The pay's the thing

A few weeks ago, I saw an article about tech companies that are allowing their employees to work from wherever. But in return, those who opt to no longer work in (or out of) expensive metro offices must accept a pay cut.

Stripe Inc. plans to make a one-time payment of $20,000 to employees who opt to move out of San Francisco, New York or Seattle, but also cut their base salary by as much as 10%, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The payments processor will make the offer available to workers who choose to relocate before the end of the year, said the person, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss private details. But employees opting to move may have to relinquish some of their base pay. (Source: Bloomberg)

Stripe isn't the only one. VMware also has this kind of policy, and Facebook, Twitter, and Service Now have looked at them.

This is sure an aspect of remote work that's going to be getting more and more attention.

I can see both sides to the argument.

If a job is worth $X, and the employee contributes $X value, they ought to be paid $X. If they choose to live in San Francisco rather than in Saint Louis, well, that higher cost of living is on them. 

On the other hand, if there's a value to having people come into the office at least part of the time - and I'm someone who believes that there is - shouldn't those who are able to regularly come in full-time or part-time receive higher compensation? If an employee is in SF where their company is, and is paying eye-popping rent for a pokey apartment, AND it's important for their company that they have facetime rather than FaceTime, why shouldn't they make more money? Let the employee who chose to move to SL because they wanted to live in a mid-century modern home that could be had for about 1/4 the cost of same in SF, but who can only meet remotely, get less of a salary. Because  - and, again, this is only if there is some value to being around the office in person - the employee living in Saint Louis will be providing less value.

I know that WFH (work from home) is the reality of the present, and of the pandemic future. And I believe that, in the post-pandemic world, if their job allows for it, everyone should be able to work from home a few days a week. A truly wonderful benefit, starting with the no-commute aspects. 

But facetime (as in face-to-face time not mediated by a device) matters. 

There are concerns that "remote work over the long term could stifle innovation or hamper productivity." But in purely human terms:

Management by walking around is a good thing. Chance encounters at the coffee machine may turn into a problem-solved. It's nice to run into the execs on the elevator or in the cafeteria. And then there's the purely personal benefits of being in the office: casual chats, grabbed lunches, sheet cake celebrations. Yes, you can forge relationships with colleagues who are remote from you. I made lasting friendships with a couple of folks who worked from satellite outposts while I worked from corporate HQ. But it helped that we saw each other up close and personal once a quarter or so.

I have no idea whether they exist of not - TLTG (Too Lazy To Google) -   but I think that government workers who live in more expensive locations should be paid a cost-of-living differential. It really does cost more for a postal worker to live in Manhattan than it does for a postal worker to live in Mayberry. (Of course, local positions like teacher do have a differential. Teachers in Manhattan already make more than teachers in Mayberry. As they should.)

Anyway, we're going to be seeing more and more adjustments as the work world adjusts to adding where to the who-what-when-and-how of the workplace.