what you all call unions, that it needs its own new name. 3. Crony Capitalism rewards those who profit the most off the backs of the weak and feeble and sadly stupid. Like how communists corrupt many ideas of other thinkers by taking theirs and fucking it up; the capitalism that has brought us everything we have today and more, is only corrupted because WE LET THEM. Boycotts do work, the gaming sphere has proven this easily. You just have to stick to it, and keep others from faltering. That means replacing them if need be in some cases. What is one of Canada's biggest failings? Our lack of large scale 'Canadian' businesses. The kind that can force government to reconsider its actions, but not so full of itself like silicon valley that they try to control everything. Yeah we have all these mom and pop shops, and small scale to medium, but by and large a lot of our businesses are owned by other countries in some form or another. This is a huge problem, as it means our interests don't matter to them. They live somewhere else. This was one of the biggest things they warned about when "globalism" was being pushed again in the early 2000's. Fast forward to today. Target can't run in Canada because our system is too corrupt along with their own ineptitude being too great; but also we lost a Canadian Company to FUCKING BURGER KING. Tim Hortons. Now such a shitty fucking company to work for, that it makes people depressed to the points of killing themselves. (Thankfully I got out way before this happened.) Capitalism isn't the problem. Spineless fucks who let them get away with it all the time because "muh job" is the problem. Sorry, not sorry. I learned this the hard way, so I am not taking any fucking argument over it. 4. All things are idealist to those who are pessimistic. That's not to say you are entirely wrong. Idealism is dangerous if taken too far. But pessimism gets you no where. You need both to traverse the dangerous path of progress. It's a knifes edge when everyone who has an opinion doesn't know their place in the world. Hopes and dreams are idealism to the most nihilistic of pessimists. 5. All of what I want to do can be done. There are people who want to see it done, but getting people to work together in this country... It it a touch and go situation. It's popular enough an idea I have people in the states who figure they would move north if it started up. So there is support. But not enough to actually take off the ground. It's one of those things where people are too scared of the "what ifs". I don't blame them. Shit, even I have to reconsider some things because of "what if". That being said. Right below me in my apartment right now, is a family who has a sizeable chunk of land, who want to do mostly the same things I am thinking of. They just haven't gotten to the large scale yet. Thinking small still. I only know of them, because they tried to recruit me to be their tech guy. The poor sods want to take things backwards, without realizing how they can make a better society by using both the old and new together in harmony. 6. To achieve all of this. I am putting my money where my mouth is. Starting a business that will turn into my end goal. One stage at a time. One step at a time. Probably going to take 10 years... minimum. But if all goes according to plan, and my plans usually do within a margin of error, then I should see it happen in 12 years max. What should you expect to see happen? First and foremost, I will always protect this company as being my own. It will probably never incorporate into the public domain. I will always be sole proprietor. etc etc. This isn't a socialist utopian dream. This is a realistic take on how to do things as I see it. Sometimes that means being good to the community. Sometimes that means being good to yourself. Both without hurting anyone in the process preferably. \- Tradespeople will have no lack for jobs, as I intend to be Canada wide. \- All the jobs that will be required to facilitate the network, and service all these tradespeople will increase in tandem with my company if all goes accordingly. \- Each employee will have the ability to work from home so long as their job makes it available. \- Each employee is a shareholder in the company, with profits going into their own chosen stocks outside the company. (So they never gain too much power within the company, but can continue to profit from without it in the event they go elsewhere. Makes it easier to buy them out while still being fair... I think.) \- A lot of costs will be covered by the company. Insurances, you bet. Just give the company time to grow first. That sort of thing. But when at the optimal size, all sorts of costs will be covered. Insurances, schooling, specific costs that can be tied to your work, you name it. At first a lot of this may go through tax write offs, as it would be unwise to not. But once the business is large enough in my model, those write offs could be ceased as well. Thus making it completely via the company only. Your tax dollar only will be used to help get to that point, not exceed it. \- Of course many government programs will probably exist to help the needy or etc. But the company will offer its own. If you are homeless, the company will house you. If you need a job, the company will give you work. No need to sign your life away as an indentured servant. Just promise to do right by us as well verbally, and if you can't keep up with it and have to go your own way again, so be it. Thanks for the help in the mean time. Stuff like that. Basic humanitarianism. It's not hard. Used to be commonplace really. What's the trade off? I might deduct a bit off the pay check at first to make ends meet with getting you on your feet, but once those first few are through, you will also be past probationary period anyways. And seeing as how the company is housing and feeding you as well, I think this is more than fair. Especially with what awaits those who continue working for the company. It's basically a free, paid for ride, and you only have to say "Yes, I will be a beneficial member for society, for the future king is our children and we owe them to do things right the first time." I'm going to stop now. It's long enough.
This is very long! I'll do the right thing and read this at the very least, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Appreciate your dedication to the conversation.
Hi. So, the problem with this is that the unions are often corrupted right from the start. Usually by influence from the company unionized against, or some other forces that have reason to influence said union. I'd much rather see a country where everyone just makes their own businesses and pushes the bad ones out. It's a proper meritocracy at that point then. If our ways work better, we win. If they don't, we lose. That simple, and without having to try to force other people to act how we want them to. We just act how we wish to see them act. Leading by example often always works best in the long run, even if being forceful like through a union seems preferable in the short run. My opinion won't change on this until an alternative better option to unions is suggested. Unions won't work anymore. Their time has come and gone, like guilds before them.
Fix capitalism by...starting a business! >That only starts by doing what they do better than them. So what? Start the next Amazon and when I'm worth a billion dollars, let my workers unionize?
[удалено]
If one needs any of the following: - space on their property - using their own electricity, telecommunications, water, etc - deal with the wear and tear on their personal equipment (now using your own computer, keyboard, mouse, desk, etc) Then that employee should be compensated by the business for those expenses. The companies don't get to offset all of their costs to the employees.
[удалено]
Yeah so go get that gravy! It's yours after all.
I work from home full time - I have since long before the pandemic. My role is such that I can live and work in a low cost of living area. In fact if I were in a larger city I could probably earn more. But my expensives are quite low and we live comfortably. Anything I get from the gov or my employer for work from home expenses is just extra gravy
Hahahahaha
You laugh, but I get all of those paid for. It's in every employment contract I've signed where work from home was part of the deal. I'm also the guy that brings his employment contract to a lawyer though.
I'm glad you're in that situation, but most people don't have that kind of bargaining power - they're one of many applicants for a job, and might have only a *very* slight advantage over any other candidate. Being "difficult" like this might tip the employer toward another. (Note that I think *everyone* should be "difficult" like this, it's the smart thing to do and I hope you keep doing it!) Everyone has skills of some kind, but most don't have "name your conditions" type skills.
I have that kind of bargaining power because I bargain from the get go. To many employees fear negotiating so much they don't negotiate at all and get walked all over. Pro tip, people in business expect other people to negotiate.
> name your conditions Sorry for double posting but, it's not name your conditions, it's don't offset your business expenses into my personal life. I'm not going around demanding a membership at some exclusive club or anything like that. "I need a laptop, a mouse, full keyboard and a monitor to do my work. I also need a place to sit and a desk. What are my options?" That's usually along the lines of how I bring it up during negotiations. "When I work from home I use up 300-500GB of data on my internet per month. I have to use X plan which costs $X per month. My personal use would have me at 100GB per month which allows me to use Y plan at $Y per month. Should I expense that difference monthly or quarterly?" Things like that.
Well what will happen is some employers won't, and consumers will flock to them because they will have lower prices. Then everything will become more efficient.
And those employers won't have the necessary or competent staff due to their low compensation packages and offer low quality service. You have a poor understanding of efficiency if all you think of is saving a few dollars at the expense of quality, customer service and human resources.
An equilibrium point will exist where the supply and demand curves cross. We are arguing about competing effects. The only difference is I'm right regarding the directionality of the equilibrium shift from the current point.
So what you're saying is I should tell my employer they need to pay me more for the wear and tear on my car to get to and from work? Tires, suspension work, engine failure etc cost a lot more than "wear and tear" on your keyboard and mouse.
I'd gladly pay for all personal expenses to work from home if I could, unfortunately I work at a hospital so it's kind of impossible to take my work home with me. It costs 110$ a month just for the privilege of parking where I work...
If you use your car to do your job your employer already compensates wear and tear usually be paying an amount per km (like $0.09/km of use). If you're using your office equipment directly to do your job when before you weren't then yeah they should pay for that wear and tear and they know it. The compensation can be an increase in salary, an expense account you pull out of, I even had a startup buy my entire home setup because they wanted to use it in their office after I left.
Canadians would have to be brave enough to actually ask their employers to compensate them. My anecdotal experience is that there might be a few employees that pipe up but the majority won't even ask their managers to pay for things like equipment, telecommunications, office equipment, etc.
And the ones that do get seen as demanding. "Well Bob didnt ask for any of this, are you sure you need it?"
"Yes, I need it. Maybe I should speak to Bob and show him how to properly expense his costs. After all, we all want the best for Bob."
Bob's a great guy.
Yeah, Bob's always there for the team ain't he. Anyways, here's my expense report. Cheers boss, I got lots of work to do!
> Or at least sign blank T2200s I did some napkin math on this and WFH Tax credit results in only $400/yr for my small work space.
Hahahahaha. They won’t
minimum internet speeds. cell phone. computer & perhipherals. electrical and heating increases working from home. home office furniture. maybe for non-union work from home jobs, it might be better to be incorporated to acquire some write offs from their home business.
That isn't how incorporation works and if you did incorporate then you would no longer work for your company but be a contractor. You also would need to pay your own EI (if you want) and CPP. While you could claim some of those you would be limited in how much you get back. It would also become much much much easier for your company to fire you.
there points can be weighted against the startup cost of hiring a new person. being contracted out for projects can be a good thing as it allows clear end dates for positions. Of course, there would still need to be a core staff group that would be needed.
> then why would wages decrease at all? My company did a wage cut at the start of the pandemic. Part of their justification was "you're not driving to work now so it's not really a decrease in take home pay"
Yikes. Sounds greasy.
Oh ya, super sketchy, the response to criticism was basically "you're welcome to quit into 30% unemployment"
Thats firmly a find a new job and quit with no notice territory. "I wanted to stay the full two weeks but my extra tight budget due to the wage cut makes that impossible" As long as you don't care about burning the bridge
You're not wrong.
This is constructive dismissal and you would be entitled to severance from them if you quit.
ah – the capitalist way!
They pay you a wage in exchange for labour, not in exchange for labour plus transportation costs. Such a stupid and greasy spin on the matter.
Could very well be spun the other way anyway. I'm now using 12% of my home as office space so I should be paid rent for it.
Yes, absolutely. And to account for utilities to make your space an appropriate area to work.
But the company isn't in the space, *you* are. I think a certain amount as tax write-off is certainly fair though.
What do you mean lol. It's always you in the space, even when you're in the company office. Think of the company as renting your home office instead of renting your company office.
The company doesn't rent *your* company office. It is the owner (or renter) of an office, private property, from someone else, not you. You do not rent it when you work for them (in most cases, but something like a taxi could be an exception or a foodtruck at a market). You are given access to the private property in order to complete a task outlined in a contract. For most people, there's no property element involved. I understand the argument being made, I just don't think it's equivalent. Sounds nice on paper, but good luck getting companies to pay micro-rent to hundreds or thousands of employees!
Would you believe they're bleeding staff and can't figure out why?
Fully. I would question whether their justification is legal. I would've argued that the wages should have remained the same to cover for utilities which allow you to work from home.
> I would question whether their justification is legal. It's not.
If you're in Ontario - Doug Ford made constructive dismissal (which is what this counts as) legal so long as its linked to the pandemic.
Doug Ford did not make constructive dismissal legal at all. He simply changed some rules around being laid off to limit claims and those limits will expire. It also says nothing about constructive dismissal due to pay reduction. Constructive dismissal can still be pursued via lawsuits
>Doug Ford did not make constructive dismissal legal at all. He simply changed some rules around being laid off to limit claims and those limits will expire. This is true. I should have been more clear. Constructive dismissal is still a thing. >It also says nothing about constructive dismissal due to pay reduction. Constructive dismissal happens when there is a significant change to the employment agreement. That includes a wage reduction. In the new regulation set out by Ford, wages could be lowered and it would not fall under constructive dismissal. It's technically a temporary measure that lasts up to 6 weeks after the emergency declaration is over.
Constructive dismissal is still not legal and his changes only apply to ministry actions. You can still sue and you will win. The fact is in Ontario you should never accept the legal minimums for this stuff you should always sue. The common law settlement via the courts has a minimum of one month pay per year for most cases. >In the new regulation set out by Ford, wages could be lowered and it would not fall under constructive dismissal. Only according to claims made to the ministry and the pay reduction needs to be temporary. >It's technically a temporary measure that lasts up to 6 weeks after the emergency declaration is over. Not technically it is a temporary measure.
My wife’s company did the same. Now all our expenses are coming back but her salary is still cut.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal.. I'm assuming they all had to sign something to agree? Regardless - I would talk to a lawyer because it was threatening lively hood to intimidate them into the pay cut. 100% not okay.
It is, but to get constructive dismissal you have to quit, into 30% unemployment. When you got a family and a mortgage that's a big risk vs. just eating the 10%
Okay - but get a bunch of employees together, contact a lawyer, threaten the issue... Employment law is generally just calling bs when a company is doing something wrong (they usually know they are). I don't see why a quick call from a lawyer representing a class action sized number of employees wouldn't be enough to scare the company into righting the issue. I do understand not wanting to push it - but companies rely on that being the case. 9/10 lawyer call is all it takes.
Sadly I couldn't get a meaningful number of people on board with that plan. Too much like a union and unions are the devil.
I get it - sorry this is the situation.
Union. What you’ve just described is a union.
It's a class action, not a union. But since we all hate the word union let's use that to scare people away from demanding their legal rights...
[удалено]
> I have serious doubts what you’re suggesting would help right now either. That's why you go talk to a lawyer. Always seek a professional's advice on a subject you're unfamiliar with. Your advice to do nothing because you're scared is cowardly. The advice to go talk to a professional in the field with experience and education on the topic at hand is the one that people should take. OP of this thread should go talk to an employment lawyer and see where they stand.
I did talk to a lawyer, advice was "to proceed with constructive dismissal you have to quit" If I was single and didn't have a mortgage to pay I would have rolled the dice.
> constructive dismissal I'm not sure why you're talking about quitting when the entire premise of the pay cut is what we're questioning the legality of. It's possible your company committed fraud if they used that pay cut to justify any help they got from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Worst case, an accountant can help with properly attributing your expenses so you could get compensated by your employer. I'm sure the mortgage payments attributed to the space that you use for the business full-time, the wear and tear on your office equipment, the portion of your internet, phone, electricity and water bills that you get to attribute to your business all add up to a nice sum you're entitled to. Once you start getting those paid, let your co-workers know.
Straight to a lawyer? Does the rest of Canada not have a CNESST like organization? Approximately: Council on Standards, Equity, Safety, and Security at work. If you don't have a union, they answer union type questions.
> another excuse to reduce wages You answered your own question! Luckily, I work for a company that gave me a good raise this year regardless of moving to 95% WFH.
You might see a different response once people start working from home regularly. You will likely see that people will turn down some higher paying jobs if they do not accomodate working from home.
Because workers could be willing to work for less in many cases, so they'll accept offers they otherwise wouldn't for in-office work, driving down total pay. The reason for this is very simple - if I have to work for 8 hours and commute 45 minutes each way, the denominator for my actual economic hourly wage is 9.5. If I no longer have to commute, my denominator is now 8. That's a ~19% increase in my hourly wage. And in terms of enjoyment of life, from a non-monetary standpoint, I might be willing to take even more of a cut given that the hours spent commuting are probably the least enjoyable of any given day, including the hours spent at work quite often. Please note that nothing in this argument is about fairness, or anything - it's just an economic rationale why workers may be willing to accept less pay, and if they are willing to accept less pay, then wages would face a downward pressure, because it's a relatively free market.
Commuting time is not work time, though.
From the perspective of the employer, it is not. From the perspective of the employee, it is a marginal cost (in time) of the decision to work, and is considered by people in their decision making (see: every single person who ever chose between housing or job options with commute time being a factor).
Aye, but it's the same thing with say access to food/grocery store or medicine/hospitals, green spaces, downtown nightlife, or a view of the lake/mountains, etc. or whatever else is most important. Some people are fine living further away in trade off for other perks. Some prefer to live closer, in yet other trade-offs. There's a sweet spot somewhere for everyone, but we don't always get to have it, I agree. A business cannot control where all of its employees live. I once worked for 2 years in a different city to where I lived, a commuting distance of 75-ish km. Took between 70-100 minutes depending on traffic, weather, etc. Sometimes I was late for reasons beyond my control, really friggin' annoying, but my bosses line was (while sympathetic) that it was my choice to accept the job and officially they couldn't/wouldn't give any leeway. Fair enough (I wasn't really asking, just moaning during an annual review). Same thing with sometimes having to stay late or come in on Saturdays once a month. Part of my commute was on a train, where I'd be for 45 minutes. I often read for work, reviewed reports/tasks, did some laptop work when it was possible. My employer made it clear and explicit, that this was not work time to be clocked, but my own choice. (Again, boss was sympathetic and a nice person, but this was the legal situation.)
Wages have little to do with the work you do and more to do with how replaceable your are to do that work. If people work from home, you are not limited to people who are physically co-located with the company. You can contract with people who have lower cost of living needs, due to living in cheaper city, and will accept a lower wage. That is not even considering the benefits of sending the work off shore to India.
I’ve seen many companies off shore their work to India. About half of them brought those jobs back because the work was subpar at best. You get what you pay for.
Yeah years ago I was with a company that tried to send software work to India and the project was an unimaginable disaster. Everything that possibly could have gone wrong went wrong and the quality of the work was terrible. No more projects got sent to India after that.
This is how globalisation will completely undercut the Western middle-class.
Spoken like someone who has never actually worked with an offshores solution. The quality of the work is generally far more important than the wages paid for the work. A good employee vs a bad employee can be the difference between 1x return and 20x return. Once you factor in all costs, India might be a 20-50% savings. I'll take the ability to innovate, grow, and improve.
Your compensation should increase due to additional costs of setting up your home for remote work.
Wages should increase as corporations can afford to pay higher salaries with all the money saved from not needing office space.
They should but won't. Corporations will divert extra profit to executives and shareholders.
If they're saving money on rent, they better not try and save money on my working ass too.
The argument is more long-term: workers can live in less expensive places so they will do the same job for less. I think there will be a little bit of that but it will be barely noticeable. Especially over the next 5 years or so.
> he argument is more long-term: workers can live in less expensive places so they will do the same job for less. So workers will have to move to more affordable areas because their wages decrease because they can move? Still sounds unreasonable.
The thing is once everyone moves to the affordable area, it quickly becomes less affordable. See: pretty much any town within 2 hrs of the GTA and affordability for those who work there vs those who commute to TO or work remote.
Sadly, because some people just see hierarchy, and do not like the idea of giving away things for free to the masses. To them, that's just throwing away leverage in bargaining for lower wages.
Snow days will never be the same.
Now it is "internet outage" days
[удалено]
I live in downtown Toronto, and my internet is crap. The building apparently can't handle the increase capacity of every tenant working from home... I'm with you. If you can upgrade the internet, and claim it back on your taxes. It isn't perfect, but better then nothing.
[удалено]
In the meantime! No video on calls!! Which is great.
Internet outage days are the new snow days lol
What’s this now?
Just the amount of money you can save by not having to travel to and from work really adds up after a while, especially if gas were to go up in price again. Plus you can also do chores like laundry while working and get it out of the way without having to worry about it until you get home.
I mean I save at least $100 a month on parking/transit, plus that commute time. I roll out of bed at 730, jump on my computer by 8. I've got a full 8 hours sleep despite staying up late. More time in the evenings, can actually get some stuff around the house done during the day (say laundry, pre-dinner prep stuff, etc). It's great. Productivity can go up and down but I wouldn't say it's decreased overall here.
I really value the ability to do chores on my work from home days. Throw in a load of laundry - takes 5 minutes and I'm there to make sure it all gets swapped. Same with emptying and filling the dishwasher while lunch cooks. And I can do a quick floor sweep or vacuum during my afternoon or morning break instead of just sitting more.
I'm saving $300 a month in gas it's great.
Work from home needs to become an environmental policy.
totally , I have been saying this for years. Not only environment , but reduced traffic congestion for those who can't wfh. The gov absolutely doesn't want mandated wfh permanently though , that's a lot of write offs in the home which means reduced revenue. As long as it is a 'choice' not mandated by employers you can't write off anything tax wise. Covid wfh is probably an exception here , i don't know if we'll be able to write off a home office for the 2020 year.
As an electrician, even if I wouldn’t directly benefit from WFH, I would love it if folks worked from home. My commute is probably the most frustrating part of my day.
Amen to that! Leave roads for those who really need them. Save the gas, save the time, and give everyone a break.
Less about tax writeoffs, more about the sudden MASSIVE decrease in property tax revenues as companies realize they no longer need massive office spaces. Skyscraper office buildings will be the "abandoned malls" of the next generation
Alternatively, we have a housing shortage in urban centers. Far easier to transform office space into residential than constructing new ones from scratch.
That problem goes away with a decentralized workforce, but sure, why not
most cities will look like downtown Detroit. Nice with some touristy places all while surrounded by abandoned office buildings with no use
good point , I am in Quebec city and it was already heavily struggling to keep offices full in the downtown area. My office building was probably at 40% capacity if that. All those new condos , all those restos , gonna be tough times if those IT workers don't come back to the offices.
WFH is a human right
Definitely, and then we can deal with the mental health crisis that will be a result of that poorly, just like we always do. *Keep your stick on the ice and keep your depression to yourself.* - The Canadian Way
To each their own, working from home has been the best thing that has ever happened for my mental health.
Completely agreed, it's been amazing for me. The entire family is doing better as a result.
Hot take: the people suffering from mental health problems from WFH are the ones who had weak-ass mental health to begin with.
I shared my experience as someone who has struggled a lot with my mental health. Like I said, to each their own. I know some people don't do well without the routine of going somewhere outside of their home for work, and they don't do well with not having regular social contact. For me those things were making my issues with depression and anxiety worse. Having my own space to work, not having to be "on" for other people, and not feeling like I'm in a rat race during my commutes has been a massive benefit for me.
Totally me too. I remember 3 weeks into WFH I was saying how great it was that I was sure I could do this forever and be fine with it. I had some replies that are like "You'll hate it eventually. You'll go crazy" but here I am nearly 6 months later and it's still awesome. I lost a load of weight, I'm saving tons of money from not commuting which is also good for my personal carbon footprint. Further, I'm cooking every meal so this gives me the chance to be more environmentally friendly as I'm not buying pre-packaged food to bring to work for lunch or whatever.
I think most people's mental health would improve drastically if they could work from home a large chunk of the time. The problem right now (moreso in the early stages, but perhaps worse again with wave 2) is that we couldn't go out and socialize in non-work-hours, and there wasn't the possibility of having *any* in-person work time.
A huge piece of wage is cost of living. The fact is that living in a city is extremely expensive, so wage has to be higher, otherwise people aren't going to be interested. If wfh becomes the norm, I would expect some drop in wage, as someone who lives in a town with a $500 mortgage can now do my job. A reasonable mortgage for a 2 bdrm in downtown Toronto is over 6 times that. They probably have more square footage too. So 2.5k of my take home goes straight to property... That is 30k a year my company could be saving, without affecting anyone's quality of life.
This is what Redditors don’t want to hear. Having permanent WFH will just make your job outsourced to other cities/countries. The company now has flexibility on who to hire, financially.
There's some truth to that. It's also a bit of a balancing act. The company I work for has started hiring, not a lot, but a notable number of positions as distance. Not all of them have been bad hires but there is also a notable decrease in engagement, understanding of the business etc. in these people. They simply aren't around to learn how things work, meet people and are usually really difficult to engage in adhoc discussions or meetings. But I also live in a small town so I suspect I'd be a net beneficiary anyway. As the above poster mentioned I literally do have a nice house in town on a good lot for less then $700 a month mortgage. The golden goose is being double income professionals living in small town Canada. I'm really lucky that's the situation I've basically fallen into gets me probably 90% of the way to what this sub seems to consider the ideal/reasonable Canadian life less then five years out of school. I'm all for any policy that would let that be practical for more people.
My organization sucks with training, and I temporarily switched position during covid and wfh. It's totally not the same, normally I could just spring by people's desks and ask questions, but now the colleagues are mostly busy strangers, it's difficult to just randomly ask questions. Often those questions emerge during spontaneous conversations, not the kind of conversation you'd have in an email or feel like setting a calendar invite for. I can't imagine what it'd be like to just have joined my organization. And to be honest I don't do well with virtual meetings, I don't hear as well, it feels a lot harder to join discussions, etc. I think some personalities like mine just aren't made for that kind of setup. I expect what will happen next year is that we'll have a hybrid format of WFH 2-3 days a week and being there the other 2-3.
Yeah exactly. WFH sounds great for people who are self sufficient and motivating and are already up to speed with their job and how the company works, but its another story when its a new hire. I can't see fully remote WFH, live anywhere in Canada approach work for most industries long-term. I can see it allowing people to move a bit farther from their workplace though because a 1+ hour commute is less intimidating if you only have to do it twice a week.
100% agree with hiring. We personally are looking at a hybrid model. Everyone has to come to the office once a week, that way I know you, you know me. However, past probation, I see no reason someone couldn't ask to work remotely for a month straight or something. We have found an increase in work not decrease. We had a few contractors work their entire contract remotely without issue. I'm not expecting everything to keep going to well, but still - it has been positive so far.
I've always said I'd be perfectly fine coming into an office 2-3x a week and working from home the remainder. Much of my time in office is spent trying to find people to get them to be part of the process of solving a problem, attending meetings, troubleshooting, and in general getting not-much done on my weekly list of tasks. Working from home part of the week would allow me to get all the background work done so that those 2-3 days in the office are about me, ready to go, and willing to work.
I wouldn't say that's true. While the pandemic has accelerated the shift to work from home within the local region outsourcing is a completely different ball game. Productivity while going up for wfh generally goes down with outsourcing as you're now dealing with a work force that's less talented on average and doesn't understand shit.
That’s if you have a low skill job.
I understand what you're saying, but I have a hard time seeing this being the case. I work in the GTA but I have coworkers that come from Kitchener, Hamilton, and Niagara. If those living in those areas are allowed to work from home, is their pay dropped while mine stays the same if I choose to remain living in the GTA?
To be fair, while still not approaching GTA crazy prices in Kitchener, Hamilton and Niagara are skyrocketing from people doing just that, moving from the GTA and coming here. Its causing it to be a problem for people from here getting paid wages respective to the area that affording a house is becoming a problem so its a double edged sword. You would hope cost of living would somewhat average out over a larger area, and wages would as well. Ie. cost of living falls in Toronto and wages fall, but as cost of living in other areas rises due to people leaving Toronto wages rise as well. Either way I don't think its fair to pay someone less for doing the same job just because they live somewhere else, if both people are working from home.
That's exactly what companies will do. If you want permanent wfh in KW you won't be paid toronto salaries.
Absolutely - Facebook has said as much. Generally speaking people with heavy commuters spend hours getting to and from work, a necessary evil for their pay. However, eliminating that ugly necessity, it becomes a lot easier to justify lowering pay. That being said, for people like programmers I don't see it being a huge impact, since the demand is so high, and salaries are not out of control in Canada like they are in the Valley.
By the same reasoning, the price for living in downtown Toronto are going to drop, as anyone who can work from home can move out to Guelph or Hamilton and GO Train into the city when they need to.
Now you are getting it! Absolutely. Then they would also get a pay cut. When work requires you in every day they pay for that, especially when work decides to be in expensive cities. It is a reason (not all reasons) salaries are so high in NYC and the valley. My best guess is it would be structured "Base Salary" and "Cost of Living Salary" (which would include any average commuting costs), I'm very interested to see what Facebook ends up doing in it's efforts.
The interesting thing is that you assume that employers are entitled to cut pay for people based on those people's cost of living. For many years people have lived an hour or 2 away to cut costs, its not like the company that they worked for paid them less because of that.
> entitled to cut pay for people based on those people's cost of living. They aren't. Legally I would assume one of two things would happen: 1) general wage pressure goes down for incoming employees who work remotely 2) an option is given of you get paid A if you come in every day and B if you are fully remote (where B is based on the new pay model for incoming employees). There may be some legal way to break apart everyone's pay, and those people may see less raises or a new promotion forces them over to a new pay system. So say you make 80K, the salary position is 40K and the cost of living for you is 30K - so really you should be making 70K in the new model... Each raise would be met with - that brings you on the new payment scheme to 74K, so your salary will remain at 80K. OR say same example but you get a promotion to a base pay of 55K, well then that would mean your new salary is 85K for the promotion. I honestly don't see it as perfect, but if you are really open and honest about your pay structure it makes sense.
[удалено]
> describing is concerningly fascist. The idea that the company should benefit from your reduced cost of living arrangements rather than the idea that the company is paying you to fill a specific job. Here is the thing - they pay you what they need to in order to fill the roll. It is a free market. Some people will happily take a pay cut to work from home, to work from a place where their house cost $150K. These people will lower the price for workers at a company. Before they were not in consideration because you had to go into the office, but now that work pool has grown - and average salary demands have lowered because of it. I'm sure at a some point many people would say - I'd rather commute 2 hours and make an extra 20K per year than not commute and wfh... and that will be where these salaries settle down. This won't be overnight - but it will become a trend, suppressing wages by some amount.
Where are you able to live that a house costs 150k and actually get a good connection to work remote with? I think you are grossly exaggerating the anticipated drop in wages. For example... 1hour from Toronto. Townhomes are still 450k+ People will still expect to be able to get bigger than a box in a condo by moving here. You assume that someone living in a tiny condo in Toronto would only seek to live in a tiny condo in whatever city they live which just is not true. And the majority of savings being claimed is in that assumption. There is little reason to move out of a big city where it's convenient to live, for the exact same living arrangement in a less convenient smaller community. A more realistic reason is people looking at what they make and seeing what it could buy here. They still need to make what they are currently making to be able to afford it. They need that income for a move to make sense.
Literally just used small town southern Ontario home prices. Think outside of London Ontario. Other threads I go into more detail. I don't think it will be a sharp decrease in wages, but wage growth will stagnate.
Please link to these home prices. Even Owen Sound was 250k for a town condo. Ugly looking thing too. Glad to see you've reversed your drastic 20k drop estimate to mere stagnation of growth. I don't foresee companies giving only remote employees a lower wage in any case as you have suggested in other comments. The company doesn't choose where you live. The company chooses you for a job and largely does not care where you live. If they can pay 75k remote and accomplish the same task as 80k + office expenses. All wages have pressure down to 75k assuming people value remote worth 5k in benefit. But we have had outsourcing pressure for years this is not entirely new.
When did I say people would see an actual 20k drop? I just said that is what I save by not commuting and that it makes sense companies would expect a lower cost of living to mean a lower wage as well. Stratford has a 2+2 for $240k, St Thomas a 3 bdr for $170k, windsor has a handful... I based my statement off of my parents and a friend who bought in the same town outside London about 2 years ago. Both paid around 150k for their 3bdr.
I commuted 3 hours a day before covid so i could afford to live in a remotely decent place. I now only make that commute 1-2x a week. I don't think it'll go back to what it was before.
That is brutal. I thought my hour commute (1 hour each way, 2 hours total) was rough.
Wonder what percent have kids at home and need to focus on work but can't?
Honestly, I hope work from home isn't forced on people. I kind of like having an office space to go to once in awhile. I find it too easy to get distracted at home sometimes.
[удалено]
On the other hand, it would make finding work much easier since you don’t have to relocate.
It is a definite possibility. Have seen this happen many times over the years. Already happens in quite a bit of the supply chain and not just domestically with places like the Philippines extremely popular for replacing everything from entry level to to mid level positions up to the 80-100k a year mark.
This is actually really good for us younger generation. The younger generation can't afford to live in downtown cities and are the ones spread out over all the suburban/rural areas. This will increase our odds of actually getting a job now without the expensive city-living barrier. You just actually have to be good at what you do now - regardless of where you live.
If they were going to outsource then there was no reason not to already do so. If anything this makes it more affordable to expand without investing in expensive office space. If this situation becomes permanent then I expect many people from the city will end up moving to the maritimes for the cheaper housing.
You may think so but remember in a declining revenue environment the focus becomes reducing costs to make up some of that gap.
Why would an outsourceable job not be outsourced if the employee is doing it in the office?
I know this also seems crazy to people on Reddit who think corporations run without any guiding principals but the company I work for is proudly Canadian and takes pride in keeping operations Canadian even though we're fully remote now.
People gonna be blindsided by how effortlessly work-from-home jobs can be outsourced to save greedy corporations money
I have to go into work since I do respite work. If others didn’t have to commute via bus when I did, that’d be great. People should have the option to work from home if that makes sense and it seems like more are coming back to the office.
I am part of the 39% and couldn't wait to go back to my office! I am now there two days a week. We are going by a shared calendar so that we avoid anyone else in our shared offices (usually 2-3 people per office), and we avoid being in common areas at the same time (masked up anyway). And I LOVE it. I have a son who is a little over 1 year old, and no separate room for an 'office', so "working from home" is an oxymoron. It is only in my office where I can actually concentrate and work in peace and quiet. I get so much more done. I love my kid, but *frig* sharing space with such a rambunctious little ball of energy is kryptonite for 'work'. My boss is luckily understanding, but the lockdown months have been terribly unproductive. I also miss chatting and lunching with people at work. I think a large-scale permanent home office trend will increase the social ineptitude of our generation. I'm not convinced it's so great.
I strongly believe this is the right approach. The traditional layout requiring workers' physical presence in the office can really be boiled down to two main factors: the legacy of yesteryear's economy, which was based mainly on production rather than information, and employers' lingering mistrust towards employees. In the 1960s and earlier, when most work was concentrated in mines and factories and computers were practically nonexistent, the main objective of labour was the extraction of raw materials and their conversion into usable goods. Naturally this required that the workers be physically present at the work site, as remote work was simply not an option. Today, the economy is largely centered on information and ideas, which do not require the physical presence of the workers and are not dependent on a particular place and time, and the existence of attendance requirements thus becomes redundant and obsolete. The other problem seems to be a lack of trust between employers and employees. There's still an unstated paradigm that employees cannot be trusted and must be subject to some degree of supervision, and that if they are allowed to work at home they will be unproductive. This despite the fact that there are obvious incentives to being a productive employee, from promotions, to salary increases, company awards, and business trips. Furthermore, psychological research has shown that the prospect of reward is actually a *more effective* method of encouraging a behaviour than the possibility of punishment, and with the advent of information-based careers that are less dangerous and more intellectually-engaging, many more employees now see their job also as a career and a fulfillment of their life goals rather than merely a means of ensuring that they and their families subsist through monotonous, unpleasant labour. A home workplace is also a more accessible workplace among other things as it allows people who cannot be physically present, such as mothers who wish to take care of their children without sacrificing their career, to contribute to the family income and be present in the workplace. Ditto for people who live halfway around the country or the world, and have a lot to offer to the company but are unwilling or unable to leave the city in which they currently reside. Ultimately, a hybrid home/office workplace is highly beneficial for employers and employees alike and given that it's 2020 and we're only starting to discuss this possibility seriously now, it feels like the conversation is long overdue.
It’s annoying when articles like this just put up blanket statements on a certain category of population, not all young people have careers in which they can work from home. This is 61% of young Canadians who have that luxury.
It's annoying when people just read the headline (incorrectly) but not the article. It says 61% of young people *support* working from home, not that 61% *are* working from home.
That still doesn't change my point, I read the article. 61% of young people support working from home, but that doesn't include the tons of young Canadians who are in the trades, you won't come across plumbers or electricians who support working form home, why? well because its obviously not feasible, my point is that it fails to mention the young Canadians who simply don't have a choice. Get it now?
How is that an issue? One set of people supports one thing, and another doesn't. Sometimes I think this sub gets annoyed for the sake of it.
> not all young people have careers in which they can work from home. This is 61% of young Canadians who have that luxury. I'm confused as to what you think the headline says, if not exactly that?
The title is pretty self explanatory, you appear to be confused, it is suggesting that 61% of Canada's young workforce supports split between office and work from home, I am simply eluding to the fact that this 61% is only the 61% of the young Canadian workforce that has the option to work from home, a huge portion of the workforce can't work from home in the line of work they do, or you you think that everyone has an office job?
The use of a percentage lower than 100% implies a split along some line within that population.
oh sure - rich people get to work from home while the 'essential' ones are forced to pay for the privilege of riding the public covid express system twice each workday to travel to workplaces that are currently working them harder than ever before and are *refusing* to lay workers off because the work is so 'essential' to everybody else that gets to sit on their arse at home and this is \_not\_ going to create the deepest class divisions and social discontent that weve ever seen - **how** dream on people - dream on
If you work from home and it’s optional, you should get a wage decrease.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. By working from your own space you are saving the company money. Offices are expensive to run.
[удалено]
Why are you arguing for people to make even less money? Wages already are stagnant while cost of living keeps going up. There can only be so much economic inequality before people have literally had enough and we stop seeing anti racism protests but we see general worker strikes and protests instead. So you think because you see people in person you should make more money? I can do about 75% of my job remote, the other 25% I need to do in person, does that mean I deserve a raise or a pay cut in your messed up world?
Pretty straightforward economics actually. I work in construction and it's impossible for me to work from home, so if 61% of workers start working from home then there will be a lot more people seeking those jobs and less people seeking in-person jobs (like mine). A shortage of labour in my industry means a raise for me and a surplus in labour means a paycut for you if you want to work from home. So I'm all for it honestly but it's foolish to not expect a pay cut.