Flexibility might be one of the most important considerations for many people seeking out new job opportunities. For different people, flexibility can look different (100% remote, hybrid, flex hours, etc.).
Following the COVID-19 Pandemic’s impact on the workplace and how it operates, remote work has become a common practice for companies that previously operated on-site in the past. In fact, during the Spring of 2020, the percentage of remote employees skyrocketed from 6% to 50% or more in the height of Covid cases, in the US.
So, what impact should remote opportunities have on compensation, if any, now that we are not all forced to stay home? Some firmly believe that employees should be compensated the same regardless of their on-site, hybrid, or remote status. Some other opinions may differ. No matter where a company’s policy stands, the decision should always be made with respect and fairness at the top of mind.
When a company posts a job that specifies that the position is solely remote, the reality is that there is a possibility that compensation will reflect that offer for flexibility with a lower salary. Some candidates may consider accepting a reduced salary to prioritize remote flexibility, but is that fair? Are companies taking advantage of people’s desire to work remotely, regardless of their performance? Lowering salary in exchange for flexibility can be a dangerous tactic for a company to employ, as their existing employees may eventually be recruited by competitors offering fair market value for a skill set along with a remote structure.
We sought out to gather statistics on the matter. Vacaré Group took a poll on LinkedIn to gather some insights on the candidate’s point of view on the importance of flexibility vs. salary. The question asked was, “Would you take up to a 20% pay cut to not have to go back to the office?” The results were interesting. After gathering 262 total votes, 28% of people voted yes, leaving 72% voting no. It is all a matter of priorities, individual opinion, and self-value, it seems. It appears money DOES matter to the majority. These results support the debate that people do not want to trade money for flexibility, but they in fact simply want to be compensated for their contributions and skill sets. For companies, finding a system within the remote work model that best suits every employee and their needs will take some time, trial, and error.
There is intersectionality at play when thinking about compensation and work site accommodations. According to Harvard Business Review, hybrid work (a combination of on-site and remote) is increasing more and more each day since the rise of Google Meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and other remote meeting mediums. Of course, policy for remote work would depend heavily upon the kind of work required for a role. If someone’s responsibility as an engineer is to manually work on site with physical equipment, it is likely that remote hours would generate significantly less productivity. Entry level employees and interns who are learning to do any kind of work would have a diminished learning experience by working remotely. As for marketing, sales, customer service, and other similar positions, remote work can be a viable option that allows an employee to work remotely. Basically, it all depends on the situation. Whatever the strategy, policy, or decision is, companies should ensure the policies are fair across their entire workforce.
If you are looking to learn more about what we do, visit our Contact page to learn more about how Vacaré Group can build your team while you build your company
