551
submitted 11 months ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Are they driving for work? Or driving for personal reason?

[-] BussyCat@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are "reimbursed" for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html

[-] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.

It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution

If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair

If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away

I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

It's the rules of the game you're mad at. Not the commuting equitably issue.

[-] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”

I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.

Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I don't think you understand... The only difference is there are those who expect and demand to paid for their time and money spent getting to work and those who don't. There are those who accept getting the raw end of the work-life and financial balance, and those that don't. If the CEO can demand, expect, and get compensation. So can the boots on the ground worker. Only real difference is that you don't. That's capitalism.

[-] BussyCat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Saying that we should be able to do things because a CEO does is a shit argument.

We don’t need more people acting like CEOs who terribly pollute the planet…

The money that is going to the workers is fixed it is a zero sum game if they pay people more for commuting they aren’t going to just take a loss on their income.

In the case of the pilots and the flight attendants the difference is not them commuting from home but that they can be stuck waiting at an airport or even on a plane that isn’t departing that is completely out of their control. So if they normally get paid $50/hr for a 5 hour flight that under normal conditions involves 3 hours of unpaid airport time currently they would get $250 if they instead got 31/hr they would get paid the same for a normal flight but if there was a uncontrolled 2 hour delay they now get 310 instead which is 100% deserved

In the case of engineers if they have 10 engineers who have a budget of 5000/day why should the 9 that live 30 minutes away get paid $484 and the one that lives 2 hours away get paid 645 for not contributing anything extra?

Compensation should be increased! Work life balance should be increased! Doing it through paying commuting costs for office workers is a dumb way of doing it.

All your reasons for it are coming down to ad hominem attacks that I apparently just hate workers and I have said multiple times now that it has nothing to do with that and I want workers to be paid but the mechanism of paying them for commuting just doesn’t make logical sense

If you want to have a real conversation where you give real reasons why you think a commuting compensation is useful I would love to hear your reasons but if you are just going to keep insulting people who disagree then you can talk to yourself

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Oh so you're pro oligarchy. Just say that. Could have saved me a lot of time.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
551 points (99.3% liked)

News

38993 readers
1690 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS