mcoulter@businessinsider.com (Martin Coulter)
© Provided by Business Insider Details of a new salary calculator has exposed Google's plans to alter pay based on location. Alex Tai/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Google employees who opt to work from home indefinitely could face pay cuts of up to 25%.
An internal salary calculator shared with Reuters showed those with long commutes faced losses.
A spokesperson said the Google's compensation packages had always been 'determined by location.'
Google employees may face a pay cut if they decide to work from home indefinitely, according to a leaked internal salary calculator obtained by Reuters.
The tech giant has appeared broadly supportive of remote workers since the outbreak of COVID-19, and just last week approved almost 10,000 employee requests to work from home. The firm pushed back its planned return-to-office date in light of the rising number of Delta variant cases, from September to October 18.
But according to an internal pay calculator seen by Reuters, some remote employees - particularly those with long commutes - could face pay cuts without changing their addresses.
In one example, Reuters found that an employee living in Stamford, Connecticut - which is an hour's commute from Google's New York office - would be paid 15% less if they worked from home. Meanwhile, a colleague living in New York City would see no cut. In some cases reductions as high as 25% could come from a move away from San Francisco, Reuters reported.
One employee who spoke to the publication said they commuted into Google's Seattle's office from a nearby county and that they faced a pay cut of 10% if they worked from home full time.
They said: "It's as high of a pay cut as I got for my most recent promotion." They added: "I didn't do all that hard work to get promoted to then take a pay cut."
A Google spokesperson told Reuters: "Our compensation packages have always been determined by location, and we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from."
Insider approached Google for further comment.
In April, Facebook warned some staff may face a pay cut to continue working remotely in more affordable areas.
Jack Dorsey's Twitter has also adopted a similar stance.
Location-based pay is the newest conflict between workers and employers, as remote Googlers face a 25% salary cut
sjones@insider.com (Stephen Jones)
Google, Facebook, and UK government departments have all suggested cutting pay for remote workers.
But with a labor shortage and more workers willing to change jobs, it's not clear many firms will really risk it.
Workers who permanently choose not to commute into the office face a new sting: A pay cut from employers who argue their living costs are lower.
This latest conflict comes after white-collar workers took on employers over returning to the office and (mostly) won, and as employers gear up to mandate vaccines for returning workers.
The pay debate centers on whether those no longer commuting into city centers or other expensive hubs deserve to receive their current wages.
On Wednesday, news emerged that Google employees who work remotely full-time might face a salary haircut of as much as 25%.
And Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has indicated that employees looking to "flee to lower-cost cities" could expect to have their compensation adjusted.
In the UK, The Guardian reported that several government departments were mulling whether to remove an approximately £4,000 ($5,500) top-up for civil servants who live in London and faced higher living costs.
The news came the same week UK chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak said working from home could hurt the career of younger workers.
The FDA Union, which represents the UK's civil servants, said the "insulting and cowardly attacks" had caused anger, and underappreciated the roles played by its members - 81% of whom already live and work outside of London.
Is this really the start of a new battle between firms and staff?
There are two sides to every story, and each argument holds its merits.
Video: Google Employees Could Face Pay Cut if They Work Full Time from Home (CBS SF Bay Area)
Companies such as Google and Facebook have invested vast sums in large, fancy campuses and want to see a return on their investment by having employees in the building.
It's also not uncommon for companies to vary pay, with 49% of UK employers already determining salaries by location, according to the Chartered Institute of Professional Development (CIPD).
But workers argue that they shouldn't be penalized for cutting their living costs, and that their employers may make savings in the long term.
It isn't clear how many businesses will risk the fight right now.
More workers are open to reassessing their careers and purpose than ever. During a tight labor market, employers attempting to reassess pay could drive away talent.
Given that it's still early in the days of hybrid work, it would be a rash action to take right now, a CIPD spokeswoman told Insider.
It could also lead to "an employment law minefield for businesses", said Malcolm Gregory, employment lawyer and partner at UK firm Royds Withy King.
"If they want all staff to work from an office, they may face an increase in formal requests to work from home that cannot be ignored. If they offer fully remote working and wish to reduce salaries, they will need to gain consent. That may not always be given."
British staff with protected characteristics under UK employment law - such as age, disability, and pregnancy - who find it difficult to commute could be able to bring claims against their employer.
However Gregory added that US workers could face more aggressive workforce strategies from their employers, due to the fact that most employment is at will.
Legal or HR headaches may be why few companies have cut pay so far.
Neither Google, nor Facebook have actually cut workers' pay. And a spokesperson for UK prime minister Boris Johnson said civil servants would not be punished for continuing to work remotely.
According to CIPD data, just 7% of companies are changing pay to reflect home working or have plans to.
In reality, decisions around pay and location will vary between sectors and businesses - but it will stay a point of public discussion for the foreseeable future.
‘It implies that those who work from home have less value’: How employees feel about salary cuts for not commuting to the office
Kate Ng
Right-wing columnist says working from home should mean a wage cut – and it hasn’t gone down well
sjones@insider.com (Stephen Jones)
© Provided by Business Insider Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Employers are mulling pay cuts for remote workers with reduced living costs.
Google, Facebook, and UK government departments have all suggested cutting pay for remote workers.
But with a labor shortage and more workers willing to change jobs, it's not clear many firms will really risk it.
Workers who permanently choose not to commute into the office face a new sting: A pay cut from employers who argue their living costs are lower.
This latest conflict comes after white-collar workers took on employers over returning to the office and (mostly) won, and as employers gear up to mandate vaccines for returning workers.
The pay debate centers on whether those no longer commuting into city centers or other expensive hubs deserve to receive their current wages.
On Wednesday, news emerged that Google employees who work remotely full-time might face a salary haircut of as much as 25%.
And Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has indicated that employees looking to "flee to lower-cost cities" could expect to have their compensation adjusted.
In the UK, The Guardian reported that several government departments were mulling whether to remove an approximately £4,000 ($5,500) top-up for civil servants who live in London and faced higher living costs.
The news came the same week UK chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak said working from home could hurt the career of younger workers.
The FDA Union, which represents the UK's civil servants, said the "insulting and cowardly attacks" had caused anger, and underappreciated the roles played by its members - 81% of whom already live and work outside of London.
Is this really the start of a new battle between firms and staff?
There are two sides to every story, and each argument holds its merits.
Video: Google Employees Could Face Pay Cut if They Work Full Time from Home (CBS SF Bay Area)
Companies such as Google and Facebook have invested vast sums in large, fancy campuses and want to see a return on their investment by having employees in the building.
It's also not uncommon for companies to vary pay, with 49% of UK employers already determining salaries by location, according to the Chartered Institute of Professional Development (CIPD).
But workers argue that they shouldn't be penalized for cutting their living costs, and that their employers may make savings in the long term.
It isn't clear how many businesses will risk the fight right now.
More workers are open to reassessing their careers and purpose than ever. During a tight labor market, employers attempting to reassess pay could drive away talent.
Given that it's still early in the days of hybrid work, it would be a rash action to take right now, a CIPD spokeswoman told Insider.
It could also lead to "an employment law minefield for businesses", said Malcolm Gregory, employment lawyer and partner at UK firm Royds Withy King.
"If they want all staff to work from an office, they may face an increase in formal requests to work from home that cannot be ignored. If they offer fully remote working and wish to reduce salaries, they will need to gain consent. That may not always be given."
British staff with protected characteristics under UK employment law - such as age, disability, and pregnancy - who find it difficult to commute could be able to bring claims against their employer.
However Gregory added that US workers could face more aggressive workforce strategies from their employers, due to the fact that most employment is at will.
Legal or HR headaches may be why few companies have cut pay so far.
Neither Google, nor Facebook have actually cut workers' pay. And a spokesperson for UK prime minister Boris Johnson said civil servants would not be punished for continuing to work remotely.
According to CIPD data, just 7% of companies are changing pay to reflect home working or have plans to.
In reality, decisions around pay and location will vary between sectors and businesses - but it will stay a point of public discussion for the foreseeable future.
‘It implies that those who work from home have less value’: How employees feel about salary cuts for not commuting to the office
Kate Ng
© Provided by The Independent
The government has now lifted its pandemic requirement for people to work from home where possible, instead advising that employees may begin to return to office life. But in recent weeks the push for workers to gradually return to their desks is starting to feel like more of a shove.
According to screenshots seen by Reuters, Google employees could see differences in pay going forward if they work from home long-term. The brand has reportedly introduced an internal pay calculation tool that lets staff work out how their location might affect their wages.
But this isn’t just Silicon Valley. An unnamed senior cabinet minister suggested on Tuesday that civil servants who work at home have had a “de facto pay rise” because they don’t pay commuting costs, adding that this was “unfair” to those who have returned to the office.
Dragon Den’s Touker Suleyman also wrote this week that there was “no excuse” for people without health exemptions to “not to join the march back” as around 75 per cent of UK adults have now been fully vaccinated. He wrote: “If the only way to bring this about is to set one salary for people who work from home, and a higher one for those who come into the office and spend – in some cases – thousands of pounds a year commuting, then so be it."
Employees have hardly rushed back to the office. In fact, data has shown that the number of staff in the office since 19 July has risen marginally to 11.7 per cent, from 11.1 per cent before official guidance changed. But over the course of the pandemic, priorities among office workers have shifted. Research by networking firm Future Strategy Club found that 57 per cent still do not want to return to their 9-5 role, whilst 58 per cent want flexibility in their current role.
People who are forced back to the office will feel like they’ve lost hours with their family each week
Now, employees are questioning the motive behind suggesting pay disparities going forward between people working from home versus working in the office, with many arguing that wages should be determined by the value of one’s work, not their location. And others questioning the legality of changing salaries if job descriptions and workloads stay the same.
Jo Marie O’Reilly, a PR strategist who is currently based in Chester, said it is starting to feel as though some companies are trying to “bully” staff to return to the office. She told The Independent: “Suggesting those who commute into the office should be paid more feels like an attempt to divide the workforce, and imply that those working from home are somehow doing less work or that their work has less value.
“I don’t know a single person who, like me, was plunged into working from home unexpectedly in March 2020, that is desperate to get back to the 9-5 presenteeism of office life,” she said. “I think this pandemic has shown us that another way is possible and that we can and should be judged on the quality of our work and not the hours we spend sitting in a chair.”
Nicole Kow, a marketing consultant who has worked remotely all her working life, agreed: “Some companies [do] make a very good case for why they have pay discrepancies and cost of living is always a big thing, but what if someone decides to move from a rural area to a city? Will companies bump up wages then? What will this conversation look like?
“And I don’t understand this idea of paying someone less because they don’t want to go into an office. If your output and the value you bring to the company doesn’t change regardless of where you work, why should your compensation be impacted?”
Others pointed out that if employers want to strong-arm workers back into the office, the cost of commuting should be taken into account. In pre-pandemic times, London commuters spent an average of £5,114 in travel costs, equivalent to 18 per cent of an average annual London net salary after tax.
I don’t know a single person who is desperate to get back to the 9-5 presenteeism of office life
However, remote workers argue that it isn’t cheaper to be at home because the cost of commuting has been largely redistributed into utilities in the home, such as electricity, heating, water and internet access. As well as any potential adjustments needed to working spaces.
Writer and researcher Chloë Maughan said: “People who work from home are doing the same job and arguably they’re saving their employer money by using their own utilities. I do think there’s another question to ask about whether employers should pay where they’re forcing people to commute.
“The past year has really made the time and cost penalty of commuting feel even more stark. People who are forced back to the office will feel like they’ve lost hours with their family each week.
“This will be on contracts where employees are told their salaries are for 37.5 hours a week, or more, and yet in reality they might be losing an additional five hours plus each week just to get to and from the office at no benefit to them.”
Employers who are considering paying staff differently according to their location have been advised not to by some experts, as this could throw up a myriad of legal issues. Alan Price, CEO of BrightHR, told The Independent: “It is not advisable that employers pay staff less for working from home permanently, even on a hybrid basis, if their role will remain the same as when they were fully office-based – unless the employee agrees to it or their employment contract stipulates that such a thing can be done.”
It is important that employers check their employees’ contracts before making any changes
He explained that a change in pay may be classed as an unlawful deduction in wages if the employee is working the same number of hours and has the same workload, and is held under the same obligations as when they were in the office. Employers may also receive “indirect sex discrimination claims”, given the fact that more women work from home than men, as well as claims of constructive dismissal if an employee is forced to resign due to a pay cut.
"It is important that employers check their employees’ contracts before making any changes,” said Price. “For example, if a person works in a London based office but lives outside of the city, can an employer reduce or remove London weighting?
“If the contract stipulates that the employer can change pay if the employee is living outside of London, then perhaps removing London weighting could be possible. Even then, employers should be careful.
“If staff normally based out of London are paid the same as those in London doing the same work, it wouldn’t be advisable for an employer to enforce a pay reduction.
“On a similar note, if employers give some contractual perks with a financial value to those working in the office which are then removed because of homeworking, they may need to think about offering some compensation for this,” he added
The government has now lifted its pandemic requirement for people to work from home where possible, instead advising that employees may begin to return to office life. But in recent weeks the push for workers to gradually return to their desks is starting to feel like more of a shove.
According to screenshots seen by Reuters, Google employees could see differences in pay going forward if they work from home long-term. The brand has reportedly introduced an internal pay calculation tool that lets staff work out how their location might affect their wages.
But this isn’t just Silicon Valley. An unnamed senior cabinet minister suggested on Tuesday that civil servants who work at home have had a “de facto pay rise” because they don’t pay commuting costs, adding that this was “unfair” to those who have returned to the office.
Dragon Den’s Touker Suleyman also wrote this week that there was “no excuse” for people without health exemptions to “not to join the march back” as around 75 per cent of UK adults have now been fully vaccinated. He wrote: “If the only way to bring this about is to set one salary for people who work from home, and a higher one for those who come into the office and spend – in some cases – thousands of pounds a year commuting, then so be it."
Employees have hardly rushed back to the office. In fact, data has shown that the number of staff in the office since 19 July has risen marginally to 11.7 per cent, from 11.1 per cent before official guidance changed. But over the course of the pandemic, priorities among office workers have shifted. Research by networking firm Future Strategy Club found that 57 per cent still do not want to return to their 9-5 role, whilst 58 per cent want flexibility in their current role.
People who are forced back to the office will feel like they’ve lost hours with their family each week
Now, employees are questioning the motive behind suggesting pay disparities going forward between people working from home versus working in the office, with many arguing that wages should be determined by the value of one’s work, not their location. And others questioning the legality of changing salaries if job descriptions and workloads stay the same.
Jo Marie O’Reilly, a PR strategist who is currently based in Chester, said it is starting to feel as though some companies are trying to “bully” staff to return to the office. She told The Independent: “Suggesting those who commute into the office should be paid more feels like an attempt to divide the workforce, and imply that those working from home are somehow doing less work or that their work has less value.
“I don’t know a single person who, like me, was plunged into working from home unexpectedly in March 2020, that is desperate to get back to the 9-5 presenteeism of office life,” she said. “I think this pandemic has shown us that another way is possible and that we can and should be judged on the quality of our work and not the hours we spend sitting in a chair.”
Nicole Kow, a marketing consultant who has worked remotely all her working life, agreed: “Some companies [do] make a very good case for why they have pay discrepancies and cost of living is always a big thing, but what if someone decides to move from a rural area to a city? Will companies bump up wages then? What will this conversation look like?
“And I don’t understand this idea of paying someone less because they don’t want to go into an office. If your output and the value you bring to the company doesn’t change regardless of where you work, why should your compensation be impacted?”
Others pointed out that if employers want to strong-arm workers back into the office, the cost of commuting should be taken into account. In pre-pandemic times, London commuters spent an average of £5,114 in travel costs, equivalent to 18 per cent of an average annual London net salary after tax.
I don’t know a single person who is desperate to get back to the 9-5 presenteeism of office life
However, remote workers argue that it isn’t cheaper to be at home because the cost of commuting has been largely redistributed into utilities in the home, such as electricity, heating, water and internet access. As well as any potential adjustments needed to working spaces.
Writer and researcher Chloë Maughan said: “People who work from home are doing the same job and arguably they’re saving their employer money by using their own utilities. I do think there’s another question to ask about whether employers should pay where they’re forcing people to commute.
“The past year has really made the time and cost penalty of commuting feel even more stark. People who are forced back to the office will feel like they’ve lost hours with their family each week.
“This will be on contracts where employees are told their salaries are for 37.5 hours a week, or more, and yet in reality they might be losing an additional five hours plus each week just to get to and from the office at no benefit to them.”
Employers who are considering paying staff differently according to their location have been advised not to by some experts, as this could throw up a myriad of legal issues. Alan Price, CEO of BrightHR, told The Independent: “It is not advisable that employers pay staff less for working from home permanently, even on a hybrid basis, if their role will remain the same as when they were fully office-based – unless the employee agrees to it or their employment contract stipulates that such a thing can be done.”
It is important that employers check their employees’ contracts before making any changes
He explained that a change in pay may be classed as an unlawful deduction in wages if the employee is working the same number of hours and has the same workload, and is held under the same obligations as when they were in the office. Employers may also receive “indirect sex discrimination claims”, given the fact that more women work from home than men, as well as claims of constructive dismissal if an employee is forced to resign due to a pay cut.
"It is important that employers check their employees’ contracts before making any changes,” said Price. “For example, if a person works in a London based office but lives outside of the city, can an employer reduce or remove London weighting?
“If the contract stipulates that the employer can change pay if the employee is living outside of London, then perhaps removing London weighting could be possible. Even then, employers should be careful.
“If staff normally based out of London are paid the same as those in London doing the same work, it wouldn’t be advisable for an employer to enforce a pay reduction.
“On a similar note, if employers give some contractual perks with a financial value to those working in the office which are then removed because of homeworking, they may need to think about offering some compensation for this,” he added
UK
Right-wing columnist says working from home should mean a wage cut – and it hasn’t gone down well
'You are paid for the time you work. You are not paid to commute."
Have you ever had a job?', wrote one person in response.
by Joe Mellor
2021-08-12 11:34
in News
Tim Montgomerie has waded into the remote working debate after an unnamed minister suggested people working from home should see their salary docked.
Yesterday it was announced that Google employees could see their pay cut if they switched to working from home permanently in the wake of the pandemic.
It comes after the UK government got itself into another mess over its own policy.
Number 10 was forced to step in after a Cabinet minister suggested officials who insisted on working from home could see their salaries docked.
The reported comments to the Daily Mail provoked fury from trade unions who warned of strike action if the government tried to go down that route.
One person who seems to be very much on the ‘cut their pay’ side of the argument is right-wing columnist Tim Montgomerie.
When the civil servant story broke he tweeted: ” This minister is 100% right. If you want the continued benefit of working from home then don’t expect a salary that was designed for staffers commuting into the office.”
'You are paid for the time you work. You are not paid to commute."
2021-08-12 11:34
in News
Tim Montgomerie has waded into the remote working debate after an unnamed minister suggested people working from home should see their salary docked.
Yesterday it was announced that Google employees could see their pay cut if they switched to working from home permanently in the wake of the pandemic.
It comes after the UK government got itself into another mess over its own policy.
Number 10 was forced to step in after a Cabinet minister suggested officials who insisted on working from home could see their salaries docked.
The reported comments to the Daily Mail provoked fury from trade unions who warned of strike action if the government tried to go down that route.
One person who seems to be very much on the ‘cut their pay’ side of the argument is right-wing columnist Tim Montgomerie.
When the civil servant story broke he tweeted: ” This minister is 100% right. If you want the continued benefit of working from home then don’t expect a salary that was designed for staffers commuting into the office.”
Reactions
Not everyone was thrilled with his comments and made their feelings heard on social media.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Related: Ministers labelled ‘dinosaurs’ for wanting full-blown return to office
No comments:
Post a Comment