- Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (office rent, utilities, insurance, etc).
- This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees.
- If authorities/employees start demanding that part of those costs are covered by the company, companies will push to get avoid work-from-home schemes, as they will want more control over those expenses...
I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.
> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.
That's not that easy.
While Switzerland doesn't do rent control per se and there can be regional differences depending on scarcity of real estate for rent a landlord is rather restricted in raising rent once a contract is signed.
The only reasons why a rent can be raised are:
- Additional investments into an apartment, but the raise needs to be in proportion to the investment
- The bench mark mortgage rate goes up (on the other hand the rent needs to be lowered when the bench mark rate goes down, which is rarely the case nowadays, with a benchmark of 1.25%)
- Inflation to a certain amount, but quite restricted
Else than that rents can't just be raised.
All that said and while I see where the decision is coming from I think it's a bit ludicrous and I don't think that many employees will actually try to get this benefit. To begin with: labor laws are more flexible than rental contract law. So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it.
But there's - at least in my opinion - an ethical edge. I, for one, felt highly privileged to be able to work from home and not being dependent on public transport during rush hour. In addition my employer invested a lot to get the infrastructure for thousands of people up to scratch in a very short time.
My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially safes my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.
> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement
I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn. They feel that "it is not fair" because they did as much as they could for their company, the company did not care.
Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?
> So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it.
That is true for everything. Are you aiming on being always the cheaper employee in your company? That is an strategy that may work when there is lay offs, but I do not know much wealth you will accumulate in the long term with that strategy instead of trying to maximize your salary/benefits.
I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).
If you do not care for your well-being but you are willing to do sacrifices for your company, may I ask what sector your company works in? Maybe, is it an NGO?
There is a (not so fine) line between looking after yourself and being a greedy jerk.
I find that a little bit of grace goes a long way. Ask for a raise when you deserve it, absolutely. But if you ruthlessly try to extract every last penny from your employer, they will do the same to you.
Have you ever browsed HN at work? Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5?
I don't want my workplace to be a battleground over pennies. Treat your employer with some grace and they will do the same.
Unless, of course, your employer is already a greedy asshole. Then you should change employers.
Maybe you have a very good and ethical employer, but my anecdotal evidence tells me it's not the rule, it's the exception.
Why is it okay for an owner to try to squeeze every penny he can out of his employees but not okay for the employees to do it?
The real problem is that the company normally holds the leverage, so the employee has no recourse, no matter how "ethically" wrong the situation may be.
Not to mention a company without its employees is nothing.
So assuming everyone is working on good faith (neither side is cheating the other) your conscience should be more than clear when asking for more as in the example of rent. The risk is almost always on the side of the employee. For the company you're normally just a number.
The balance does shift depending on the company size, but I believe this logic still holds true.
There's a story I was once told about how someone worked really late and then they came in late the next morning, but a VP happened to notice and they got in trouble despite having worked overtime.
I'm in favor of not being a "greedy jerk", but you have to do it for yourself. If you think you will be rewarded, that is delusional, and really just another type of greed.
An example of layoff differences between CH and US: unemployment in April climbed to 3,3%, with the doomsayers worrying what might happen if it eventually goes to an (unprecedented) 7% due to coronavirus. (there are many other differences; eg swiss don't take their rifles to demonstrations)
> I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn.
I see where you're coming from and to answer one of your later question: I work in one of the most dog eat dog industries, which is finance.
That said, I don't see myself as a charitable extension of my employer. I'm well paid and fairly treated and as long this is the case my employer can expect me to deliver the best possible performance and my loyalty as long we're in a contractual relationship.
Let me qualify loyalty, becasue it touches exactly into the neither regions you're outlining (I was loyal all my life and now I get the boot. And while that gripe may be justified it's not really helpful). Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.
I expect decent treatment, supplying of all the tools, information, training and resources required to perform my job, human decency in general and a certain amount of fairness.
That's while the contract lasts and partially beyond, confidentiality being a good example for that.
I understand that it's a transactional agreement, which lasts as long the contract lasts and doesn't imply a job guarantee.
But one part of the deal and as long it's reasonably balanced is that I just wouldn't seek out ways how to squeeze a couple hundred francs a month extra, which I don't believe I have coming. I feel fairly and well enough paid so that I don't really factor in the use of a bit of power and my personal laptop, which is essentially the whole cost I incur.
For what it's worth my employer provides a laptop, but it's far more comfortable and convenient to work on my own system within their secure setup with a real keyboard and a 24" screen. That's my choice and if I have that option and chose to use it I don't see why that's my employers problem.
> Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?
Actually it's harder to fire employees in most European countries. Switzerland has comparatively liberal employment laws compared to a lot of other (western and southern) European countries. Liberal as in a contract can be terminated from both sides under respect of a notice period without a reason specified.
This is much harder in, for example France or Spain, which has the drawback that companies very much prefer temporary employment, which in turn leads to a two class employment system.
I think it's a bit of an attitude thing. Companies, whenever possible, prefer to hang on to their employees, even during downturns, since they consider it cheaper than to re-hire and retrain a lot of employees in the next upswing.
Differences in social security arrangements also make that more palatable for companies. And it's not only a cost thing, it's also the loss of important institutional knowledge, which is irreplaceable.
> I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).
I hope not. As I could hopefully illustrate I'm not in the corporate wellfare business. I don't believe in dumping and the one thing that bugs me so much with our race to the bottom capitalism we now have, best illustrated by the gig economy, is the "how can we squeeze out more and more, while treating vital partners (employees) like crap" attitude you see so much nowadays.
Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.
It's not about giving away the shop, but about fairness and trust.
Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.
> Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.
I completely agree with that points. It is a matter of principle to behave professionally, not just for the company but for my own self esteem.
But, some experiences make me think twice before renounce to my rights. Many years ago, I was in a company that used to force employees to work on weekends. I had enough negotiation power to reject working on weekends. For me, it was not a problem. Weekend work was paid and I had no other responsibilities. But, my and other "top" colleagues rejection helped others to have the possibility to stand for their own rights.
I guess that I see the situation tinted by that perspective. If I renounce to a right, to say not to work on weekends, I may damage others that may end losing their right unwillingly. Some time later, I left the company for something better, thou. In my twenty five years of working for all kinds of companies, I have seen many different situations.
Japan and vacation days is a more general example. Even if employees have right to vacation days, it is difficult to take them when nobody else is doing so. As each employee renounces to their right to take vacations, they force the rest to do the same as it becomes a social stigma. To the extend, that for me, to renounce to your own vacation days becomes damaging to everybody else even done in good faith.
> Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.
So, maybe you have been lucky enough, or smart enough to not work for companies that have abused their position. I guess that I would be of your same opinion if I had the same experience. By default, I agree that employers and employees need to collaborate to maximize the benefits of the partnership.
> Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.
I completely relate to your actions. And, to avoid rewarding the wrong behavior is important and a good value to live for.
> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially saves my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.
Much respect to your principles. I agree entirely with your viewpoint.
> The bench mark mortgage rate goes up (on the other hand the rent needs to be lowered when the bench mark rate goes down, which is rarely the case nowadays, with a benchmark of 1.25%)
That rate just went down a couple months ago and most renters would be entitled to a rent reduction just by sending a registered letter to their landlord. Every one I know who did that for a 3% rent reduction as a result.
Can you clarify that? To be clear its normal not to change rents during the contracted period. When contract expires what are the rules for permissable rent increases for the next contract?
Rental contracts are usually not expiring (there are exceptions).
Each party can terminate the contract usually twice a year with a three month notice period.
Termination must follow certain formality and it's slightly lopside to the renters advantage in that a renter can challenge a termination, while the landlord can't.
Rent increases after a contract is terminated are possible within reason and within fair market value of the rent.
Basically: It's based on a consumer price index with the starting point of May 2000 (100%) and which is published every few years.
A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase, since the last time rent was adjusted. This is based on his equity investment into the object.
That is if you don't renovate nor modernise the building at all. It is an incentive for landlords to keep the building up to date.
In your corner case scenario, an outdated 100 years old apartment would be pretty lame and worth its fair price of "almost free".
A trend that started already in a lot of companies a couple of years ago and will only be accelerated by Covid. Many places do overbook desks in offices right now and have flex-tables without fixed assigned workers. Seems fair to think about compensating employees for the costs that are being pushed to their side.
As a non-remote employee, I had to find housing near my office. Now, as a remote employee, my only real requirements are a power source and internet connection. Sure, I have to live somewhere, but that need isn’t a result of my employment. It seems that non-remote employees have more specific and expensive housing requirements and costs.
Since I've been working at home, and so has my partner, we have had a lot more issues in the apartment. We're both on the phone all day, so there's very little chance of having a quiet space in the apartment during the week. We're also forced to split the work-related resources, like we have to organize an equitable time-share on the desk which is better for working, vs the kitchen table which is not as comfortable.
If work from home becomes the norm long term, I can imagine we would need to think about a larger apartment for this reason.
aren't you saving a good amount of money too though. I don't know if you and your partner drive to work, but I'm saving about $120/month just on gas, and I'd probably end up saving another $100-200/month on vehicle depreciation and insurance if this went on indefinitely. an extra $300/month makes a big difference in the rental market where I live.
I normally commute by bike so this isn't a factor for me. I'm also using more electricity, and I'm drinking the coffee I bought rather than the office coffee.
ah okay, so you don't save anything on the commute. I'm happy to pay for my own coffee (I get much nicer beans than we have at the office), but I have noticed that my utilities bill is no lower than it was mid-winter.
I chose my employer based on where I want to live. The commute is stil about 40 minutes of driving each way buts its manageable. If I chose my employer to be in downtown Atlanta, or thereabouts, I would need to live in an area with more expensive house, less space, and crappy schools... Or drive 1.5 hours. Unless they'd double my salary, the 1.5 hour commute is a deal breaker.
Microsoft just announced 1500 jobs in downtown Atlanta, to be near Georgia tech and the tech hub. Not sure if they realize that developers who have working experience, likely now have kids now and arent going to settle for C level schools. Their location isn't even supported by mass transit that well (bus, but no train. They likely payed a premium for the space since it's "hip".
I've found it ironic that there's even such thing a tech hub, since we are the ones who create and push for remote work.
Idk about you but I know which lower cost of living I'd prefer to move to, and my break-even salary cut is 25%. I think I can negotiate it to 15-20% which would effectively be a raise.
My salary is how much money I'm willing to take to work for the company. If I can live somewhere cheaper, that number is lower.
Another perspective is that if you live somewhere remotely, employers will pay for your increase in cost of living if you move to a more expensive place.
Or just hire people from low cost of living areas.
Depending on the location, they could just let you go.
Imagine moving from Idaho to NYC. Drastic increase in cost. If an employer needs to compensate for that, I'm pretty sure theyll think long and hard whether its worth it.
True. When my team was just starting out, we couldn't find a place where we could sit together, because company policy was that they only needed 0.7 desk per employee. Many teams did have their own space, so we had nothing.
Many people, if they know they are going to be WFH regularly, will want larger homes so that they can have a dedicated office space instead of having to set up a desk in their bedroom. This is especially true if you live with someone who also WFH and you can’t really work from the same room due to constant conference calls. Instead of a 1BR apartment, you might want a 2BR + a study, which obviously costs more.
Even if you don’t live with someone, it helps a lot to have your work space separate from your living space. I believe there are studies about this that say it makes both better for your sleep and for your work productivity if your sleep space and work space are not the same space.
Some people will also need beefier internet plans than they normally needed, so they can support constant video conferencing.
One can work from the couch or living room table in a pinch, but if you need privacy, or the contract mandates a certain level of confidentiality (like other people not being able to see the screen, or having to lock paperwork away) you will want to invest in a separate room for work.
Also, at least in Germany, not sure about Switzerland, you can only write off the rent, taxes-wise, for a separate office room with a door. You can't write off a desk in a room used for other purposes or a space in a hallway.
Not to mention if you have roommates or a spouse and kids.
My workspace cost me money to furnish, and it permanently takes up part of my house. I don't personally mind as software development is a large part of my hobbies as well so I'd have that dedicated space irrespective of my job, but for a lot of people the need for a dedicated work space is tied to their job, and not something they'd otherwise need.
Whether or not it's a net saving vs. transport costs really depends on where you happen to live.
Are people really creating dedicated spaces? What happened to all those people who were in coworking spaces and cafes where they really had nothing more than a desk and a chair?
I think the developer perspective can cloud the fact that the overwhelming majority just have a laptop and a place to put it for their "workspace".
I think people quickly will realise that if they're working at spaces like that full time in front of a laptop they'll soon be dealing with neck strain, back pain and all kinds of issues. I've worked with "just a laptop and a place to put it" and it can work for a while, but it's an awful full time replacement.
There's little that is special about software development from that point of view.
"All those people" who are in cafes really are a tiny little fraction of workers, and most co-working spaces I've been to have a wide variety of proper office environments because unsurprisingly a lot of people need a proper environment to get work done.
Everyone whose house I've seen who works from home more than every now and again has had a dedicated space.
Creating an office at home? For a lot of people, making your home a viable working space is very expensive. It may even require the worker to purchase a home or apartment with an extra room.
If you're creating a real dedicated space then that can be justified. If it's to the point where you have to buy a new house/apartment with an extra room then I'd rather just have a real office space instead, especially as an employer.
Imagine if you will: a condo building that's designed as a mixed residential/commercial space, where there are apartment units, and office units that are free-to-use for anyone with an apartment there. And the office units are pre-furnished.
Now you're essentially paying for a co-working space (whether you use it or not or whether there's always a space available) through some combination of higher unit prices and condo fees.
Wouldn't it make more sense for those who need/want a work area outside their apartment to get a co-working space?
The idea here isn't that you want a work area outside your apartment. The idea is that you'd ideally want an extra room in your apartment to serve as a home office, but you are willing to time-share it with other people to make it cheaper than the cost of an actual additional room for your exclusive use. But you still get to wander over there in your house slippers, just like a dorm kitchen.
A lot of people outside of urban centers have spare space and the money/time cost of their usual commute adds up. But, absolutely, there are many people in cities who have low commuting costs and their apartment is basically somewhere to sleep. I can't imagine working remote like that is sustainable long-term. Many will have to move into a larger place or rent a co-working space.
“Free”? Do you have absolutely no attachments to where you live? People have social support networks - friends, families, places that they go to, classes they’re taking. Children who go to schools and have friends there and go to parks for play dates and birthdays.
Those are just one or two of the social costs. How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?
People who live close to work in an expensive area have traded money for time. Higher salary; shorter commute. They may not have the resources to move.
Actually, yes. I have no attachments to where I live. I am personally free to go live anywhere I want in the country. I don't really have friends, don't have children, I don't want to live near my family, and I'm single.
"How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?"
Versus living in the aforementioned very expensive area? Seems like it would probably save money to move somewhere more affordable.
It already reduces the cost to employees by removing the transportation cost. They should encourage it because it benefits all those involved including the environment. I don't know why they would make it more difficult.
Really? My employer pays half my transportation cost, which is required by law (at least where I live). Actually, they continue to pay and let me come by bike (which they approve) so I earn money evert month just by going to the office. Oh, now that I'm WFH due to Covid, they just pay me for going from the bed room to the living room.
> This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees
On the other hand, employees suddenly gain a lot of free time, especially those on enormous commutes. But even for small-ish commutes and 1 day/wk in the physical office the numbers are significant - at 30min one way travel, 4 days HO give you 4 h of extra time - or 10% of their workweek. Fully remote with 1h one way travel? 10 hours or over a whole work day's equivalent of time.
On top of that employees gain other positive results like saving hard money on their car / public transport ticket and, especially for introverts or people with back issues, a large uptick in life quality as they don't have to stand in overcrowded subway cars or stuck in stop-n-go traffic jams.
The fair solution would be for employers to pay a fair share of rent and decent regulations-conforming equipment (chairs!) for those working from home - and giving a raise to those who physically have to come to the office, e.g. to deal with paperwork.
I wasn't enthusiastic initially about working from home, and my actual travel time was about 10 minutes each way, which is about my tolerance for commuting.
But the thing I like most about WFH is that it feels like I've gained a lot of time. I may only drive for 10 minutes, but it takes 5 minutes to pack up, 10 minutes to walk to my car, 10 minutes to drive, 5 minutes to...it feels like I have more than an hour additional free time every day.
This hinges on that companies and people have a positive net benefit for each person that will exceed the amount taxed. Working from home eliminates transportation costs and time and for companies the need to buy real estate for people and all of the equipment.
>I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences
Since WFH will require decent internet connection I surely hope one of those consequences is all landlord have an incentive to install Fibre Optics Internet connection. And not relying on junky Cables or DSLs.
> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.
For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Kent or Auburn instead - or Facebook building in the north-east of the Bay rather than the hyper-expensive south-west? Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial (similarly, Amazon attracts a lot of ex-MSFT folk from the Seattle Eastside).
>Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial
Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which has the worst costs out there.
But the Bay Area is a big place and I consider the whole area to be socially alive.
I fully understand wanting to stay in the Bay Area - but there's a big difference in land-value between being situated around Mountain View and San Francisco vs. the east-side of the Bay). What I don't understand is why the east-side of the Bay seems overlooked or even neglected lately (even more-so considering Berkeley's history).
A lot of twenty-somethings are not so open-minded. Disparaging nearby neighborhoods as socially dead or otherwise undesirable is practically a pastime for young city folk (especially if they're dating!)
As a twenty something who lived for free in Fremont for 3 months last year, I'd shell out the extra cash to live in SF/anywhere else next time. Maybe having access to a car would have changed my view?
South Bay was probably the cheapest place to buy land at the time, it's only so expensive because now so many companies are headquartered there. I'm still not convinced that east bay is cheaper than south bay now, despite your assertion.
Berkeley is hardly cheap (more expensive than Seattle, for instance)
Seattle wasn't as expensive back in the day and if I recall correctly, Bezos actually chose to move to seattle and start Amazon there for cost reasons (I think taxes were a big part of that). Moving an entire headquarters is expensive and did you forget about the HQ2 plan to expand elsewhere?
Seattle is still cheap for what it is tbh, a bunch of my friends have moved there and I feel like I’m getting completely fucking robbed by staying in Toronto (shouts out to covid hitting pandemic status just as I was preparing to job hunt).
Lower housings costs, significantly higher salary, much lower taxes, and better weather along with more interesting/nicer outdoorsy stuff makes Seattle probably my #1 choice for where I’d like to live right now.
The metro-areas, yes - but there are many neighbourhoods, suburbs, exurbs and submetropolitan areas with the same level of access to the talented locals but with approaching an order-of-magnitude less land-value.
Amazon's Bellevue footprint across to the lake from Seattle is expanding. New development in Seattle mostly stopped since 2018, while some existing projects are still being built and coming online.
> but there are many neighbourhoods, suburbs, exurbs and submetropolitan areas with the same level of access to the talented locals but with approaching an order-of-magnitude less land-value.
- Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (office rent, utilities, insurance, etc).
- This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees.
- If authorities/employees start demanding that part of those costs are covered by the company, companies will push to get avoid work-from-home schemes, as they will want more control over those expenses...
I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.