• severien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would move as far as possible from the job site. 2 hours one way on a train watching Netflix, 4 hours work, 2 hours relax on the train. That would be nice.

    • randomname01@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      …and you just wouldn’t get hired, because the guy who lives next to their office is a more attractive option, even if he’s only 80% as productive as you.

      And that’s arguably why it makes some sense; companies would be more likely to hire more locally and be more flexible about remote work - both of which save precious planetary resources ánd people’s time.

      • FLemmingO@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Companies would also then be incentivized to invest in and lobby for better affordable housing in the communities their offices are located in/around so that employees at all pay scales have affordable options within a few miles of the office.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would just move temporarily, and after probation period move far away. Surely they can’t fire me because my living situation changed and had to move…

        • randomname01@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this hypothetical scenario this gets implemented it would certainly be standard to have a clause to protect employers against exactly that.

          • severien@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Seems kinda shitty that you basically can’t move without employer’s approval.

            Also poorer people living farther away would get discriminated.

            • randomname01@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’d be fair to just keep paying the same compensation you received before moving; you could still move, but you’d have to pay the price.

              And yeah, there are still a lot of problems with this approach as long as housing is left to market forces. But those problems are inherent to free markets, not to this possible solution to another problem.

    • patchwork@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      okay but when do chores happen? i can barely keep up on dishes and laundry with a 45 minute commute each way. sleep, too…

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Currently you work 8 hours + 1.5 hours commute. With this you’d work 6.5 hours + 1.5 hour commute, so you’d have 1.5 extra hour for chores or whatever.

        If you use train/bus for commuting, you can even sleep there :-)

    • cooopsspace
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re highlighting that it’s not a great solution, but at least a 2 hours of flat payment per office call would be an acknowledgement of my time considering it’s an hour each way for the majority of people.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally happened at a place I worked at. They hired people near to the work, who then within a year bought a cheap house out in the boonies and increased their commute to 3+ hours daily. And they got paid for it. Such a stupid policy (for the company, I don’t blame the workers for taking advantage).