You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points
*

On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?

This only seems like a difficult question if it’s one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it’s one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.

Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they’ll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.

Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices… ugh.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Work Reform

!workreform@lemmy.world

Create post

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:

  • All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
  • Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
  • Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
  • We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

  • Higher wages for underpaid workers.
  • Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
  • Better and fewer working hours.
  • Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
  • Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

Community stats

  • 3.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 952

    Posts

  • 17K

    Comments