It’s time away from home though, the place most people best relax after work. Commuting on public transit can be pleasant at times but it’s still two hours less time for other stuff
I’d much rather spend 30 minutes on public transport than in a car. This is a real tradeoff many places I’ve lived in Europe, particularly when considering you need to find parking for the car.
I’ve had commutes in the US where it was either 30 minutes by car or 90 minutes by public transport. At that point it’s not really a choice, you’re going to go by car.
I live about an hour south of Stockholm. A lot of companies I’d commute to would be in Stockholm. Thus, the times I’ve gone to my office in Stockholm, my commute looks something like this
20 minute walk to station
5-15 minute wait for train
50-60 minute train ride
5 minute walk from commuter train to tubes
~0-5 minute wait for tube
10 minute walk to office
That’s usually between 1:30 to 1:50 commute, one way. All in all, 3-3½ hours of commute round-trip. It’s stressful, with a lot of moving parts. I’m glad I can work from home for now, because my commute is however long it takes me to drag myself into clothes and get in my chair.
It’s a lot more environmentally friendly, and most importantly to me, something I can handle without breaking down mentally. I’m ostensibly a functioning member of society because of the ability to work from home, and I’ll fight for the ability to continue to do so.
Which is why all commuting should be paid. I’m not travelling to work just for funsies, it’s purely for the sake of work, and so it should be compensated.
Plenty of jobs can also be done remotely, and not offering that as an option to workers should be penalised, particularly if a commuter has to take transit to get there. In a day and age where we should be minimising our emissions, forcing people to commute just isn’t right.
The issue here is that paying for commute incentivized longer commutes. I’d rather prioritize chaper living conditions in the area where workers are needed.
It’s not like the company doesn’t have a say in this. They hire people closer to them, or offer WFH where a commute isn’t part of it. My company does pay for my commute. I’m WFH, but when I have to travel for work, it goes on the company credit card.
Yes, there will be cases where a commute is absolutely necessary, but you can always evaluate these things on a case by case basis.
Plus it’s ultimately time that the worker is giving up. I’ll take my current no commute over commute with reimbursement any day.
I agree, but there are countries (like Austria where i live) which incentivizes long commutes by financial benefits - its called “Pendlerpauschale”, meaning a general payment for people having to drive a longer commute.
In my opinion, the only thing they are paying for is a more dispersed suburbian area and a big load of CO2 emissions, while sealing a shitton of earth in the suburbs.
To be fair, company housing can be beneficial to both sides IF IT IS PLANNED AND EXECUTED AS SUCH.
in reality, companies use such arrangements to abuse their workers even more.
I’d advocate for anyone pushing for controlled company housing, when they don’t get away with cutting corners everywhere and if our society ever realizes that this arrangement might be beneficial for both sides if stringently regulated.
I live in Vienna, with a very strong public housing sector, where i actually live after my divorce, being a pensioner. There is no way in hell i would be able to pay for the current rates on the open market - they are about 200-300% higher than the rent i pay for my sub-40m² apartment, approaching 800-1000€/40m², where i pay 380€. Without government housing, people in my position have nowhere to go, which is why you have scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns.
There are no “scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns” in the US. Frankly there are large swaths of the US that have very low population densities and well below freezing weather 6 months out of the year. Making such place nearly impossible for homeless people to survive. And there is very little to no safety nets for anyone out there. So they are pretty much concentrated in large cities with good weather and much better social care. Which a sad situation because even a “liberal” state like California doesn’t seem too much care.
I get compensation in taxes and as a paid sum by the company. It’s based on kilometers. The taxation thing is based on kilometers and the cheapest available option
I’ve a friend who works as a truck driver, and does get compensation for how long he has to drive to get to work. It’s also tax credits. As someone who doesn’t drive but instead would rely on public transport, I wouldn’t get compensated.
Honestly I think that’s pretty bunk, why does the public fund people having to commute by car? It’s something the company should pay the worker for because it’s technically work they’re doing for the sake of the company.
Here you gotta fill out specific criteria to be compensated (in taxes) for driving your own car. Otherwise you’ll be compensated based on the cheapest possible mode of transport (train and bus, almost always)
Making more living space available in the city where you don’t need a car would be more beneficial. it would prevent sealing land in the suburbs, prevent CO2 emissions for travel, and in general improve efficiency of public transport.
It’s time away from home though, the place most people best relax after work. Commuting on public transit can be pleasant at times but it’s still two hours less time for other stuff
Not just that but I also have shit to do
That too, I’m on the same boat
I’d much rather spend 30 minutes on public transport than in a car. This is a real tradeoff many places I’ve lived in Europe, particularly when considering you need to find parking for the car.
I’ve had commutes in the US where it was either 30 minutes by car or 90 minutes by public transport. At that point it’s not really a choice, you’re going to go by car.
This can easily be the case in Europe as well.
I live about an hour south of Stockholm. A lot of companies I’d commute to would be in Stockholm. Thus, the times I’ve gone to my office in Stockholm, my commute looks something like this
That’s usually between 1:30 to 1:50 commute, one way. All in all, 3-3½ hours of commute round-trip. It’s stressful, with a lot of moving parts. I’m glad I can work from home for now, because my commute is however long it takes me to drag myself into clothes and get in my chair.
It’s a lot more environmentally friendly, and most importantly to me, something I can handle without breaking down mentally. I’m ostensibly a functioning member of society because of the ability to work from home, and I’ll fight for the ability to continue to do so.
If I had the same time and worked a different job, it would be a no brainer
Which is why all commuting should be paid. I’m not travelling to work just for funsies, it’s purely for the sake of work, and so it should be compensated.
Plenty of jobs can also be done remotely, and not offering that as an option to workers should be penalised, particularly if a commuter has to take transit to get there. In a day and age where we should be minimising our emissions, forcing people to commute just isn’t right.
The issue here is that paying for commute incentivized longer commutes. I’d rather prioritize chaper living conditions in the area where workers are needed.
It’s not like the company doesn’t have a say in this. They hire people closer to them, or offer WFH where a commute isn’t part of it. My company does pay for my commute. I’m WFH, but when I have to travel for work, it goes on the company credit card.
Yes, there will be cases where a commute is absolutely necessary, but you can always evaluate these things on a case by case basis.
Plus it’s ultimately time that the worker is giving up. I’ll take my current no commute over commute with reimbursement any day.
I agree, but there are countries (like Austria where i live) which incentivizes long commutes by financial benefits - its called “Pendlerpauschale”, meaning a general payment for people having to drive a longer commute.
In my opinion, the only thing they are paying for is a more dispersed suburbian area and a big load of CO2 emissions, while sealing a shitton of earth in the suburbs.
Company housing it is!
To be fair, company housing can be beneficial to both sides IF IT IS PLANNED AND EXECUTED AS SUCH.
in reality, companies use such arrangements to abuse their workers even more.
I’d advocate for anyone pushing for controlled company housing, when they don’t get away with cutting corners everywhere and if our society ever realizes that this arrangement might be beneficial for both sides if stringently regulated.
Then you don’t want company housing. You want government housing. Which can have its own issues.
I live in Vienna, with a very strong public housing sector, where i actually live after my divorce, being a pensioner. There is no way in hell i would be able to pay for the current rates on the open market - they are about 200-300% higher than the rent i pay for my sub-40m² apartment, approaching 800-1000€/40m², where i pay 380€. Without government housing, people in my position have nowhere to go, which is why you have scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns.
There are no “scores of unhoused people roaming most US towns” in the US. Frankly there are large swaths of the US that have very low population densities and well below freezing weather 6 months out of the year. Making such place nearly impossible for homeless people to survive. And there is very little to no safety nets for anyone out there. So they are pretty much concentrated in large cities with good weather and much better social care. Which a sad situation because even a “liberal” state like California doesn’t seem too much care.
I get compensation in taxes and as a paid sum by the company. It’s based on kilometers. The taxation thing is based on kilometers and the cheapest available option
I’ve a friend who works as a truck driver, and does get compensation for how long he has to drive to get to work. It’s also tax credits. As someone who doesn’t drive but instead would rely on public transport, I wouldn’t get compensated.
Honestly I think that’s pretty bunk, why does the public fund people having to commute by car? It’s something the company should pay the worker for because it’s technically work they’re doing for the sake of the company.
I fully agree, it’s one of the small pieces where profits get privatized but costs get socialized.
Here you gotta fill out specific criteria to be compensated (in taxes) for driving your own car. Otherwise you’ll be compensated based on the cheapest possible mode of transport (train and bus, almost always)
Making more living space available in the city where you don’t need a car would be more beneficial. it would prevent sealing land in the suburbs, prevent CO2 emissions for travel, and in general improve efficiency of public transport.