Lol you should be allowed to clock in when you start your commute. These CEOs don’t even want to pay their employees when they are on the clock and working.
Here’s a fun fact. Vasquez Rocks is a common shooting location for Hollywood. Particularly Star Trek; my wife and I make a game of pointing out when they’re using Vasquez Rocks for yet another episode.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”. If they shoot within the studio zone, people have to pay for their own transportation and meals. If it’s outside, the studio pays for all that. Vasquez Rocks is just outside the studio zone.
I also love seeing the Vasquez Rocks for the same reason. Had a friend that lived in Antelope Valley and I would drive by them any time I went out to his place.
Same trick is pulled across Africa. If a conference takes place a certain distance from the capital city, you get per diem. So you’ll see clusters of hotels with fancy conference centers just outside the radius. It’s just a day trip but people will play receipt fraud and make it look like they stayed the night and split the price with whoever is selling receipts.
In theory that sounds good but I don’t really get how it’d work. I mean what if you just lived four hours away so your commute there and back was just your eight hours? That’s obviously ridiculous so what’s the cut off? Like an hour? How does that affect breaks and lunch if you do live an hour away so you’re only working six hours? Or is it just like a premium pay, like you earn 10% of your salary on your way in?
My husband has to drive to different sites every day. He clocks in when he starts his car, and starts getting paid either an hour later or the minute he gets to the job site, whichever is sooner. So if they schedule him more than an hour from home, he gets paid for that extra drive time, which is nice. First hour is just expected commute.
Any company that does that likely uses a company vehicle as company property and demands you live in the specific area.
My old employer did that for our field technicians. You were paid from the second you left your home until you got back. If you had to stay overnight - then they paid for that too.
We hired people all over the US but we only hired people in centralized areas key to our customers. You were NOT allowed to change your home address more than 20 miles without sufficient approval. It would be grounds for termination.
My coworker lived in Alabama, and got some girl pregnant when they had him working in Philadelphia on an all-hands type of emergency . He decided to move to Philly to raise the child. You’ve no idea the amount of bureaucratic headache it took to stay employed.
Interesting. Where I work we have field techs as well but I guess it’s a little different. Everyone’s issued their own truck, the truck just lives at the office. So you’d drive to the office, pick up your truck, and then start earning windshield time. In any case, I do wonder what it’d look like for like a retail worker or something.
When I worked for IT call center back in the day they had a reimbursement plan for everyone coming into work… Within reason of course. We rearly had call in due to transportation issues. If you lived within one hour drive of the office you got an estimate on the gas, time, and vehicle maintenance check at the end of each month. If you didn’t have a vehicle they paid for your yearly public transportation cost. It was such a additive to the culture of the office and ensured the worker wasn’t being held financially responsible for getting to work! Such a weird concept in a world of selfless leadership and a beat down labor force.
We had maybe 1 field technician for every state. So like literally 1 technician for all of North and South Carolina. 2 for Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana. 3 for all of Florida (North, South, Central).
There often isn’t an office to go to in your state but we do sell there so we need on-site staff.
If the CEO of the company you work for has to travel more than 30 minutes one way, believe it when I say they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
Just tie it in with minimum wage reform that your “paid” hours start one hour before you are scheduled to work, and end one hour after you are “off the clock.” Mandate a minimum of 40 paid hours a week for all employees, and no more then 12 scheduled hours within a 24 hour period.
I mean if I was a miner and instead of working in the mines I could just drive for 8 hours that sounds a little more doable. In any case, what if I just get a job somewhere and then move? As much as people on lemmy hate driving I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes it.
Can they also prevent you from biking to work or taking public transit since those would be slower?
If you get in an accident is the company liable since you are on the clock?
How would they check your time?
What if you were running an errand before work does time start when you get in the car or when you finish the errand?
At the end of the day it’s just easier for the company to pay you whatever money would go into the commuting budget and evenly distribute it to everyone’s salary.
And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
Guess we just have to make more shareholder value if we want nice things. We can’t talk too loudly though, just in case someone gets the idea that the workers should actually become the shareholders.
Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.
I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable
My company’s policy is that if you’re traveling to other offices, that’s paid time. If I go into the main office, but then midday have to drive 2 hours to one of our labs or something, it makes sense I’d be paid for that, right? Same with commuting during business trips. So, if I have the ability to WFH, how is it any different? I’m having to travel from one office location to another.
It depends, where is your designated work site. If your main office is the one at work then being able to wfh is a privilege that if feasible should 100% be allowed but if part of your job is not able to be done remotely and once a week they require you to go the office there is no reason the company should pay for that
On the flip side if you are a remote employee who does not have a designated work site that’s asked to come to some random office to pick up a new laptop that should be on the clock.
The difference is control of the situation if you know where your designated work site is and choose to have a long commute to get there that is a personal choice, you don’t however have control over the random places that your work sends you like secondary job sites or another state.
Obviously there is no right or wrong answer to this as it’s all opinions but the way I see it is it’s bad for morale if a coworker got to work less than because they lived further away and others had to pick up their slack. Environmentally it’s worse because it encourages people to live further away and be even more car reliant.
There also are just better options.
If the goal is to reduce the total hours people have to work because 8 hours + 1 hour unpaid lunch + 1 hour of commuting eats away at people’s day then you could just lower everybody’s required work time by the average commuting time
If the goal is to pay people more you could just use the extra money you would use for paying for the commute and just pay your employees more
But you could add extra incentives like anyone who bikes/walks/takes public transit to work gets to leave extra early
As I mentioned before pay people more if they live within X distance from work so they don’t have to commute as much
Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.
Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.
It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution
If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair
If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away
I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it
I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”
I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.
Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense
I don’t think you understand… The only difference is there are those who expect and demand to paid for their time and money spent getting to work and those who don’t. There are those who accept getting the raw end of the work-life and financial balance, and those that don’t. If the CEO can demand, expect, and get compensation. So can the boots on the ground worker. Only real difference is that you don’t. That’s capitalism.
Lol you should be allowed to clock in when you start your commute. These CEOs don’t even want to pay their employees when they are on the clock and working.
Here’s a fun fact. Vasquez Rocks is a common shooting location for Hollywood. Particularly Star Trek; my wife and I make a game of pointing out when they’re using Vasquez Rocks for yet another episode.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”. If they shoot within the studio zone, people have to pay for their own transportation and meals. If it’s outside, the studio pays for all that. Vasquez Rocks is just outside the studio zone.
Slight correction, it’s just inside the studio zone. Studios wouldn’t prefer a place that requires them to pay more!
Yeah, that makes more sense.
Vasquez Rocks is inside the studio zone, according to your link.
I also love seeing the Vasquez Rocks for the same reason. Had a friend that lived in Antelope Valley and I would drive by them any time I went out to his place.
Same trick is pulled across Africa. If a conference takes place a certain distance from the capital city, you get per diem. So you’ll see clusters of hotels with fancy conference centers just outside the radius. It’s just a day trip but people will play receipt fraud and make it look like they stayed the night and split the price with whoever is selling receipts.
that fact is indeed fun
In theory that sounds good but I don’t really get how it’d work. I mean what if you just lived four hours away so your commute there and back was just your eight hours? That’s obviously ridiculous so what’s the cut off? Like an hour? How does that affect breaks and lunch if you do live an hour away so you’re only working six hours? Or is it just like a premium pay, like you earn 10% of your salary on your way in?
I wonder if any company actually does this.
My husband has to drive to different sites every day. He clocks in when he starts his car, and starts getting paid either an hour later or the minute he gets to the job site, whichever is sooner. So if they schedule him more than an hour from home, he gets paid for that extra drive time, which is nice. First hour is just expected commute.
Any company that does that likely uses a company vehicle as company property and demands you live in the specific area.
My old employer did that for our field technicians. You were paid from the second you left your home until you got back. If you had to stay overnight - then they paid for that too.
We hired people all over the US but we only hired people in centralized areas key to our customers. You were NOT allowed to change your home address more than 20 miles without sufficient approval. It would be grounds for termination.
My coworker lived in Alabama, and got some girl pregnant when they had him working in Philadelphia on an all-hands type of emergency . He decided to move to Philly to raise the child. You’ve no idea the amount of bureaucratic headache it took to stay employed.
Interesting. Where I work we have field techs as well but I guess it’s a little different. Everyone’s issued their own truck, the truck just lives at the office. So you’d drive to the office, pick up your truck, and then start earning windshield time. In any case, I do wonder what it’d look like for like a retail worker or something.
When I worked for IT call center back in the day they had a reimbursement plan for everyone coming into work… Within reason of course. We rearly had call in due to transportation issues. If you lived within one hour drive of the office you got an estimate on the gas, time, and vehicle maintenance check at the end of each month. If you didn’t have a vehicle they paid for your yearly public transportation cost. It was such a additive to the culture of the office and ensured the worker wasn’t being held financially responsible for getting to work! Such a weird concept in a world of selfless leadership and a beat down labor force.
We don’t have enough density for that.
We had maybe 1 field technician for every state. So like literally 1 technician for all of North and South Carolina. 2 for Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana. 3 for all of Florida (North, South, Central).
There often isn’t an office to go to in your state but we do sell there so we need on-site staff.
If the CEO of the company you work for has to travel more than 30 minutes one way, believe it when I say they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
Just tie it in with minimum wage reform that your “paid” hours start one hour before you are scheduled to work, and end one hour after you are “off the clock.” Mandate a minimum of 40 paid hours a week for all employees, and no more then 12 scheduled hours within a 24 hour period.
Of they live 4 hours away. Why are they applying for that job and why is that place hiring someone that fast away when commuting is a requirement.
I mean if I was a miner and instead of working in the mines I could just drive for 8 hours that sounds a little more doable. In any case, what if I just get a job somewhere and then move? As much as people on lemmy hate driving I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes it.
The real question is.
Why would the mine hire the guy who gets paid 8 hours of unproductive driving? They would only hire the closest individuals.
And what if you move? I guarantee there would be a contract stating you cannot change your home address by [X distance] without approval.
So your employer can choose where you live?
Can they also prevent you from biking to work or taking public transit since those would be slower?
If you get in an accident is the company liable since you are on the clock?
How would they check your time?
What if you were running an errand before work does time start when you get in the car or when you finish the errand?
At the end of the day it’s just easier for the company to pay you whatever money would go into the commuting budget and evenly distribute it to everyone’s salary.
I pay for food delivery, they should pay for labor delivery.
And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
Guess we just have to make more shareholder value if we want nice things. We can’t talk too loudly though, just in case someone gets the idea that the workers should actually become the shareholders.
Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.
I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable
My company’s policy is that if you’re traveling to other offices, that’s paid time. If I go into the main office, but then midday have to drive 2 hours to one of our labs or something, it makes sense I’d be paid for that, right? Same with commuting during business trips. So, if I have the ability to WFH, how is it any different? I’m having to travel from one office location to another.
It depends, where is your designated work site. If your main office is the one at work then being able to wfh is a privilege that if feasible should 100% be allowed but if part of your job is not able to be done remotely and once a week they require you to go the office there is no reason the company should pay for that
On the flip side if you are a remote employee who does not have a designated work site that’s asked to come to some random office to pick up a new laptop that should be on the clock.
The difference is control of the situation if you know where your designated work site is and choose to have a long commute to get there that is a personal choice, you don’t however have control over the random places that your work sends you like secondary job sites or another state.
Obviously there is no right or wrong answer to this as it’s all opinions but the way I see it is it’s bad for morale if a coworker got to work less than because they lived further away and others had to pick up their slack. Environmentally it’s worse because it encourages people to live further away and be even more car reliant.
There also are just better options.
If the goal is to reduce the total hours people have to work because 8 hours + 1 hour unpaid lunch + 1 hour of commuting eats away at people’s day then you could just lower everybody’s required work time by the average commuting time
If the goal is to pay people more you could just use the extra money you would use for paying for the commute and just pay your employees more
But you could add extra incentives like anyone who bikes/walks/takes public transit to work gets to leave extra early
As I mentioned before pay people more if they live within X distance from work so they don’t have to commute as much
Are they driving for work? Or driving for personal reason?
Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.
Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.
It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution
If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair
If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away
I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it
It’s the rules of the game you’re mad at. Not the commuting equitably issue.
I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”
I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.
Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense
I don’t think you understand… The only difference is there are those who expect and demand to paid for their time and money spent getting to work and those who don’t. There are those who accept getting the raw end of the work-life and financial balance, and those that don’t. If the CEO can demand, expect, and get compensation. So can the boots on the ground worker. Only real difference is that you don’t. That’s capitalism.