Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple 'Tracking Employee Attendance' in Crackdown on Remote Working
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Both should be a suitable amount for their skills and the work done. You don’t pay people for where they live or commute from. People in London are paid more because the going rate is more in London
No they shouldn’t. Everyone who takes a job should think “is what I’m being paid (including what’s left after bills including commuting) worth the effort/value I will provide”. If the answer is no, find another job
Yeah, this is a management problem, not an employee problem. I suspect that number is much less than 20% but, regardless, if you can't tell the difference between you subordinate working and non working then maybe it's the manager watching Scooby Doo.
They also are more effective in person, which is why they tend to travel more for work. It's not unusual to take two days of their time traveling to have 2 hours of in-person meetings in another city.
Much of the reason senior people have doors is because they're more likely to be discussing sensitive topics than junior people, both planning and HR related items that shouldn't be discussed in open earshot of the office.
Unless you're firing someone for watching Scooby Doo, then it's best with the door open...
I think we're mostly saying the same thing but just disagree on the definition of "productive". If the value of a senior person is to build up the junior staff, then building up the junior staff is productive work.
If your employer wants you to help mentor junior staff but is only evaluating your performance based on widgets produced, then we're back to a management problem.
Agreed, though I'm not sure even the juniors can't benefit from a day or two at home to focus away from the social pressures of the office.
This is pretty much what Apple is pushing for as well.
Obviously. Why should an employee have to commute for free? Especially when remote work is possible but Apple is forcing them to work in person?
If both should be compensated "the same amount" then it's kind of a wash and the length or type of commute becomes irrelevant. They therefore both get the same salary/compensation and, one way or another, use part of that salary/compensation to cover commuting, housing, etc. expenses.
So you have a problem with people having a very basic sense of work life balance, even though all studies show people have increased productivity when they work from home?
This is what it comes down to with people like you. You don’t care that employees actually do MORE work from home, you just have a weird bitterness toward the idea of people enjoying life
Employees already been commuting for "free" - that is, the cost was not passed on to their employer. It goes to their cost of living. Want to live closer to work? Your residential costs will go up. Why should the employer have to pay you more for you living further away from the office?
Remote work is very much a disrupter - if it propagates further, we'll see cities level off and quite likely shrink - as many people would rather live in nature than a suburb.
This will cause even greater impacts to the retail that exists in cities - as people become more disperse, it'll feed more to Amazon / online shopping.
Remote work is very much a disrupter - if it propagates further, we'll see cities level off and quite likely shrink - as many people would rather live in nature than a suburb.
This will cause even greater impacts to the retail that exists in cities - as people become more disperse, it'll feed more to Amazon / online shopping.
Retail will evolve. I really don’t care about the loss of ubiquitous coffee chains in central London that charge £3+ for a coffee and more about my local cafe a 10 min walk away on my local high street that is thriving now more of us stay home. The main losers in this will be landlords and transport such as black cabsEmployees already been commuting for "free" - that is, the cost was not passed on to their employer. It goes to their cost of living. Want to live closer to work? Your residential costs will go up. Why should the employer have to pay you more for you living further away from the office?
Remote work is very much a disrupter - if it propagates further, we'll see cities level off and quite likely shrink - as many people would rather live in nature than a suburb.
No, all studies dont show the same thing. Never speak in absolutes because it only takes one case to have your argument crumble. Show us “all studies”.
People like you? Let the people find their dream job. Good luck to that.
Exactly. Oh, the plight of the Apple Park slaves, who have no differences from actual slaves. My heart truly goes out to them! [also sarcasm]
Some companies do, at which point is is simply part of the salary no matter how much you use to commute.
Unless you work from home, then you don’t.
Overall it doesn’t really matter. Employees would seemingly rather pay for rent and utilities instead of people working from home.
Even the apple shuttles. I assume tech companies have the shuttles because of the greater impact to reduce traffic. Which I imagine they do considering each bus holds 50-75 people and there’s dozens of trips per day.
