Working from Home

[ad hoc]

They're obliged to responsibly maximize profits for their shareholders.

(my bold). You're ignoring your own interpretation of what companies are for here. That's before we get on to the fact that it;s an incredibly one sided interpretation in the first place.

You're paid by your value to your company

Come on. You're not paid for your value to the company, you don;t need to be a Marxist to know that this is not true.

Rolling back wages to suit circumstance might seem like fucking them

It is fucking them. What next, looking into the property value of everybody's accommodation and paying them accordingly?

If companies want to behave like this, employees should start claiming the overheads (rent, space, electricity, maintenance, support staff, coffee, etc etc ) that they are not using by not coming into the office. But we both know that the weaselly cunts would say that this isn't the point

(edit: removed a needlessly snide bit)

[WOM]

(my bold). You're ignoring your own interpretation of what companies are for here. That's before we get on to the fact that it's an incredibly one sided interpretation in the first place.

I'm not ignoring my interpretation. I'm trying to be more accurate in expressing that companies are supposed to maximize profitability while making decisions that would allow them to continue being a going concern.

Come on. You're not paid for your value to the company, you don;t need to be a Marxist to know that this is not true.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course you're paid for your value to the company. Or you're having issues with the word 'value' or something. Not clear.

It is fucking them. What next, looking into the property value of everybody's accommodation and paying them accordingly?

Yeah, I'd like to say that you're being absurd and 'that would never happen', but business be business. By now I'm convinced that they'll do just about anything.

If companies want to behave like this, employees should start claiming the overheads (rent, space, electricity, maintenance, support staff, coffee, etc etc ) that they are not using by not coming into the office. But we both know that the weaselly cunts would say that this isn't the point

I have no doubt that there are some employees that do this and some companies that pay it. And in the future, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Paying people a 'home office' cost is probably much cheaper than actually renting office space.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

Is “London weighting” still a thing?

In the NHS it's 20% (inner), 15% (outer), 5% (fringe), subject to minimum and maximum caps.

[ad hoc]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course you're paid for your value to the company. Or you're having issues with the word 'value' or something. Not clear.

Even in this very thread the argument is being made that people should get paid different amounts of money depending on where they live. If they do the same job (to the same standard) their value to the company is the same. And that's before we get onto the reality of capitalism which is that people aren't paid for their value, they're paid according to what the "market says" their value is (or in short, what the minimum that company can get away with is)

[WOM]

I'd argue you're comparing two things: the value of a guy moving boxes in a warehouse from Point A to Point B is worth whatever the market will bear on a specific day in a specific place. It's a job that could be done reasonably well by a high number of people. That doesn't have to mean 'unskilled', because most jobs could be done with reasonable proficiency by high numbers of people.

The other kind of thing is someone who 'brings' value to a company through extraordinary innovation or ideas or expertise. Those are people who 'command' salaries that are above and beyond.

When you use the phrase 'the minimum the company can get away with', I suspect (because I know your politics) you mean it pejoratively. But you pay people what they are willing to work for, and usually not much more. Because, to my point upthread, you have a duty to maximize profitability for your shareholders. And if you're McDonalds and Burger King is paying $10 an hour and Wendy's is paying $10 an hour, why would you decide to pay $20 an hour? Yes, you'd be the most awesome guy in the world, but you'd either go bankrupt or you'd be voted out by your shareholders, and rightly so. Sure, you could pay $12 an hour, but that's going to come from somewhere. Maybe higher food prices...maybe lower profits. But it's going to have an effect on your operation in some meaningful way.

[Jimski]

That doesn't mean one shouldn't criticise that sort of logic when applied by companies. It's not some sort of natural law. These structures are put in place by people, and should be exposed as cruel and heartless whenever appropriate.

[ad hoc]

Yes we have a massive difference in what we understand by words like value and worth, and also by our understanding of what the primary "duty" of a company is.

[Jimski]

If anything it highlights the fact that the whole fucking system should be changed. I'm hoping that's what WOM is implying through his posts. Makes it obvious to me anyway.

[WOM]

Yes we have a massive difference in what we understand by words like value and worth, and also by our understanding of what the primary "duty" of a company is.

Well, you seemed to object to what I was saying, but you haven't explained why. I'm not talking about the worth of a human being or anything like that. I'm purely talking about the value of one's labours to a public company.

Also, what's your understanding of what the primary duty of a company is? It's to make money. That's it. Ford's primary duty isn't to build cars...it's to make money. It does so by building cars. Virgin Airlines' primary duty is to make money. If any of these companies does anything noble or wonderful alongside, that's besides the point.

[WOM]

If anything it highlights the fact that the whole fucking system should be changed. I'm hoping that's what WOM is implying through his posts. Makes it obvious to me anyway.

Well, the whole system is rotten, that's for sure. I've said it before and I'll say it a hundred times, unequal distribution of wealth is hideous and corrosive, and I wish there were strict systems in place to even it out. If we could even do next to nothing and close all the offshore tax haven loopholes, we'd make an enormous difference. But we can't even get everyone on board for that.

Or ensuring that private pensions are fully funded before paying a cent in dividends or executive bonuses? Wouldn't that seem easy?

Or capping executive pay at X times the lowest full time salary in the company? Do-able for sure.

But you want to talk about reforming the entire capitalist system? Nah.

[Snake Plissken]

Well, usually, yeah. They're called raises, but they're usually just cost of living increases. And no, not everybody everywhere always, but typically.

Oh, no no no no.

A raise is when I have performed well, or the company has performed well, or both.

This is separate. If the company is tying a portion of my pay rate to the place where I'm living then it is only fair that that portion should go up, as well as down depending on how the local housing market is performing.

Now, if I wanted to be really arsey about it, and my pay is tied to where I'm living... I've got my eye on this lovely mansion across the street.

[ad hoc]

I don't know where to start, it's like we're from completely different planets. Will try to answer your questions a bit later when I have a bit of time and a keyboard

[Hot Pepsi]

People are paid the least amount of money the company believes it will take to attract the best candidates and keep them in the job, balanced against maximizing the labor surplus.

The owners are paid the maximum they can manage while still keeping the operation going.

Specific personal living costs are not a factor.
Neither is what anyone “deserves.”

In many cases, it does require a higher salary to attract and keep somebody in a job in a more expensive city because prospective employees with options compare the total lifestyle package that comes with each job option, not just the salary.

And as such, it works the other way too. Companies in more boring towns have to find creative ways to attract people to their location. That’s a big reason why so many companies still pay outrageous rents to be headquartered in Manhattan or San Francisco.



If Facebook thinks working remotely is a perk that people want enough to take a pay cut, they could just say that. It’s just a transaction. They should just be honest about that. They may find that belief is true or not. I suspect it will depend on the employee.

But acting like the employee brought that pay cut on themselves by wanting to WFH or that it’s “necessary” is bullshit. After all, Facebook as a whole is utterly unnecessary, but that’s a different topic.

They might also assert that letting people working at home is costing them something and therefore want the employee to share in that cost, but in most cases, the opposite is true. Not having to rent or own an office saves them money.

[ursus arctos]

There are a lot of absolutes being thrown around in this thread that don't comport with reality.

The absolute profit maximisation theory of fidicuary duty has also been rejected by a number of jurisdictions as a legal matter and by more firms as a matter of policy.

[WOM]

Great post, HP.

[WOM]

The absolute profit maximisation theory of fidicuary duty has also been rejected by a number of jurisdictions as a legal matter and by more firms as a matter of policy.

Of course. But as a general rule, that's what companies are meant and supposed to do. They don't exist to provide employment or make widgets. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Nefertiti2]

that's something that's changed.

[ursus arctos]

Yes, that's very true

And it has changed because of changes in the attitudes of management and certain types of investors rather than any change in the law (which has actually moved in the opposite direction).

[ad hoc]

Well, you seemed to object to what I was saying, but you haven't explained why. I'm not talking about the worth of a human being or anything like that. I'm purely talking about the value of one's labours to a public company.

No you're talking about "value" and "worth" as if they only exist as meanings related to "what the market will pay". Price = what the market will pay. Value and worth do not mean that at all. At a basic level an hour of your labour is worth exactly the same as an hour of my time. Obviously if the reason why someone wants to purchase an hour of our time to write advertising copy, then your worth is higher than mine, because you are skilled and experienced and bring loads to the table. Your "worth" in this context includes everything that goes into your skills and abilities. Now if there a huge crash and there is no work and everybody will take whatever they can get, they can pay you less, because you need the money. That's your price, not your worth or your value.

Also, what's your understanding of what the primary duty of a company is? It's to make money. That's it. Ford's primary duty isn't to build cars...it's to make money. It does so by building cars. Virgin Airlines' primary duty is to make money. If any of these companies does anything noble or wonderful alongside, that's besides the point.

No. no no no no no no. They have a need to make money, it's not a duty. Arguably their only "duties" are legal ones. The primary function of Ford is to make cars. The primary function of a university is to educate and do research. The primary function of Virgin Airlines is to transport people from one place to another. It's not a duty and neither is making money. Now, I get that there are some shareholders (maybe a majority of them for some companies) who perceive that the duty of the company is to make money for them (this is I think what you're saying) and that all else is just waffle. But this does not make it what a company is about. It is a massive flaw with our system that shareholders feel like they are the most important people in any company and that the company should exist for them. They don;t do anything, they just sit there and demand profits.

Earlier you gave an example of a fast food restaurant increasing their salaries.

Sure, you could pay $12 an hour, but that's going to come from somewhere. Maybe higher food prices...maybe lower profits. But it's going to have an effect on your operation in some meaningful way.

"Maybe lower profits". Sure, that might be an effect. But as long as the company is making enough profit to invest and keep growing (if they want to keep growing) and have a reasonable surplus, then having marginally lower profits does not have an effect on their operation in any meaningful way. It might have an effect on shareholder dividends, but in the long run, arguably it;s going to make a healthier company for lots of reasons. As long as profits/surpluses are enough there is no meaningful and negative effect on the operation.

If shareholders have convinced themselves that the company exists for them and them alone, and nothing else is relevant, and that the company has a duty to give them more money every year, then they are wrong. Totally utterly wrong.

[WOM]

I'm really struggling to see how we're from different planets on this. When I say primary duty to make money, I don't mean to the exclusion of all else. I mean that if you only do one thing, this is the one thing you must do: you must make money. You must be at least self-sustaining from year to year, or else you go out of business. There really isn't much more to it than that. Otherwise, you're not a business / you're not in business.

Now, suppose you do make money, then yes, you reinvest...you give raises...you pay dividends...you have charitable components, etc. But it all comes after your ability to self-sustain from year to year. There is no going concern in business without making money. If you do nothing else, you must do that.

To your point about fast food restaurants, yes, you could do that. But to what end? Just to be kind? To attract better employees? To lower turnover? To decrease product theft? Because if there is a business reason, you'll probably be fine. But if you're trying to make a case to the board that paying $12 when the competition is paying $10...and there's no net business benefit...then you're going to be fired by your board.

[ad hoc]

Of course you must be sustainable, that's self evident. But making bigger and bigger profits to the exclusion of any other consideration is not.

To your point about fast food restaurants, yes, you could do that. But to what end? Just to be kind? To attract better employees? To lower turnover? To decrease product theft? Because if there is a business reason, you'll probably be fine

Because you want happy employees who are engaged and part of a loyal team. Because you want people to work for you because it's the best place of its type to work in the area. Because, yes, because they deserve a living wage. Because at the end of the day they are more important than the shareholders. Some of these benefits will be intangible, but in the long run they will definitely be benefits. If you can afford to pay them that extra you should do it because it is the right and best thing to do. if the board fire you for that because in the short term their dividends fall, then they are fucking idiots.

[WOM]

Of course you must be sustainable, that's self evident. But making bigger and bigger profits to the exclusion of any other consideration is not.

Right, but in my defense, I never said 'to the exclusion of any other consideration. I said that your first goal is profitability. Without it, you're simply not in business. We can parse that all day long, but profitability is the bar that needs to be cleared for all other things to happen.

Because you want happy employees who are engaged and part of a loyal team. Because you want people to work for you because it's the best place of its type to work in the area. Because, yes, because they deserve a living wage. Because at the end of the day they are more important than the shareholders. Some of these benefits will be intangible, but in the long run they will definitely be benefits. If you can afford to pay them that extra you should do it because it is the right and best thing to do. if the board fire you for that because in the short term their dividends fall, then they are fucking idiots.

Yes, of course you want happy, engaged employees. I'd be very curious whether paying them more improves happiness or engagement if they're doing a shit job, like making French fries, but that's beside the point. I've worked at places where they didn't pay well, but you really felt appreciated. I've also worked at a place where they backed a dumptruck of money up to my door, and I ended up so miserable that I quit after three months. So...

As for paying people extra because it's the good and right thing to do, that's more of a social / political position than it is a business one. You're really just talking about the first step in an inflationary spiral. You pay good people more...the competition has to do likewise...then costs rise...then prices rise... But that's probably neither here nor there.

Broadly I agree with what you say, though. But I think most of it has to be accomplished through regulation and taxation. If you're hoping it just happens because people in business are good, it ain't going to happen. Richard fucking Branson furloughed his people when paying them out of his own pocket for a year would have cost him something like 3% of his net worth.

[ursus arctos]

WOM, where do the unicorns that have never turned a profit but are "worth" billions fit in your model?

[Satchmo Distel]

There seems to be another motive by Facebook than just cutting pay. It wants its engineers to stay close to the Bay Area, for whatever reason, even if it's not necessary for the performance of the job.

[caja-dglh]

Maybe we can reword what Facebook is [in theory] trying to do.

If a company moves from a location based job world to a non-job location job world in the land of being an asshole - you displace every single worker and make them reapply for locationless jobs. Immediately the supply of workers increases versus saying they have to be in Palo Alto.

The availability of more supply of talented workers emerges and drives the price down. Like mining bitcoin, everything migrates to the lowest base cost (no local income tax, cheaper real estate) in competition to win the bid.

I am not saying it is necessarily right and fair, but it is what economics tells you should happen.