• 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