Employers are Offering Remote Work with Lower Salaries (fortune.com)
- Reference: 0175834385
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/01/05/2120254/employers-are-offering-remote-work-with-lower-salaries
- Source link: https://fortune.com/2025/01/05/job-recruiters-managers-pay-remote-work-from-home-return-to-office/
"Remote workers are accepting lower salaries in order to achieve remote status. Some are taking as much as 5% to 15% less pay to do so, while other employers are reversing the strategy to entice workers to come to the office at higher salaries..."
> Today, nearly half of managers anticipate challenges in meeting candidates' compensation expectations. And when the gap between salary expectation and an offer is too great, many employers are negotiating remote and hybrid work to get candidates to sign on the dotted line, according to Robert Half's recently published [2]2025 U.S. Hiring Outlook . Some candidates accept 5% to 15% less pay in exchange for getting to work from home, Theresa L. Fesinstine, founder of human resources advisory [3]peoplepower.ai , told Fortune. "There's this unspoken exchange rate between flexibility and comp, and for some candidates, it's worth a significant trade-off," said Fesinstine, who has more than two decades of leadership experience in HR. This is especially true "for those who value work-life balance or are saving on commute costs."
>
> There are inherent risks in offering job candidates lower salaries, even if it means getting the chance to work from home. Amy Spurling, founder and CEO of employee benefits reimbursement platform [4]Compt , told Fortune she expects to see a [5]second Great Resignation this year after hiring freezes, benefits cuts, and forced RTO policies in 2023 and 2024. "If you're trying to lowball remote workers, you're about to face a harsh reality," Spurling said. "2025 is going to be a 'find out' year for companies that thought they could use remote work or other 'perks' to replace competitive compensation and genuine employee support." To wit, a 2024 report by PwC forecasts another resignation period with a 28% increase in the number of people who plan to change jobs, compared to 19% during the Great Resignation of 2022...
>
> What's more, Fesinstine argues, remote work "isn't a perk anymore, but rather a standard operating model." So attempting to describe remote work as a benefit doesn't sit well with job candidates...
On the other hand, Michael Steinitz, senior executive director of professional talent solutions at Robert Half, told Fortune their research shows 76% of job candidates are willing to work fully in-office — in exchange for a higher salary.
"Among those employees, the average raise they would request is about 23%, he said."
[1] https://fortune.com/2025/01/05/job-recruiters-managers-pay-remote-work-from-home-return-to-office/
[2] https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/salary-guide/market-outlook
[3] http://peoplepower.ai/
[4] https://compt.io/
[5] https://fortune.com/europe/2024/11/20/great-resignation-2-0-employees-feel-overworked-underpaid-pwc-hope-fears-survey/
Should be about productivity (Score:2)
Working should be about your value to the company. In most cases the place you work from doesn't affect the work you do.
Re: Should be about productivity (Score:3)
Are they working more in the office or looking like they are working more in the office?
Re: (Score:2)
Well. What I do is I move the focus-point of my work to where I get better conditions. That does not necessarily mean more money (seems to happen anyways). But I guess most people can essentially do one job and are scared to move away from employers that treat them badly.
Had a director call "gas savings" a raise (Score:3)
A few years ago, at a time when our salaries were going through a "market evaluation" by an external company (which resulted in me getting a less-than-inflation raise), our director told us that working from home (which only started due to COVID) was basically a raise because we were saving on gas money. This was at the same time the CEO started every all-hands meeting with "I know we're all SO excited to return to the office!" (and not sarcastically).
So I got a new job at a fully-remote company (don't HAVE an office for anybody to "return" to), for 24% more salary (and given the reactions of a few people there, I might have under-asked at that, in part because I didn't prepare better).
Re: (Score:2)
What if you have an EV? Did they even think about that possibility that you're not charging at the office?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an EV, but also AFAIK none of the offices had EV chargers. My office and the other locations I visited were older (mostly multi-tenant) generic office buildings, with little to no recent updates.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would that matter? If you are not tearing up your car driving to work, risking accidents and tickets, then why would you need to charge your EV at the office?
It costs 1kwh to drive 3 to 4 miles (depending on the model). Once I retired, my mileage dropped to 6000 miles per year.
That's about 2000kwh. Which is about $260 *per year* for "electricity" vs about $620 per year for gasoline.
Plus your $45,000 car will last 12+ years instead of 6 years.
Re: (Score:2)
For gasoline consuming commuters, it would be an increase in take home pay. It's minimal and certainly not a raise, but there is some logic to his argument.
Re: Had a director call "gas savings" a raise (Score:2)
Unless the company is paying for your car and the time that you drive it, how you run your life is really none of their business. You could ride a bike to work for all they know, to consider that as part of salary is none of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
The only good thing I can think of to say about your tale is that the latest silly valley trend is, RIF middle managers because they don't obviously contribute to the bottom line. Duh.
Leveraging Supply And Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Increased demand for WFH has resulted in an increase in the "price" of WFH. The price for the worker's increased demand is lower pay.
Increased demand for in-office workers results in the increased price of labor. The price for the employers increased demand is higher pay.
Supply and Demand at work. The indicators may be lagging, but they'll get there eventually every time.
Re: Leveraging Supply And Demand (Score:2)
That would be true if everyone was exactly the same with exactly the same skills.
That is ass-backwards (Score:2)
They are saving on cost and they want to save even more? Well. Those that do this crap will have even less access to better talented and qualified people. Pity that does only sow up longer-term and most "management" is entirely focused on the short-term.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses will always push workers toward impoverishment using any leverage or excuse available. It's the same reason that at least the lower 90% workers haven't seen any gains from productivity improvements since the '70s. The only counterbalance to those forces is collective worker action to tell employers that if they want any of us, they need to be better to all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Having one side-job in the business field, I tend to agree. The person I work for there is actually a decent human being, but I came to the conclusion that business people are conditioned to try to screw people over and to not even understand what they are doing and breaking. I think they just assume everybody looks out for themselves in some way, when that clearly is not true. I have made a recent counter-offer to continue doing that job that includes a 50% raise (brings it in line with what I get elsewher
Re: (Score:2)
> They are saving on cost and they want to save even more? Well. Those that do this crap will have even less access to better talented and qualified people. Pity that does only sow up longer-term and most "management" is entirely focused on the short-term.
The flip side is the employee saves as well, no commuting costs, wear and tear on a vehicle, outside meals, clothes for work, no commute time, etc. It ultimately comes down to what does it cost an employer to get employees with the requisite skill levels and potential employees money vs. lifestyle tradeoff value. If enough qualified people are willing to work for less then employers will hire them; if not they will pay more. Simple economics. A side benefit for employers is less upward wage pressure for
I'm gonna go against the prevailing wind here (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see anything inherently wrong with "remote work" being considered a perq - and thus part of the calculation of an employee's total compensation.
Context: As a university employee, I'm also the sort of person who was willing to take a somewhat-lower-than-industry salary to get higher-than-average amounts of vacation leave (with separate sick leave), plus the benefits of working in an academic environment.
Hey, if that works for them (Score:1)
WFH is definitely attractive, so I can see why companies would try to pay less, since WFH is an attractive perk.
I guess it will come down to, will your competitors pay full freight, and out-compete you to get the best employees.
It's a great starter job option (Score:1)
I think people should take the job and keep looking.
When they find a better work from home offer, leave the prior job like it was on fire.
The fact is working from home saves the companies tons of money so by doing this, they show they are a sociopathic company that will fire you or lay you off without notice the *instant* it suits their needs.
---
On the flip side, understand many companies were dabbling in real estate and gaining political power bringing thousands of employees to the city center where they w
Lower salaries? (Score:3)
Really? Don't they save enough already?
Office Space: Employers save on rent, utilities, and maintenance costs for office buildings or workspaces, as fewer employees occupy them.
Furniture and Equipment: Costs for desks, chairs, and other office furnishings decrease as employees use their own setups at home.
Electricity and Heating: Employers avoid paying for electricity, heating, cooling, and lighting for the space employees would otherwise occupy.
Office Supplies: Consumables like paper, pens, and printing expenses reduce significantly.
Cleaning and Maintenance: Fewer employees in the office mean lower costs for cleaning services, repairs, and general maintenance.
Snacks and Amenities: Many companies provide coffee, tea, snacks, or other amenities in offices, which aren't needed for remote workers.
Insurance: Costs for liability insurance on office spaces can decrease if fewer employees are present.
Re: (Score:1)
They save, but so do the employees, from work cloths, the cost of the commute, avaiability of their home food vs going to eat out from the office, time they are uncompensated for such as work, etc..
Salary is determined by what the worker is willing to accept for the work they need. Seldom does the worker consider what the employers cost of facilities etc are in having them at the office, this is just a cost-benefit analysis done by both parties. Does it save the employer in other ways? Sure. But that is
Re: (Score:2)
I implemented this a long time ago. I cut the wages I was charging when I decided to work exclusively from home about 15 years ago and I never looked back. Granted, I am not an employee although.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But this is not about treating employees fairly. The employers that try to treat their workers fairly will not do such crap. But at least in large enterprises, that seems to be the exception today.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I would still take it if I was still in that market, because I don't have trouble with the concept of win-win. Likewise, I would accept lower salary for shorter hours. Happily. If.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the border conditions. If it is a job that is fun and teaches me stuff, I am willing to accept a lot less money. Not that I actually have to.
Re: (Score:2)
> Really? Don't they save enough already?
> Office Space: Employers save on rent, utilities, and maintenance costs for office buildings or workspaces, as fewer employees occupy them.
Yup, that matters for sure.
> Furniture and Equipment: Costs for desks, chairs, and other office furnishings decrease as employees use their own setups at home.
Pretty small compared to salary.
> Electricity and Heating: Employers avoid paying for electricity, heating, cooling, and lighting for the space employees would otherwise occupy.
Same, big buildings are fairly cost effective to warm. And if you have an office the marginal cost of an in-office employee is pretty small.
> Office Supplies: Consumables like paper, pens, and printing expenses reduce significantly.
> Cleaning and Maintenance: Fewer employees in the office mean lower costs for cleaning services, repairs, and general maintenance.
> Snacks and Amenities: Many companies provide coffee, tea, snacks, or other amenities in offices, which aren't needed for remote workers.
Again, pretty small.
> Insurance: Costs for liability insurance on office spaces can decrease if fewer employees are present.
I can't speak to that. Certainly those little costs add up a bit, but it's not crazy.
And I do think that in-office employees are generally more productive, more communicative, and easier to retain (closer bonds with co-workers).
As for the cost? Yeah, I'd be willing to take a 5-15% wage cut to