1401

The back-to-office backfire: Companies ending WFH perks lose out on top talent, who view flexible work as equivalent to an 8% raise (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 11 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1125686

Archived version: https://archive.ph/vL1mC
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806071111/https://www.businessinsider.com/employees-work-from-home-benefits-as-good-as-raise-2023-8

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

[-] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 17 points 11 months ago

I would rather make 50k WFH than 100k in an office.

[-] Xenxs@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

For double the salary, I'd need to think long and hard about it tbh.

[-] moriquende@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

For me it would heavily depend on where the office is located relative to my apartment, and how long my commute would turn out to be. More than 15-20 minutes by bike is a no-go (I live in Europe).

Also assuming the requirement to be in the office isn't a huge red flag for bad management in the first place.

[-] Xenxs@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well obviously the commute should be within a reasonable distance, I wouldn't spend 5 hours a day in a car or train for it. But let's say the total time spend back and forth is about 1,5 - 2 hours total. I feel that's worth the time spend for a hypothetical double salary.

Obligatory presence in the office is indeed a red flag if it doesn't actually provide a benefit to the role. To clarify, I'm 100% WFH in Denmark so I'm not advocating to push people into an office building but there's definitely a point where nearly everyone would go into the office full-time, if salary and benefits are high enough.