Laptop computer writing weblog
Photograph ©2014 by Brian Cohen.

Would You Take a Reduction In Pay To Work Remotely?

How about as much as 20 percent?

One arguably positive aspect about the current 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic is that many companies and their employees learned that a number of different jobs can be performed remotely and not necessarily in person — although meeting in person is usually the best way to conduct business.

Would You Take a Reduction In Pay To Work Remotely?

Working remotely offers many benefits: as a few of many examples, companies do not require as much office space for its employees as productivity is boosted at lower costs; while employees save money on commuting to work on a daily basis as time is simultaneously saved from not having to commute, which typically promotes a better quality of life overall.

Another valuable benefit of working remotely is that doing so can be done almost anywhere in the world where Wi-Fi or cellular service is available — and using those services has generally become easier and less expensive in recent years due to technology…

…which means that people who love to travel theoretically benefit as much from working remotely as people who prefer to stay at home.

However, the Los Angeles Times reported in this message via its official Twitter account on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 that if you enjoy working from home and want to keep doing so, you may soon be asked to take a cut in pay — perhaps as much as 20 percent — as some bosses consider working remotely as a benefit. “Many workers don’t see it that way but are willing to accept a lower salary, up to a point.”

Final Boarding Call

To hire a remote employee at a starting salary that may be reduced by as much as 20 percent when compared to employees who commute to work on a daily basis may be one thing — but to reduce the pay of an existing employee by as much as 20 percent simply because he or she is working remotely is unfair…

…especially if his or her productivity increased — or is at least similar to before.

To me — with certain exceptions — work should be measured by quality and effort and not necessarily by hours. If the job is completed in a timely manner and at least satisfactorily meets the minimum expected standards, who cares if the job was done during the night at some remote location somewhere in the world?

A reduction in pay also does not take into account that travelers potentially face certain stressful situations which people who work at home typically do not face — such as delayed flights, hotel properties with no vacancies, sold out rental vehicles, and odd hours as only four of numerous examples.

As a traveler, would you accept a reduction in pay — perhaps as much as 20 percent — to work remotely?

Photograph ©2014 by Brian Cohen.

  1. I likely would – for the right position. But it would be foolish for an employer to do so.

    I have worked remote for most of the last 22 years. I was required a few years ago, by a long-term employer, to come into an office during a company-wide reorganization. The in-office requirement necessitated many logistical changes that made the job not a worthwhile situation. Morale tanked. Most of us left – for better paying remote positions.

    Hard working people work hard wherever they are based. Weak employees will not become more ethical or skilled just because they are in an office. Remote employees have more time and energy to dedicate to their position. People should be paid on output, regardless of where the work is done (assuming the the work can be done offsite).

  2. Right now is one of the greatest employee shortages we have seen. If an employer tried to penalize for remote working it is easier just to find a new one. Out of principal I would leave a horrible company who would suggest that. Don’t forget assuming it’s a job which is possible for remote work, and assuming the productivity is the same or better then and employer would be foolish not to offer this benefit. Also consider the employer could eventually downsize real estate and all the associated costs (heating cooling cleaning etc) by not having everyone in the office.

    Of course collaboration is important, so a Balanced approach might make more sense compared to all remote or all in-house

  3. I find it curious that the conversation centers on whether or not workers would take a pay cut to continue WFH. While the legal battles havent yet been waged, it seems to me that a portion of all of my home expenses are now dedicated to work. Lighting, HVAC, property taxes – a prorata share of each – could arguably and legitimately be claimed as work-related. At the very least, the corporate entity has the opportunity to significantly reduce their share of these very same expenses if they’re smart enough to know how to do so. Effectively – employers have the opportunity to off-load a significant portion of balance sheet expenses onto the shoulders of workers. I think I need a pay RAISE – to continue WFH.

  4. There should be an increase in pay to work remotely, we are saving the company the cost of office space and the resources to provide a workspace. Also working remotely deprives an employee of the opportunity to feel a complete member of a team. I would much rather have a hybrid arrangement where I can work remotely a few days a week and visit the office a couple of times a week.

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!