• APassenger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is what I don’t hear discussed as often as I’d expected. When you make a solid case for 100% remote, bargaining power is lost - or at least the COLA is harder to defend.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It depends. Full remote means that companies could recruit nationwide, but that cuts both ways. There’s a few hiccups in having employees in multiple states that opens a company up to employment rules in many states, so some companies may want to avoid certain states until they are big enough to handle the complexity. It also means every company has to compete for employees with all the other big companies, not just whoever is within about 50 miles of them.

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Full remote means that companies could recruit nationwide

        Depending on the industry and ROI, I’d submit it’s worldwide.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Maybe. Going international is another big step in bureaucracy for a company. Time zones also become a problem, you can’t really have a team made of people farther than about 4 timezones, you need separate teams at that point, which adds complexity. Language barriers also start to become an issue as you expand, even English speaking countries have vast differences, and English as a second language adds more difficulty.