Is it right for pay to be cut to work from home?

I've noticed that some companies offer pay cut to work from home otherwise known as working remotely.

I think and feel it's wrong. The worker deserves his wages even if he works from home or travels to work. The going rate is obviously the salary of the cost inclusive of travelling to work, simply not incurring it doesn't devalue the work done.

What do you think?

Scripture related to wages
Romans 4:4
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/wages

Do they cut the price they charge the customer?
The workman is worthy of his wages.

How much is being cut compared to how much is being saved
by not having to spend time and money on travel expenses? If
it is relatively comparable, I would think it fair as long as the
full wage is to be restored if and when circumstances in that
regard change. A person could save a lot of both time and $$
not having to travel to work, especially if they live quite far.
Not only are gas prices very right right now, but car insurance
would be greatly reduced as well. Not to mention not having
the daily stress/grind of driving to work in heavy traffic...

On the other hand, a person is hired and offered a wage
regardless of how far from work they live, how they are
going to get there, and how much time or money it
requires to show up at work every day. So in that regard
it seems a bit suspect that wages would be cut just
because they are working at home, unless those things
are factored into the work wage to begin with.

I think and feel that the cost to get to work is immaterial due to a comparison between someone who travels by train or car and someone who works from home if they both do 8 hours worth of work and have equivalent skills and careers they should earn the same for the same work done. So I agree it is suspect. I need to do more research into remote positions but there is a salary differential from my first observations. For reference I am a software engineer but I think God wants me to do something different.

They didn't figure in your cost of transportation to work when they hired you, but now they want to cut your pay for the same work since you no longer come in?
Pretty sketchy

Havent heard of that before. People should just get their pay

As you are in the UK then you should look to the Statutory Framework and Guidance that lays down the legal duties of an Employer.

These frameworks cover all manner of issues but the Statutory Minimum Wage Directive gives you the basic legal meaning of how much an Employer must pay and what conditions are excepted from calculating pay. By inference that means that an Employer would not be able to reduce the rate of pay - unless the contract of Employment expressly included an hourly minimum rate for costs associated with going to work for the Employee. In which case the Statutory Rate must remain in keeping with the Minimum Wage Directive - but the hours paid could change. Is that moral? Not likely - but it may be legal.

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/employers-and-the-minimum-wage

The root questions are:
How much am I getting paid?
How much work am I doing for this pay?
Am I willing to do this work for this pay?

More than-less than is irrelevant. "I'm getting less than I was before, I'm getting paid more than this other person is" don't really matter. The only question that matters is, are you getting paid enough for the job you are doing?

If you don't like the pay rate for working at home, go to the office. Nobody's forcing you to work at home for less money. It's an option, and you accept the terms when you take the option. Or you don't accept them when you turn down the option.

It is not irrelevant it is of what is right. As a Christian it's really important to me that everything is right acceptable perfect. I am not willing to be pay cutted purely due to working from home.

I think it depends what the job is. If someone is working from home (wfh) and aren't fulfilling all of their job duties remotely then it makes sense there should be a pay decrease clause somewhere in their hire paperwork.

If someone can work remotely, not be a liability on company property, utilize none of their resources aside from Internet bandwidth, allowing the employer to downsize their building and parking lot, and save money, then they should actually be paying you more for contributing to their increased profit margin.

That's from the perspective of an employee though. Employers will almost certainly see it differently.

There's also some disadvantages to too much advancement and too much reliance on technology. Anyone care to discuss?

Whether or not an employment contract seems "right", to a bunch of Christians on a forum, may ultimately be irrelevant.

In whatever country we find ourselves, there are laws governing wages and employment.
Both we and our employers have certain options regarding those laws: we can come to contractual agreements within those laws, change those laws, or sever our working relationship.
Those are the available options.
How we "feel" about our available options does not, in most circumstances, have the ability to change those options.


I sincerely hope you resolve your employment issues, and I sincerely wish you nothing but the best.

.

Are they forcing you to work from home?

Why is it impossible to keep going to work at the office? You would keep full pay that way.

If you don't like the pay cut, don't take the offer to work from home.

There might be a semantic difference here. Lemme clarify this:

I don't see where there is anything WRONG going on. The offer on the table is "work from home for a slight pay cut." That is an honest (and frankly logical) offer.

Either take the offer or don't. The employer is doing nothing morally wrong.

The Bible says the worker is entitled his wage. If someone who travels to work and earns more then it is morally wrong for the person who works at home to be paid less due to the market rate being the higher figure.

That's how I figure it's not right.

The problem is someone is getting more for the same work. The work is identical.

Under the USSR the motto was "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".

Here it has been said, "we work just hard enough we don't get fired, they pay us just enough that we don't quit".

It is still YOUR choice. You can go to the office to do your job and get every penny you think you deserve.

Personally I'd rather stay home for a bit less pay, because I am by nature indolent and do not like to waste time and attention on driving.

If you agreed to do X job for Y money, then you do that X job and they pay Y money. If you want to stay home for less-than-Y money, stay home and do your job on the computer in the sewing room. If you don't want less-than-Y money, go to the office.

The employer is not doing anything wrong. The employer is giving you another option. Would you be happier if the employer had never mentioned the possibility of working from home?

The work is NOT identical. If you work from home you don't have to go to an office. You don't even have to get dressed and go outside.

But even if the work was identical, which rate is right? What sets the monetary value of the work the employee is doing? How do you know the stay-at-home rate is not the more equitable one?