OV9

Simon wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:23 pm Ah, Zuck's being a Musk again.

Having seen how out of reach Bay area prices are now, surely he should just reduce salaries for everyone?

I don't really see a problem with this if I'm honest...

dinny_g wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 10:47 am I don't really see a problem with this if I'm honest...

I have a philosophical problem with pay being linked to where you live. London weighting is all very well if you need to pay it to attract employees to work in your office; that's supply and demand. Working from home does not have the same differentiator; if you worked in the London office and decided to live frugally by moving to Lincolnshire, you wouldn't expect your contracted salary to drop.

dinny_g wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 10:47 am I don't really see a problem with this if I'm honest...

Your work docking you pay i you decide to live somewhere else whilst doing the exact same job?

Why bother with your own houses at all then - just live in a company commune...

What Jobbo said, there’s a difference between getting an allowance to live in an expensive area and taking a pay cut because you move to a cheaper one.

Tech valley capitalism is an actual disaster

Is this not an additional allowance that is being removed then ?

Edit - As In

Basic Salary $X
Benefits package $Y
Bay Area Contribution $Z

etc??

The value you bring to your job doesn't change depending where you do it. 'Nickel and Diming' your staff because they move to a cheaper area but do exactly the same job is the work of a terrible leader. I hope it backfires spectacularly.

I'm not arguing that Simon.

If he's removing a salary package element because the entitlement is not longer applicable due to a decision by the employee then I'm fine with that.

If he's just saying "I don't need to pay you as much because you've moved" then yeah, he's a bit of a cunt.

Really depends on the nature of the salary package...

I suspect that due to the reaction generally that it's the later.

Simon wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 11:28 am The value you bring to your job doesn't change depending where you do it. 'Nickel and Diming' your staff because they move to a cheaper area but do exactly the same job is the work of a terrible leader. I hope it backfires spectacularly.

So you are paid extra to move to an expensive area, you then choose to move to a less expensive area and therefore shouldnt need the living allowance provided for you to go to the office? Not that difficult to understand.

Assuming it's a living allowance, and not your actual salary. Which doesn't seem clear to me.

Beany wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 pm Assuming it's a living allowance, and not your actual salary. Which doesn't seem clear to me.

Was obvious when I looked into it yesterday.

It would appear Facebook pay their salary based on location (according to a few sites) so If you change location, you change your salary.

Works both ways - if you have to move to the Bay Area because your job becomes office based, you’d expect your salary to be adjusted up, based on Facebooks apparent salary policy

Broccers wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 pm

Beany wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 pm Assuming it's a living allowance, and not your actual salary. Which doesn't seem clear to me.

Was obvious when I looked into it yesterday.

Don’t suppose you fancy sharing that information

Not sure how reputable Marketwatch is but...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/face ... 2020-05-21

“ Facebook already pays based on location, but Zuckerberg said employees working remotely must notify Facebook if they move to a new area before Jan. 1, 2021.”

ZedLeg wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:58 pm

Broccers wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 pm

Beany wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:53 pm Assuming it's a living allowance, and not your actual salary. Which doesn't seem clear to me.

Was obvious when I looked into it yesterday.

Don’t suppose you fancy sharing that information

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/faceb ... 2020-05-21

further read the comments - do you need your arse wiping too?

dinny_g wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 1:02 pm Not sure how reputable Marketwatch is but...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/face ... 2020-05-21

“ Facebook already pays based on location, but Zuckerberg said employees working remotely must notify Facebook if they move to a new area before Jan. 1, 2021.”

Beat me to it Dinny Seems some people can't use google or do any research.

It’s still a bullshit system, people should get paid for the job they’re doing not based on where they happen to live.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 1:20 pm It’s still a bullshit system, people should get paid for the job they’re doing not based on where they happen to live.

Its not bullshit at all. They pay extra to get the best to move to their company. A mate of mine used to work for Gremlin graphics here in Sheffield and got head hunted to work in SF - we went over for his wedding 25 years ago and it was absolutely mind blowing how much they paid to rent a house then. I would imagine its loads worse now.

So you pay the people to come and help them live... they then move somewhere cheaper so that benefit isn't needed. Its not hard to grasp.