this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
105 points (93.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
919 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Suppose there are two employees: Alice and Bob, who do the same job at the same factory. Alice has a 10 minute (20RT) commute, Bob commutes 35 minutes(70RT).

If you're the owner of the factory, would you compensate them for their commutes? How would you do it?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Government has power to put it on trial.

  1. Revitalize public transportation, adjust timetables to usual starts\ends of shifts;
  2. Make dumb paycards to pay-per-ride, consequential rides counting as one (if one needs to jump them);
  3. Public sector employees, essential ones first, get 2 rides per working day monthly, to go there and back;
  4. After getting some stats, make it equal to N litres of gasoline in $, tax-free, promote paying with it on gas stations and for government's services. No easy conversion to cash tho, not at the start at least, so it won't be seen as free money, worthy a fraud.

As a public test, it'd show if it works. Then, it can be pushed onto students, then on other spheres.

Then, as a large amount of workers has this benefit, it's not a wet dream but a real thing to consider and demand. One that private businesses would see.

I do find that not paying for commute has a good competitive value. It means I start to earn money right from the time I clock in, not spending my first minutes to compensate getting there โ€“ and that's a bitch for low-paid workers. Compared to those working from home, I still wake up earlier and am trapped on company's ground, but it's a first step to bridge and accept this difference.

In some cities I visited (ex-socblock) some big factories provide their own transport to take workers from their district and then bring them back. Since they are based way out of cities' limits due to health concerns, it's an obvious solution to that. By managing the commute of workers, factory may also be sure everyone in production line gets there at the same time, reaching full efficiency.

[โ€“] ikilledtheradiostar@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would turn the company over to the workers so they can decode. Also prevents my death when a revolution inevitability occurs.

[โ€“] lntl@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago
[โ€“] VulturE@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's make generalizations to answer the bigger problem here.

Most jobs that people are talking about are in cities.

Some people choose to not live right in the middle of a city for various reasons, but still want that job. They may live in a nearby community, the edge of the city, a county or two over, etc.

Predatory companies like Amazon resolve this by telling someone like Ryan homes to build a few 300 house communities right next to their new warehouse, resolving the issue and making their own non-city town. Normal companies do not have this ability.

There has to be a balance.

Businesses need to not be involved in commute repayment. They should instead invest into their local communities to make them more desirable to live in.

[โ€“] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"choose" is doing a lot of work there. Have you priced housing lately? The real "choice" I see is that companies "choose" their location such that their employees can't afford to live nearby on the wages they're earning, or the companies "choose" to pay employees to little in wages to afford to live nearby.

[โ€“] grepe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You could also say the employees choose to work for the company that's not paying them enough. Of course they have constraints in how many jobs there are and how many other job seekers exist and which jobs they are qualified for... but then the problem complexity explodes to "how do we build a fair society" very quickly.

load more comments (1 replies)

I'll offer Bob a place near the workplace if he's a good employee. If he asks me to pay for his transportation expenses, it won't happen. I think I'd formally invite him to find another job at the end of the contract.

[โ€“] MxM111@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[โ€“] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

If I am travelling to a location purely to do my job at that location, then travelling to that location is part of my job. I must be reasonably compensated for it either as part of my salary or as an extra (tax adjusted) payment.

Switch the pronouns and such to apply for Bob and Alice both.

[โ€“] ThatHermanoGuy@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the one with the longer commute should be taxed extra to account for all the damage caused to the environment, increased traffic, road wear and tear, etc.

Commuting should never be encouraged. Live where you work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

This is idiotic. No one compensates employees for their commute.

So many ridiculous variables that would need to be factored in and so much room for abuse. Are they going to be compensated based on distance or time?

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ