Sure, but it means that companies can start looking to expand into cheaper urban centers.
it means that companies can start looking to expand into cheaper
Yeah, everyone gets that it’s a benefit to the employer to run with WFH staff, but it’s often a struggle for old-school manager who validate their existence through home-room attendance. My current employer had to re-up a contract during CoViD, and the only change was a pay bump to handle inflation and “100% WFH” (in legalese).
And the employer sold the desks - sometimes to staff - and released the space it was renting. So easy. One guy is onsite to receive Fedex, and there’s a few ‘hotel’ desks that see regular use.
It’s not even just WFH staff: instead of having expensive office space and high COL, you can pay less and rent an office in Saskatoon.
That’s a very good point. For the footprint you must have, it lets a company choose to relo to a place that can use the tax revenue and looks far better on paper.
… but then the ‘100% remote’ clause needs to be etched into stone, lest the management decide to “just” pull everyone back in to an office far away from their current home or abandon their jobs!
But yeah, the cost of office space in the flat land is potentially so much lower, that I’m surprised smarter people than me at business - and there’s a lot - haven’t jumped on the opportunity to improve shareholder value or something by a relo to some place better.
