I disagree completely with that, at least for software engineers.

The work queue is infinite, measuring output with any sort of precision is almost impossible for a lot of the work (maintenance, actually necessary refactors, security, mentoring juniors, managing stakeholders, etc etc etc). There's no "I've finished my work for today".

I'm not saying that I like it, or that it's a good thing, but in my understanding engineers are paid to be available doing work roughly 40h/week.

The employer want to pay for the output. But the employee want to be compensated for their time and the quality of it.

> This goes especially true for Microsoft where lots of people put in far less than a 40hr workweek.

No offence, but this shows in the products.

It's a standard expectation for managers to see you physically located in the office for 40hrs per week in semi-flexible arrangements (if you're lucky).

You may forget that as tech workers we are incredibly privileged with the way our office life is compared to others typically, that we can sometimes come in late and leave early: may be another "perk" (like remote work) which goes away in time or during the next squeeze.

So it's a poor defense, as it's not reflected in other similar industries, nor is it relevant when we're discussing flexibility being reduced by the same company doing the flexibility reduction.

You are definitely paid for the "hours" in your contract and not the output, if you were paid for output some workers would be able to work harder to make more money by creating more things; as it stands you get the same money if you do 80hrs or 40hrs or 20hrs at any level of effort. You're not paid for time or output, you're paid to be "of service".

Maybe you get more money at promotion time (maybe), but pay is certainly *not* linked to compensation.

[flagged]

With tradesfolk you can choose who to call, and somebody from farther away will charge more for getting to your door. With workers that is not a consideration today (in most roles), but if companies had to pay for travel time it absolutely would be. But that leads to uncomfortable questions about moving. If you get children and move to an area with a better school, can and will your work now fire you because your commute got more expensive for them?

A fixed payment for office days would remove that, but then how do you determine the price of that payment?

I'm a remote worker and I get an annual stipend to equip my home office and reinbursement for my internet and cell phone.

The stipend is flexible. Some of my coworkers stocked their home office with snacks, for example.

Some do. My last full time role had some $100/month stipend for personal supplies. Pretty much paid for my internet bill in that time.

Another before that had some 3000 dollar a year stipend for approved office supplies over the pandemic; basically anything that wasn't groceries could be put on there. I even fancied putting a PS5 on there at once point, but then realize high quality office chairs and desks would drain that stipend quickly.

I do get paid 50 euro per month for working remotely. It's on my contract. I didn't ask for it, but it's ok.

Agreed. I'm glad that I at least get reimbursed for a portion of my home internet connection and for office equipment.

And also workers should be paid for not working 26 days per annum, it's more than a full month!

I'm salaried but my contract specifies 'expected hours' from 9-5 or 8-5 with an unpaid lunch.

This depends on the juridictions.

>Nobody's stopping you from moving closer to the office

the stiff housing market indeed is. You can't buy land that isn't for sale.

Nevermind that most people cannot just up and move whenever their work fancies it. And you don't want to. Too many horror stories of people who moved for their job only to get laid off a few months later. Corporate isn't taking my community with them.

>If the office is in a high-cost-of-living area they have to offer higher salaries to get an equal caliber of workers.

Or they just offshore it.

> Nobody's stopping you from moving closer to the office

Price per square meter is.

This definitely is not how it works. There are a ton of companies in Irvine for example that vastly underpay their developers compared to the cost of living in the area. And if you were to assume that's how it works, then companies should be offering salary increases for RTO which is very obviously not happening.

> Nobody's stopping you from moving closer to the office

Tell me you’re single in early 20s without telling you’re single in 20s.