Hybrid work has opened yet another can of worms – this time, it’s a debate over pay. Should people who moved too far away to partake in office-based activities be paid the same as those staying in high-cost areas near their workplace? And what will be the impact of location-based pay on employee retention? Writing for the BBC, Alex Christian lays out the debate about location-based pay from both the employer’s and employee’s perspectives. His piece will help companies weigh the pros and cons of tying salary to location.
Some employers face a dilemma over how to compensate workers who won’t come back to the office post-pandemic.
After two years of working remotely, many knowledge workers have made remote work their preferred working model. Some have even relocated to more affordable areas of the country and now live too far away to commute to the office. Employers are grappling with the question: Should employees who have moved to lower-cost areas and work remotely still be paid the same salary as workers returning to the office? Most Big Tech companies located in the very expensive San Francisco Bay Area decided to cut employee wages in lower cost-of-living areas. Other employers, however, are sticking with a location-agnostic compensation...
Comment on this summary