Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

Wasn’t quite sure what community to post this…

A recent EnhancV survey of 1,000 full-time U.S. workers subject to new or stricter return-to-office policies found that 72 percent suspect these mandates are really a voluntary attrition strategy — a strategy by their own employers to make them quit their jobs.

The damage is strategic, not merely emotional. Baylor University’s reporting on office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile.

  • VibeSurgeon@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    12 hours ago

    Not only that. Travel time should count as work time, with full reimbursement of all travel costs: gas, tickets,…

    The obvious effect this would have would be to make it so that employers stop hiring anyone living X distance away from the office, which I don’t actually think would be a good thing.

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      11·
      6 hours ago

      They can: hire locally (not a bad thing), move out of overpriced areas (also not a bad thing), pay/find closer housing for employees and negotiate better prices (also not a bad thing) or just make remoteable jobs remote.

      All positive consequences of… Having to pay your employeea for their time spent for the company.

    • ChogChog@lemmy.world
      3·
      11 hours ago

      My initial reaction is the same, but I could also see it having the positive effect of making companies lobby for better mixed zoning.

      On the other hand, you know good and well who’s going to “invest” in the property around their buildings. Then it’s just company towns with extra steps…

    • raze2012@lemmy.world
      11·
      11 hours ago

      Doubtful. If they live in an urban area, that means they need to up their compensation to compete with local talent in the city (because housing is more expensive). Whereas an employee in a suburb commuting might take a smaller pay. The extra few thousand dollars of stipend wouldn’t cancel this dynamic out.

      • VibeSurgeon@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        11 hours ago

        In that scenario, the pay kind of shakes out to be the same between the worker living closer in the city and the suburban commuter, if the pay is going to be lower for the suburban commuter to have them remain competitive.

        So are they even really getting paid for their commute time, in that case? It seems like extra steps to arrive at the same end result.

        • raze2012@lemmy.world
          1·
          27 minutes ago

          So are they even really getting paid for their commute time, in that case?

          Pay is always about negotiation and leverage. This stipend won’t change those fundamental facts. If it’s a perk that would win over someone who’d otherwise walk, that’s a win for them, right?