
Ask HN: Do You Consider Remote a Working Perk? - dizzystar
I was contacted about a remote position today. They asked for my expected rate and I told them. They replied, &quot;Can you consider coming down since this is a remote position?&quot;<p>I really struggled to come up with a response to this. Yes, I&#x27;m willing to negotiate on principal, but it has nothing to do with being remote. In fact, I consider remote a reason to pay more money.<p>My thinking is that it&#x27;s difficult to find the type of people who has the focus and skills (focus overrides skill, I think) to really do remote work well. The employer is not paying for the office, not giving me free coffee, not paying for the computer I&#x27;m using, and (if it&#x27;s important) no ping pong, and no social interaction with coworkers. In return, I give full-on focused work with no cruft.<p>I understand that it is a trade off, but I&#x27;m never sold on the thought that remote is some exclusive benefit.
======
farnsworthy
No, working remotely isn't a perk, it's simply: work.

[Use of the term "telecommuting" seems like another common giveaway, where and
when it appears.]

The teams I've worked with have never had difficulty with communicating and
collaborating, meeting deadlines and "innovating," and I highly doubt that
we're all ninjas (because surely I am not).

Typical was my last position: I never clocked in from 9-5, usually from the
early morning hours until late at night, to provide time zone coverage and
purely out of interest and the desire to be a contributing member of the team,
with several breaks included for meals, exercise, etc. Flexibility meant I was
more likely to contribute, rather than less. (So many entities fail to
understand this basic human dynamic. Instead create a prison, and watch how
the inmates adapt and behave.)

I'm mostly able to control my environment, which means a quiet space in which
to work, free from the distractions of my cube-dwelling days (though at least
those had walls).

It's simply natural to work together remotely at this point, and I frequently
notice how it provides companies with other tangible benefits, which I think
some fail to consider.

I'd say some are trapped in a twentieth century mindset, but perhaps we're
stuck here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_system).

~~~
factoryworker
My company recently went through a merger and did the typical rearranging of
deck chairs, including renaming things arbitrarily. My department is
commercial products (mobile apps). The new name for this department?

"Agile Build Factory"

They're literally telling us we're factory workers to them. My objections to
this name were met with blinks and hand waves.

~~~
mdekkers
_" Agile Build Factory"_

Love it. Management probably thinks it is "cool, hip and edgy"

------
iamdave
No. These days I consider it a _requirement_. Doesn't have to be full remote,
but I want at minimum 2 days to be able to be out of the office and enjoying
from the house I'm paying for using the salary _you 're_ (employer, not you,
OP) are paying for. Have spent the last couple of weeks embroiled with an
engineer who has made my Ops team almost 4 months behind on a specific
deliverable.

Meanwhile, the rest of our deliverables that didn't involve this engineer and
his team have shipped 90% ahead of time. That 10% was one deliverable that
wasn't shipped ahead of time, it was shipped _on_ time.

And my dept. is 100% remote.

I like your arguments though, working remotely sacrifices a lot that you would
otherwise get by being chained to a desk, and the idea that you should take
LESS money because of it is offensive.

------
whack
We're getting hung up on semantics here. What's going on is really a
negotiation tactic. Here's what the company is thinking:

 _\- dizzystar would enjoy working remote

\- it would be hard for dizzystar to find other remote-working opportunities

\- hence, dizzystar would be willing to work for a discounted rate, in order
to be remote_

In their perspective, there is no "right or wrong". It's purely a matter of
negotiation leverage. You have a couple options here:

 _\- admit they are right, and accept a discounted rate

\- claim that your rates are final and not negotiable

\- claim that you don't value remote working, but because you value them as a
client, you're willing to negotiate on your rate_

Option 2 is more likely to get you a higher rate, but also more likely to
drive them away. Option 3 involves accepting some discount, but at least you
minimise the leverage they think they have over you.

This discussion over semantics is not helping anyone. Just treat it as a
negotiation game, and play it the way you would any other negotiation
scenario.

~~~
dizzystar
Right, I did go with a variant on option 3.

If it matters, I've only worked on site for one job. I've always been remote
otherwise. I probably should have mentioned it in my OP, but really was
wondering more about the general perspective on remote.

~~~
thatoneyouthrow
Another option is to work at a company for a year and then demand remote
during a critical part of a project. If they don't give you remote they lose a
valuable asset and are behind schedule.

------
anonacct37
I've been remote for a few years. I've negotiated remote offers from many bay
area a companies. This is a pretty standard piece of hr bullshit you should
ignore. The correct answer is to hold your ground.

If for some reason that doesn't work out, you've discovered that the company
values you less based on your zip code which is something you definitely want
to find out before you're relying on them for your livelyhood.

------
throwaway2016a
In my opinion, no you should absolutely do not come down in your rate because
of remote work.

It is a perk... for the company.

Imagine not having to pay for office space? The company doesn't have to buy a
desk and chair, or pay electricity to run your computer, or stock the coffee
and snacks. And there is the added benefit that the work hours are completely
blurred. There is no such thing as "work stops when you leave the office" when
you live at the office.

Sure it has its benefits to you too. Easier to spend time with friends and
family, less money spent on gas, etc but the company is saving way more money.

I'm personally extroverted (rare for a software engineer but we exist) so
working home aline drives me crazy and I consider mandatory remote work a
negative. I actually rent space in a co-working space (an added expense for
me) in order to be productive. Some people use coffee shops for this purpose.

~~~
masukomi
> There is no such thing as "work stops when you leave the office"

um...I dunno about _you_ but it sure as hell applies to me. I leave my home
office for the day and work stops. Emergency fires that affect customers are
the only exception and i would help with those even if i didn't work at home.
Being able to set boundaries like that when you work from home is _critical_
to maintaining mental health and minimizing stress.

~~~
throwaway2016a
That was a bit of hyperbole. But I'd say it is true for 9/10 companies I am
familiar with that do remote work. Stories of bosses calling people and
expecting them to pick up at 8PM abound.

~~~
Anticapitalist
Stories of 8pm calls are not limited to work from home employees though.

------
git-pull
Every programmer wants remote unless otherwise stated.

Work Remotely. Salary. Benefits. Software Stack. Chill Boss. That is what
matters.

Just about anything else the startups have to offer is categorized as "meta".
Not helping things ship.

Devs don't care about "culture". What does that mean? Mandatory stand-ups,
weekly 2-hour meetings, signalling "values", and these group photos where
everybody forces a smile? (You haven't exited. What is there to celebrate
about?)

They don't want the politics. Colleagues trying to justify why they're there,
instead of being in a conscience frame of mind to better the company. Anything
else not helping the product to market (shipping), gaining users, and
retaining them.

The requirement of "on-site", unless there's a legit reason, has become a red
flag that invokes an image of a boss in a suit, reclining in their Aeron
chair, that's an insecure, yapping, "expert beginner" micro manager who won't
heed technical advice; a bozo.

So what makes a "Chill Boss" for programmers? A correlation worth testing is
greater software development experience than employees. As opposed to just
having a history going straight into management soon as possible.

------
drvdevd
It’s not a perk _at all_ in 2018, IMO, except perhaps for some logistical
issues you might personally have (eg dealing with your kids, etc). I speak
from experience. If you are maintaining full-on focus, as you said, you’re
only saving the company money. Every point you’ve made here is valid.

Working “remotely” actually puts the entire burden of managing an office and
managing deadlines squarely on your shoulders.

EDIT: I mean managing your _own_ deadlines of course

------
freetime2
I value working remotely because it allows me to save time and live in an area
that fits my lifestyle. And it costs my company money as they need to pay my
travel expenses when I do visit the office, as well as some HR and legal
overhead. Many managers also find an employee's presence in the office
valuable in and of itself.

I work remote full-time because it's something that I negotiated up front my
with employer, but most of my team members are required to come into the
office every day (or at least most days). If they work from home too often
their manager will notice and "have a chat" with them eventually.

So from that perspective it definitely feels like a perk, and something that I
am fine negotiating over as part of a larger compensation package.

------
iamcasen
Think carefully about this negotiation. I've been down this road before, and I
feel I was a bit too quick to decrease my salary. Many times companies will
use the region you work remote from to compute your salary. So if you live in
Colorado and work for a company in SF, they might try and pay you a Colorado
rate.

The funny thing about that is, many times they will probably be offering to
pay for relocation costs, and a full SF salary when you do relocate.

In my mind, if they are willing to pay for relocation, and a full salary AND
the real estate costs of having you sitting in the office, then they should be
willing to pay you the salary you expect.

------
matt_s
This is a red flag. That company or manager probably assumes people doing
remote work are doing their laundry or whatever and not doing work. Perhaps
they had a bad experience with someone? Or was this an HR person just doing
their "get the rate lower" job objective?

They aren't going to save much by having a remote worker, right? Yes office
space but chances are a company leases an entire floor, used or not. The
amount of electricity a laptop uses over a year can't be much either. A single
person drinking coffee can't cost them that much either.

I would almost want to ask how they come to the conclusion that remote should
pay less? Or a slightly different wording like how are pay ranges determined
for <insert title here> position across the company? Does this also come into
play with promotions, raises, bonuses, etc?

------
BjoernKW
Because I'm firmly in the remote-first camp from my point of view remote
should never be considered a perk or something that's graciously granted to
you but rather the default case while on-premise work should only be required
if or when it's truly necessary. I know that many companies are far from that
assumed ideal situation but that's the way it should be in my opinion.

There of course also is an objective negotiation angle to this. You could
calculate your personal cost of commuting to their office every day and add
that on top of your usual rate. Then you could go down by that amount when
asked that question during negotiations.

~~~
bproven
Bingo - you would think in an industry like tech this would be the common
belief. Head into the office on days when meetings/ in-person collaboration /
brainstorming /planning etc is cirtical. Spend the rest of the time remote
(which is realistically about 80% of the time). IMO there is no reason -
especially in tech - you need to be in the office every day. I say 50/50 is a
good starting point. Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the
stress relief (and health benefits of this) if this was common?

This is _especially_ true in the bay area!

~~~
BjoernKW
> Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the stress relief (and
> health benefits of this) if this was common?

Indeed, traffic is a major aspect of this. Remote work is the key to solving
the traffic problems in large cities around the world.

Non-remote work also incurs ridiculously high costs both in terms of necessary
public (railways, roads, parking space) and private (office buildings)
infrastructure costs and hidden costs such as those caused by health issues
and opportunity costs caused by the huge amount of wasted human lifetime.

------
scarecrowbob
I don't consider it a perk, but at this point you'd have to pay me a lot more
to come to an office. I don't think that I would (have to?) take less just
because they want to hire me.

I agree that "remote work" is a skill into itself, but no matter how much I
value that, I don't see how it's costing my employer anything.

If anything they ought to pay me more because they don't ave to provide my
office and coffee and whatnot.

~~~
Jeremy1026
"at this point you'd have to pay me a lot more to come to an office"

So then you're saying that you will work for less to work remote, because you
value it as a perk.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I suppose that any point of negotiation is a perk?

I mean, I'd work with a live band playing in the room if you'd pay me enough
and give me ear plugs, so I suppose "no live music at work" is a perk? I
dunno?

------
robotpony
It's not exclusively a benefit, but it does have some powerful upsides:

* Less commute time and cost (I save 8-10 hours a week, plus a few hundred a month in parking, fuel, and insurance)

* More freedom and flexibility (not every gig offers this, but many do)

* A bunch of focus time

* Communications (oddly) are greatly normalized as everyone has the same handicap. I find a fully remote team easier to manage than a mixed one, as no one has an advantage over another (as happens when part of a team shares the same office).

On the other hand, you're maintaining your office space and much of your setup
(internet, wifi, heating, desk, chairs). Again, some jobs offer some
compensation here, but some of it will be on the employee to maintain.

You're also more isolated, and team culture takes a bit more work to create
and maintain.

Personally, I value the option to work remote as a net gain. I love my home
office, I save time and money on the commute, and I have more time to focus
than in the office. I understand the company benefits too, as they pay less
rent, own fewer fixtures, and get more of my time. But I still see it as a net
win for me.

------
TheLastTrekkie
As computers start to code themselves, remote work will become essential as
people (in theory) will have more time to live their day to day lives. But
remote working is not that big a perk per se. What is modern work going to be
about when it is just metrics and data? we need to rebuild a lot of
communities and networks with our new (hopefully) time rich societies.

~~~
fao_
You got shadowbanned. I'm vouching for you because you seem to be an earnestly
new account.

------
devilkin
I find a mix of working on premise and remote the best - on premise keeps you
in touch with the company and your colleagues, remote is the best to get stuff
done.

They introduced it a while back at my workplace, and tbh, I would not take a
job these days where remote work isn't atleast partially on the table.

Saves me between 1 and 3 hours of commute (depending ont he location).

If you'd expect me to come to the office every day... either it has to be
somewhere where commuting to is really easy, or pays significantly more. And
I'm not even sure I'm willing to compromise on the remote work part.

------
tyingq
Working remote is a perk. I don't see anything wrong with a negotiation based
around perks vs income.

There are extremes and exceptions, of course, but the base assumption seems
reasonable to me.

------
whiddershins
In some situations it would be said you are being too literal?

Sometimes when people negotiate they say "can you do x because y" where y is
just a plausible way to ask for x.

It is often more graceful than just saying "we don't want to pay that much."

~~~
arthurcolle
im not following, can you explain what you mean a little more thoroughly?

~~~
jacobwg
He's saying that saying "can you do X because Y" sometimes is just another way
of asking "can you do X". So in this case, them asking for the OP to lower
salary may have nothing to do with the position being remote, even though
that's what they said.

This is a common negotiation tactic. If you give someone _any_ reason when
making a request, they are more likely to comply, even if that reason doesn't
make sense.

Small example, at a coffee shop: "Can I cut in line?" might get a negative
response, but "can I cut in line, I am late to pick up my son from school" is
much more likely to get a positive response. I don't have a link, but there
have been studies to show that even nonsensical justifications are more likely
to get positive responses. "Can I cut in line, my grandmother is watching TV"
is more effective than no justification at all.

In this case, by connecting the salary reduction to a feature of the job
(remote), it makes it more acceptable to comply with the request than if it
didn't have a reason attached.

------
mdekkers
I charge a 30% premium for my time on site. Working from a location of my
choosing is more productive. When on site, I am endlessly harassed for
meetings and chats and people coming to say hello (and oh btw can you help me
with <insert issue>), whilst it is expected that my productivity remains the
same. Some clients actually expect an increase in productivity. Being on site
is more work, so the client pays more.

------
rboyd
Nope. You've built a comfortable work environment and the discipline required
to be an effective remote worker. No reason for the company to expect to
capture all the value in this. They're already saving on office real estate.
Very likely saving in taxes. You're also assuming all the risk in being in an
area with limited local opportunities. Get what you're worth and don't settle.

------
peterwwillis
Paying market prices for employees is a great way to cut costs and optimize
profits by exploiting workers' living arrangements. If someone lives in a
market where there is very little job competition, and their cost of living is
low, pay them less money! Your business will save money, and it's more fair to
your workers who live in more expensive neighborhoods.

^ This is basically the rationale I imagine when people pay the same worker
less money just because of where they live. They obviously could hire someone
local and would pay them more money. But they _want_ to hire you. But they
_also_ think they can get away with screwing you on compensation, because
you're remote. They save money and they get an employee. It's a win-win for
them.

Fuck. That. Especially because they said "Can you consider ...". Uh, no, Mr. I
Just Lost All My Negotiating Power By Asking Someone To Think About My Request
Rather Than Insisting On It.

Remote is not a benefit. If they had a million qualified _local_ candidates
banging down their door, they wouldn't be negotiating with you. Tell them to
put up or shut up.

------
RickJWagner
I _love_ working remotely.

It's not for everybody. Some people need the social interaction at the office.

But I love not having a commute to work, the convenience of having the extra
time, saving on gas, meals, etc.

For me, it's become the primary perk of the job.

~~~
edc117
Just my two cents, but agree completely. Remote lets me focus on my work
better, and skipping the commute is a huge benefit to my mood overall. Plus
far less gas, car maintenance, I can go for a run during lunch...

It's also hard to overstate the freedom it gives you - you can literally live
anywhere in the US you please. It's not for everyone but I don't think I could
go back at this point.

~~~
passiveincomelg
And when you say "US" you mean "world", right? :)

------
makecheck
It’s possible they are considering cost of living (e.g. you can live “as well”
nowhere near Silicon Valley on half the salary, depending). If that were true
though, they should also be expecting to “up” their offer if you were remoting
from downtown Manhattan or something.

Ultimately, you decide if the offer is what you wanted.

------
gumballhead
I would think the company benefits from a purely financial point of view
because they don't need to provide an office or any of the other amenities
that go with one.

I personally hate working remotely. Most people don't though so it is viewed
as a perk. I've interviewed people before who applied solely because we
offered remote. Some of them even lived within a pretty easy commute to the
office.

And along the same lines, it's not a great idea to respond to "why are you
interested in working with us?" with "because it's remote" even if you really
love remote work.

------
jraby3
It depends on the type of work. Working remotely with fixed hours isn't a
perk. However, usually working remotely gives you significantly more control
over your own time and schedule, which IMO is a huge perk.

------
mighty_bander
It costs me about 600 dollars a month to commute to work where I live. So yes,
if push came to shove, I would take a hit roughly equivalent to that, all else
being equal. I might even go above that, because I greatly value working from
home.

That said, in a salary negotiation, I don't think I would let that slip. As
you have pointed out, remote work is a mutually beneficial situation, and just
as I save money, so does the company. It makes sense to share the savings, and
charge about the same rate one normally would in the region in which one
lives.

------
BlackjackCF
I wouldn't negotiate down because of a remote position. That's garbage. I mean
sure, you're saving on commute, but what would that ultimately save you in gas
money? $50-100/mo? That's $1200.

In office work = free coffee, work laptop, social interaction, and sometimes
free food. Pretty sure that greatly outweighs $1200.

And it's not like you're going to get the time you spent commuting back.
Likely their expectation would be that you work through those hours. So. Nope.

------
amorphous
I only work remotely, 2-3 days/month on-site is fine. So no, it's not a perk,
it's a requirement.

You are right: working remotely effectively requires a different skill set.
Most of all, a remote worker has to be really good at self-motivation, focus
and communication. I have been working remotely for a decade now and consider
myself an expert in those areas, so no, I would not accept lower pay.

------
jldugger
> They replied, "Can you consider coming down since this is a remote
> position?"

It's a perk in the sense that you're not paying bay area rents. If you're in a
high CoL area and want to say, applying to remote positions is an uphill
battle, as the chief reason most companies want to look remote is to expand
their recruiting reach without raising wages, and hoping to lower them.

~~~
bdcravens
Meanwhile, companies like Basecamp are doing the opposite, and basing pay off
of SF:

[https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-doesnt-employ-anyone-
in-...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-doesnt-employ-anyone-in-san-
francisco-but-now-we-pay-everyone-as-though-all-did-3ee87013cfc2)

------
pryelluw
They are playing you because they know you want this. Hold your ground and
walk away if necessary. Remember that you have the control. Not them.

------
Simulacra
No. I get more work done at the office, and since I am fortunate to work for a
company that doesn't prescribe to an open office plan, it's actually fun being
at work sometimes. It's no fun working at home when there's so many cats and
dogs that need hugs, Netflix shows to watch, and everything else

------
muzani
I spend 3 hours a day in traffic. That comes up to a 8 hour vs 11 hour work
day. Transportation cost is about 5% of the salary. The 3 hours is completely
lost too - it's not hours I can spend in contemplation. The biggest thing I
cut from those hours is exercise, cooking, and grocery shopping. So this would
cost me some more in health later.

So remote work is definitely a perk/benefit.

But I think the question here is that it's also a perk to the company; they
don't need to pay for office space and all those other things. And there are
less people who can fit the remote worker requirements.

So I would say that remote work should pay roughly the same.

Personally, I would take a big hit to pay to work remote, but this is only
because on site benefits here don't include computers and comfortable seating.

------
g00gler
I think remote work is a benefit when you’re sitting in a cubicle farm 8 hours
a day, some days of the week. I’m much, much happier when working from home
and can focus much better when it’s required. Definitely not a “taxable
benefit”, though, in the sense that you get a decreased salary in exchange for
it.

You bring up very good points about working 100% remote, though. It should not
constitute a decreased salary unless you’re not working full time remote.

If I were you I’d try to negotiate for the employer to pay for gigabit
internet and buy you a nice new PC, then just take those things off the total
compensation. Nice thing being that those things are now pretty much tax-free
income for you. You’ll be saving on commuting costs, too. Also calculate what
you can write off for a home office.

~~~
dizzystar
>>> You bring up very good points about working 100% remote, though. It should
not constitute a decreased salary unless you’re not working full time remote

Why do you think this?

------
tbendixson
When you hear this, you say: "I appreciate your position, but I just can't
find a business reason to justify lowering my rates."

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do they view you as a someone special, a
person who can really deliver value in a unique way, or do they view you as a
commodity?

If they view you as a commodity, they'll try to pull all sorts of stunts like
this one. But if there's a special bond, they will respect your rates and try
harder to get you onboard.

So perhaps if you are getting asked this question, it's because they're too
lazy to learn more about you and haven't really figured out that special thing
you bring to the table. There isn't enough of a relationship yet.

------
freedomben
It's entirely subjective. To some people it is a perk, to others it is a
downside. If you don't consider it a perk, I would say so. Tell him that you
appreciate the flexibility, but don't consider remote work to be an advantage.

------
megaman22
Absolutely. I'd take on the order of 10-20% of my salary to never have to be
in-office. It'd be a steal for the company, too since I'd get so much more
done than if they were mandating 9-5 ass-in-seat time in the office.

------
saint_fiasco
From the point of view of the employer, it does not matter too much that you
personally dislike remote work. Their negotiating position is based on the
fact that other people think it is a perk, so because of the tradeoff between
fun and wages[1], they can find a replacement just a little bit easier than if
the position was not remote.

[1] [https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-
mi...](https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-
microeconomics/tradeoff-wages-no-such-thing-as-free-lunch)

------
danieltillett
Everything comes down to each parties BATNA [0]. If the employer values on
site employees more than remote then they will offer less (all other things
being equal), if they value remote workers as being more valuable then they
will offer more. The same applies to the employee.

The cost of living of where you live is not the employer's concern. Everything
comes down to supply and demand.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement)

------
eip
I have worked remote for most of the last 12 years. When looking for new
positions I tell them my expected rate which is for remote. Then tell them my
on site rate is my expected rate + 50% inconvenience fee.

------
tytytytytytytyt
> Yes, I'm willing to negotiate on principal, but it has nothing to do with
> being remote.

Why do you even care then?

> My thinking is that it's difficult to find the type of people who has the
> focus and skills (focus overrides skill, I think) to really do remote work
> well.

Are you basing that on anything other than wild fantasy? Have you heard of
eastern Europe, where tons of people will work remote for far less money?

> In return, I give full-on focused work with no cruft.

All employees are expected to give that, remote or not, whatever "with no
cruft" really means.

------
lolsal
Working remotely is a skill. I negotiate my compensation based on all of the
skills that I bring to the table. So should any prospective client/employer.

------
potta_coffee
Think about how much money the company is saving by not reserving you a desk
in an office space, etc. You may save some money on a commute, they definitely
save money by you being remote. Since it's a money-saving move for them, why
should you lower your salary? IMO salary should be dependent on other factors
like what you're worth on the market and how much it would cost them to find
an equivalent employee.

------
starbuxman
It’s mutually beneficial. It saves you time/money on driving, and saves the
company on overhead (office equipment, electricity, office space, etc).

------
rahimnathwani
"I really struggled to come up with a response to this."

When faced with a request of the form 'can you please do X because of
justification Y', people are by default more willing to do X than if there was
no stated justification. If they refuse, they feel compelled to explain why
justification Y doesn't apply.

But there's no need.

If the rate you've quoted is reasonable given the market, then just say so.

------
rihegher
Not a perk but as This is a specific market it all comes to the balance
between number of remote Job offers in your domain and number of people
looking for a remote position in your domain. Anyway if you're experimented
working remote you can explain that it makes you real productive and that you
see no reason to lower your fees/salary

------
vnchr
Your intuition is right that you shouldn’t come down because it’s remote
unless that is an optional accommodation for them. It’s not like they would
offer you the same position without the remote option for a higher rate. Your
rate is based on the sum total value they can offer, right? It sounds like a
poor negotiation tactic on their part.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
If not a union we need developer training on negotiation, the hiring staff are
too good at it. "Can you consider coming down since this is a remote
position?" When I hear that now I'd see through the BS it is, back a few years
ago I would thought, may be they have a point.

------
agitator
Maybe they feel like you will be saving money and time not having to commute?
I don't know. You make valid points and I agree, they shouldn't use remote as
leverage when they are already saving a lot on the position being remote.

~~~
dizzystar
The gas is valid if they only want to negotiate $3/hr or something like that.
It's always more, of course.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Commuting cost time also. If your rate is $80/hour, that really adds up if you
have a one hour commute each way with traffic.

~~~
dizzystar
I live in Los Angeles. If the company is in New York, does that mean I should
take out the price of plane tickets for each way?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The comparison doesn't make sense in a vacuum.

If you live in Hollywood and the job you want is in Santa Monica, then you
would add some time for that. If the remote ob is just as good, you could save
some time and not go to Santa Monica.

If your ideal job is already down the street from where you live, then remote
doesn't offer much commute advantage.

------
sidlls
No, it's not a "perk". This industry has plenty of jobs that can be done (and
done very well) by 100% remote teams. The location of a worker should have
zero negative impact on the pay arrangement.

------
Caballera
I don't think remote work is a perk, but I do find some employers either think
or feel that they can pay employees less just because they are remote. I would
never work at a place like that.

------
Raed667
Yes. As someone who has to take a 1h30 bus twice a day I would jump ship if a
company offers me remote work for even 50% of the month.

------
ageofwant
Work is something you do, not a place you're at.

The only good reason for an employer to require you to be at a specific place
is if there are some levers or buttons there that needs to be pulled or
pushed.

------
grawprog
I've worked entirely from home before and I didn't really like it after a
while. It was too hard to get motivated every day and keep to the schedule I'd
set and I missed having coworkers even just being around even if we don't talk
all the time. But I would enjoy being able to work from home while still
having a workplace I needed to go to at leaat a few days a week.

~~~
ams6110
Where I work, "working from home" is code for "checking email a few times
during the day so it appears I'm at least somewhat engaged, while really doing
very little at all yet not using a PTO day."

Too hard to get anything done when others you need to collaborate with are not
there.

~~~
Myrmornis
Yes, it only works (from the employers point of view) if the following are
true:

1\. the employee either genuinely enjoys the work or genuinely cares about the
company

2\. the employee has not become cynical about the company, even if (1) was
originally true.

In most lines of work these are unlikely to be true for most people. However,
software engineering can, if you're lucky, have an addictive quality and be
intellectually enjoyable and intellectually meaningful. If that coincides with
a decent company with decent people, then weirdly, remote working can result
in people working hard away from the office. In my case, getting much more
done away from the office because personally I can get nothing done in an open
plan office with frequent meetings.

~~~
karmajunkie
You left out the critical ingredient: the company has to have remote-first
DNA. If they aren't set up to handle that style of employee, its going to
result in a hire that feels isolated and who will very probably experience
being passed over for anything interesting. Remote-first implies all kinds of
things, up to and including having slack convos with someone sitting one desk
over, and most companies just don't care enough to put the effort in to make a
truly remote friendly workplace.

