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.
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.