• severien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would move as far as possible from the job site. 2 hours one way on a train watching Netflix, 4 hours work, 2 hours relax on the train. That would be nice.

    • randomname01@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      …and you just wouldn’t get hired, because the guy who lives next to their office is a more attractive option, even if he’s only 80% as productive as you.

      And that’s arguably why it makes some sense; companies would be more likely to hire more locally and be more flexible about remote work - both of which save precious planetary resources ánd people’s time.

      • Colforge@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Companies would also then be incentivized to invest in and lobby for better affordable housing in the communities their offices are located in/around so that employees at all pay scales have affordable options within a few miles of the office.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would just move temporarily, and after probation period move far away. Surely they can’t fire me because my living situation changed and had to move…

        • randomname01@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this hypothetical scenario this gets implemented it would certainly be standard to have a clause to protect employers against exactly that.

          • severien@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Seems kinda shitty that you basically can’t move without employer’s approval.

            Also poorer people living farther away would get discriminated.

        • Lazz45@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They very much can, will, and do for much less. Welcome to an “at-will” employer. The only thing that’s illegal is discrimination

    • patchwork@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      okay but when do chores happen? i can barely keep up on dishes and laundry with a 45 minute commute each way. sleep, too…

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Currently you work 8 hours + 1.5 hours commute. With this you’d work 6.5 hours + 1.5 hour commute, so you’d have 1.5 extra hour for chores or whatever.

        If you use train/bus for commuting, you can even sleep there :-)

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re highlighting that it’s not a great solution, but at least a 2 hours of flat payment per office call would be an acknowledgement of my time considering it’s an hour each way for the majority of people.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally happened at a place I worked at. They hired people near to the work, who then within a year bought a cheap house out in the boonies and increased their commute to 3+ hours daily. And they got paid for it. Such a stupid policy (for the company, I don’t blame the workers for taking advantage).