1003
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Asifall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think the primary issue though is that it incentivizes businesses to only hire people who live nearby. On the one hand that’s good because it’s good for the environment, but on the other hand it means I can’t decide to move further away from my employer without risking being fired. This is a bigger problem if your house has multiple working adults.

We could mitigate that by forbidding companies from firing employees who move further away but stay within some reasonable distance, but that then creates an incentive to move as far away from your job as possible to make that extra income.

So, how do you compensate employees for their commutes without restricting where they can live or creating an adverse incentive?

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think that would work for most companies. The education demands at this point make it impossible to get all the knowledge worker/white collar jobs you need from a 15 mile radius, unless you're in the middle of a city. They'll be able to hire exclusively local for their blue collar positions -- but they already do that anyway. Companies would not pay thousands for relocation from far away states if they could fill the position easily locally.

I think the workers, at least white collar, really hold the cards here.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1003 points (98.1% liked)

Work Reform

9856 readers
151 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS