it's extremely common (I did some consulting and offices had salary multipliers based on high/mid/low-cost locations). I've been quite surprised at the reaction from HN on the topic
Common, but something in initial employment agreement. This sounds like it is being forced on employees. If so, thus my reticence to seeing this practice as acceptable. If not, my mistake.
It’s likely these employees’ initial employment agreement was to work on-site in the Bay Area office.
If they want to move away from the Bay Area and work 100% remote, they’re being offered that option - that’s a change in the contract itself, in their favor, which they don’t have to take if they don’t want to.
What's being forced upon me? If I continue to work as before, nothing changes. Working remote full time wasn't an option in my initial employment agreement either, so it does not seem like that agreement applies to this situation.
That's my question ultimately. What the reporting sounds like is if you work from outside SV, even if fully remote, you are subject to an unagreed-upon wage reduction. Simply because a pandemic has forced employers to bend doesn't mean employees are forced to do so.
That said, I recognize the difference between ideal and practical reality of the situation. Employees at tech firms typically have little individual negotiation power, but an employment agreement typically can't be amended at the whim of one party. I'm not saying you see it that way, just an outside observer here.
There are no initial employee agreement terms being amended and I'm a bit confused on how it could be interpreted that way. The initial agreement still holds, but FB is extending an additional option that was not offered originally for the employee to change their location to work fully remote, at which point he/she would be subject to the wage multiplier based on market.
If you have to go into the office to work, and you get sick with the coronavirus, then you should sue Facebook.
And if you die, then your spouse should file a wrongful death lawsuit against Facebook.
Why? Because all that could have been avoided if Facebook allowed you to work remotely.
You can also claim that the patterns in the central air conditioning circulation, is what caused you to get sick with the virus.
It’s fascinating that the country is forcing people to go back to work, when the crisis is not yet over. In fact, it’s even more dangerous now, than it ever was, with the super high infection rate count.
It's not being forced on anyone. People are free to continue working in SV and presumably receive the same salary they were before.
If they decide to move elsewhere that's a substantial and meaningful change from the agreement they entered into for the job. Of course their compensation will change.
