Google will soon be betting $ 2 billion that New York colleagues return to office. But in order to encourage co-workers to use their vast resources, some say the tech behemoth is using a stick, not carrots: Google Staff who move to the cheapest places in the country I could see a decrease in their pay. In June, the company launched a tool for employees that shows the minimum wage they can earn – anywhere from 5 to 25%, according to Reuters – if they move to a place like Bay Area or New York City to a cheaper place.
Most companies use that number 13% active in the US those still working at home because of the epidemic hope to do so open their offices in January. Google is one of the world’s leading technology companies, including Facebook and Twitter, which have launched controversial proposals to reduce pay for remote individuals who have moved from expensive areas to their headquarters. But there are indications that this information may be retractable.
While the risks involved in reducing employee compensation may not be immediate, people are at risk of losing – losses are more painful than the benefits and benefits – and cutting costs can make employees leave or resent the company. Changing the people you work with all the time is wrong, but it is very bad when modern companies are already struggling to find the employees they need.
Although Google is a hotspot for recruiters, 53% of 230 Google employees affirmed, according to a Recode survey conducted by Skin type work program, that he may decide to leave the company if he will move and be paid. This is less than 68% of all experts on Blind said, but it is still high. Google employees (30%) have also moved out of the city since the epidemic hit more professionals (22%), and some Googlers have already expressed a desire to leave the company because of what some have called fraudulent plans for remote work.
Obviously, there are other reasons to keep people in professional companies like Google – popularity, talent, paying more money doesn’t matter – but they may not be enough.
So why are modern companies driving this idea at first?
Google, like many companies, says it has been paying people where it lives. But one could argue that changing the existing pay for pre-employment was very difficult before the epidemic, and that it is the dispersed people who are doing the same job, the pay they live for in the past. Thanks to remote technologies such as Zoom and Slack, employees have been working remotely for more than a year and a half. At that point, Google logged in drawing profit. Likewise, co-workers enjoy performance, short routes, and practicality they live in areas where their pay can be higher. Long-term employment has shifted from voluntary payments to the expected benefits.
And many other companies have received this reminder: Some 95% said they would not reduce the salaries of remote people, regardless of where they live, according to research of organizations 753 and payment company Salary.com. This is because it makes sense that cutting pays for labor, performance, and retention. This makes professional companies like Google a well-known seller.
Continuing with what these companies say, experts have a number of theories as to why so far they have been strong.
Most importantly, companies know that jobs are for the job. Although they see that co-workers can be as effective employees as possible from anywhere in the short term, they still do not know how long-term work can affect skills.
“If all you care about is day-to-day, then remote work is fine,” Columbia Business School leadership and ethics professor Adam Galinsky told Recode. “But if you care about long-term commitment to the organization and social cohesion, long-term work is difficult.”
Paying money – or even the threat of money laundering – can help to improve the situation that keeps people from moving to places where they would not be able to enter the office. There could be unintended consequences for the commitment and cooperation, which is what these companies are trying to do to bring people to come to the office.
“It’s amazing because the whole reason we want people to come back to the office is because they are dedicated, busy, hardworking, cohesive,” Galinsky said. “But if we force them to take office because of pay cuts, they will come in angry, angry, and angry.”
There is another reason to keep paying in return: to pay the same amount. For example, not paying for an employee’s port from San Francisco to Boise, Idaho, may seem unfair to a low-income Idaho person.
“What should I do, pay more for Boise or pay less for him?” Paul Rubenstein, Visier’s chief of staff, which helps companies make HR decisions based on knowledge, says.
There are also financial considerations: The types of payroll establishments not only ensure that there is a coherent idea of paying employees in certain locations in a few places but also in saving the company. Unpaid workers in Idaho or India less can be very expensive for an international company.
“Once you start doing this, it’s like pulling a thread on a sweater: Why do we pay people less than other markets? Why do we pay people less everywhere? Should all be paid the same amount worldwide? “Rubenstein said.
In fact, the epidemic is making local money obsolete, according to paymaster Payscale, which also found that many companies are not planning to repay less money to remote individuals.
“What we hope to see more is the transition from payroll systems to finding ways to be better for remote or distributed people,” Payscale CEO Scott Torrey told Recode.
This means that instead of simply setting up a company with headquarters and changing as people live elsewhere, most companies are taking middle income on each project.
Nowhere is this happening faster than technically, according to Gabriel Luna-Ostaseski, co-founder of Braintrust, a technology platform that connects companies and technicians, far and wide.
“Now there is a global market for their skills,” he said. “Companies pay millions of dollars regardless of where they live.”
In addition, small technical companies are able to engage with remote controls such as way harder than their weight.
That is to say, employees, especially those in the manufacturing industry, have more options than pay. And the number of employees is too high, which costs the company about one-third of the employee’s wages, according to Salary.com CEO Kent Plunkett. Add to this the fact that 50% of employees – compared to 25% – are considering resigning, and it seems like a bad omen for companies to cut wages.
Given the situation, it seems that Google sees it as having the power and motivation to keep as many people as possible around its offices. However, a number of experts we spoke to did not believe that companies like Google would continue to make such changes, or that they could apply this policy to selecting unwanted people.
“I don’t think that’s what they should do if they want to keep the part they want to move to,” Plunkett told Recode. “Don’t let your best talent continue at home for $ 15,000 a year.”
Although Google told Recode that it has been making changes to employees’ salaries based on their location, work ethic damage may already be in place. “Just because you work in technology doesn’t mean you have to illuminate the occult,” Rubenstein said.