LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Playing devil's advocate for a moment .......
When Amazon, or any company, hires someone, I don't think they base the compensation paid on answers from the employee of what kind of car they have, it's MPG, their distance from their work location, what time they'll have to get up to start their commute, the size of their house, their average electric bill, if they have a space in their house for a home office, if they have sufficient wardrobe, if they have a home computer with a gigabit ethernet port with access to high speed internet. No, they base the compensation on education, experience, merit and the type of work being performed in service to the company. All those other things are the personal responsibility, and the personal preferences and lifestyle choice of the employee, and not the business of the employer. As long as the employee shows up for work, the money paid to the employee is used by the employee as they see fit to use it. If four employees live blocks from each other and carpool to save money, does the employer reduce their wages? If the employee bags an economical lunch everyday saving hundreds a month, does the employer reduce the employees wages? No and no.
Now, when employees are told, forced, to work from home, because of the covid BS, their home expenses do in fact increase because of the lack of prior, less, usage, (the house being basically idle for over 8-10-12 hours of the day), when they are away from home at their regular work office. The amount of money saved commuting, wear and tear on their car, dry cleaning, eating in the cafeteria or outside at the food truck, is not relevant ... because, the employer cares not of those things when the employee was hired as those things are the responsibility of the employee to make due with the money they received and to spend/plan accordingly.
Conversely, think about how much the company/companies saved by shutting down the use of their in house office spaces. Far far far less electrical usage. Greatly reduced or no custodial services needed. Much less HVAC maintenance. Much less overall maintenance. Water level usages drop precipitately along with the need for hot water. The savings must have been immense. Overall, I would say these companies such as Amazon saved far more in total than the employees in aggregate.
So, in my most humble opinion, the argument does have merit.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment .......
When Amazon, or any company, hires someone, I don't think they base the compensation paid on answers from the employee of what kind of car they have, it's MPG, their distance from their work location, what time they'll have to get up to start their commute, the size of their house, their average electric bill, if they have a space in their house for a home office, if they have sufficient wardrobe, if they have a home computer with a gigabit ethernet port with access to high speed internet. No, they base the compensation on education, experience, merit and the type of work being performed in service to the company. All those other things are the personal responsibility, and the personal preferences and lifestyle choice of the employee, and not the business of the employer. As long as the employee shows up for work, the money paid to the employee is used by the employee as they see fit to use it. If four employees live blocks from each other and carpool to save money, does the employer reduce their wages? If the employee bags an economical lunch everyday saving hundreds a month, does the employer reduce the employees wages? No and no.
Now, when employees are told, forced, to work from home, because of the covid BS, their home expenses do in fact increase because of the lack of prior, less, usage, (the house being basically idle for over 8-10-12 hours of the day), when they are away from home at their regular work office. The amount of money saved commuting, wear and tear on their car, dry cleaning, eating in the cafeteria or outside at the food truck, is not relevant ... because, the employer cares not of those things when the employee was hired as those things are the responsibility of the employee to make due with the money they received and to spend/plan accordingly.
Conversely, think about how much the company/companies saved by shutting down the use of their in house office spaces. Far far far less electrical usage. Greatly reduced or no custodial services needed. Much less HVAC maintenance. Much less overall maintenance. Water level usages drop precipitately along with the need for hot water. The savings must have been immense. Overall, I would say these companies such as Amazon saved far more in total than the employees in aggregate.
So, in my most humble opinion, the argument does have merit.
