this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1008 points (98.1% liked)

Work Reform

10142 readers
221 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Lots of bickering about how it works now vs how it should work. Meanwhile I'm going crazy that nobody is pointing out how much of the burden of the commute is placed on the worker. It's literally thousands of dollars a year in being licensed to drive, vehicle registration, insurance costs, variable and ever increasing gas prices, repair and maintenance. Every single aspect of the commute is a burden on the worker, and corporations take it for granted. It's not factored into most people's pay rate or compensation. Whether or not the employer should be held responsible for relieving some of the burden, we should recognize that workers need to lessen this burden one way or another. Increasing tax deductibles to include commute time isn't an unreasonable first step. Treat it just like travel for any other work related reason.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Here in Alberta if you work in oil, they'll pay for your hour(s) driving to the site and back.

(Not saying those jobs have fair wages or oil execs divide it fairly or anything of that substance)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I've been lucky enough to have one job that did pay for transit. Specifically, they would pay for a weekly bus pass for any employer that wanted one, plus monthly bikeshare membership for any employee that wanted that. It was solid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You americans propably see this differently, but in europe it's very simple:

The employer need you to come to work. He doesn't care where you live and how long your commute is.

The worker can chose an employer close to his home, or relocate and live close to the employer. Generally, if it's a priority, the worker can live within walking distance of the employer. If other priorities overrule proximity, there's likely still public transport to get to work.

[–] Viking_Hippie 4 points 1 year ago

That is NOT the case in all of Europe. Stop making the rest of us look bad because your country mistreats workers.

At least I got the answer to my "sarcastic or bootlicking moron" question from earlier 🤦

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you are saying it ought to be this way or it already is?

In the Netherlands it's quite common to receive €0.21 per km tax free (which doesn't cover the cost of the commute unless you ride a bicycle). I have a job that comes with an EV as a perk, including all charging expenses for company and private use both. I only have to pay for charging outside of the Netherlands. I do pay an extra tax for private use, but since it's an EV that's not a big amount at the moment. Some people receive a country wide public transit pass as a perk.

So if your claim is that there is no commute compensation anywhere in Europe, you're wrong. If you say it ought not to exist, well then I simply disagree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a government subsidy it's quite different from an employer benefit.

A public transport ticket as a perk is also very different. That's the same for all employees.the way k read the headline, it's about paying for the time spent commuting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Commenting in your first remark first:

Yes it is different. But in this case it is both. The company pays that €0.21, which the tax office should normally see as an income for the employee. So the subsidy is in not taxing this income.

The public transit pass (which can be used privately) is not taxed at all.

Tl;dr for paragraph below: EV company cars that are driving privately get big tax benefits

Same goes for the car. Normally a lease car lease is quite expensive and if the employer pays for it, it is seen as an income for the employee IF the employee uses the car privately. This is taxed yearly as if you would have received 22% of the new value of the car per year. So a €100,000 car is taxed as if you've received €22,000 in extra income. Depending on what tax bracket you're in you pay quite a bit of tax on that. Now for EV's it depends on the year in which the car was registered. I have a car that cost €43,000 from 2020 which is taxed at 8%, so it is taxed only as if I made €3,440 more. This tax comes down to roughly €150 per month which is very roughly €250 less than I'd have paid for a gas car. So a subsidy in essence. This is why you see so many EVs in the Netherlands, though tax benefits are much lower these days.

Now for the part about paying for time rather than travel expenses. Yes, that's indeed far less common unfortunately. But such measures do lessen the burden somewhat.

[–] solstice 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I just spent a couple weeks in Germany and Spain. The weather was nice, not too hot not humid even in September. Cities are walkable with clear defined pedestrian paths and bike lanes. Rent was affordable (I looked at a few places for fun and everything was cheaper than the dump I live in far from city center). Seems like it's way easier to live close to work and commute on foot or by bike than it is here.

Take a look at this video about North American stroads. It's really enlightening about how awful commuting is in the US (and maybe Canada but idk).

https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM?si=byoeZphtoUo2_QF6

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I watched the first half, and it started getting repetitive. But I don't recall suburbs being mentioned. The way I see it, single family homes are the main reason for your american urban planning. low density makes area consumption big, and thus travel distances. With them comes traffic, and with that big roads.

[–] solstice 1 points 1 year ago

The point is that America stroads are designed for cars, not for walking. It's about our urban design in general which effects everything, including commuting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I live in Europe, and while I own a car, i'm within walking distance of several supermarkets, restaurants, doctors schools and whatnot.

[–] _number8_ 0 points 1 year ago

this is exactly the logic in the US as well. except we're more tethered to jobs because of our malignant healthcare system and general lack of a social safety net. and most of us barely, barely have public transport as an option

[–] blueeggsandyam 2 points 1 year ago

I think this makes the most sense. Increasing mobility makes Capitalism more efficient. Public transportation should also be free because of the benefits they have on society. People should also be taxed on miles driven with an additional cost based on weight of the vehicle. Then subtract work commute mileage from salary and tax the remainder.

[–] solstice 1 points 1 year ago

Everything about American cities, car culture, corporate culture, and so on is proving to be a failing model. What a mess.