Work Reform

10021 readers

459 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

1004

Bosses and workers still can’t agree on whether the commute is part of the work day, and it’s creating a $578 billion productivity problem (fortune.com)

submitted 1 year ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world

329 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

you are arguing against a city with quality public transportation which is not always the case and wasn’t the original arguement.

It should be, and we should be making those changes, so arguing that something is only a problem if the given situation really should be temporary isn't a very good argument. Arguing that this change is a problem (It still isn't for the majority of people) if we're dealing with problems in other areas (So this change itself isn't even the problem, it just exacerbates another one, that we should be fixing anyway), isn't a very good argument.

I think the biggest point the other poster is arguing is that personal choice comes into play.

"Personal Choice" is only an argument when it doesn't affect other people. Having a 2 hour commute by car definitely does. And even if it didn't, it has a large effect on the person doing it. And we block/disincentivize people from doing other harmful things. Why is this one special?

It’s not the employers job to tell you how to get to work,

Good thing nobody suggested it was.

nor is it their responsibility if you want to take a job a distance from your house

So commutes should be unpaid, despite the only reason you do it is because of work? Why are commutes different from other work? They pay when you're moving between jobsites, why is this different? "Employers don't have control over it"? Did you know relocation packages are a thing? Lobbying for loosened zoning, so we can have higher density? Better public transit? They have far from 0 control over it.

its their job to find the best candidate who is willing to do the job offered.

And they need to include a variety of circumstances, one of which is the employee's proximity to any jobsites, because how long it takes them to get there is very much relevant in many industries. And in the ones it isn't, remote work is quite often possible.

You also argue against the argument that people won’t move house every time they change job.

I didn't though. In fact, if you're planning on a 2 hour commute, you should be considering moving closer, or not taking that job.

It sounds extreme, but it is always an option for the employee and a part of free choice.

We also block people from purchasing food with bleach in it. That's part of free choice, isn't it? Why is this choice so important that it should be up to the person to make? The externalities of having a 2 hour commute are massive, and even just the effects on the person themselves are also huge. Since these 2 hour commutes are mostly done by car, that's a huge mental load on the person doing the commute, and a lot of emissions, which we should be avoiding.

No, people should not be free to choose a 2 hour car commute.