Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it.
Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent.
> Because commute time is work time. Plain and simple. There are very few unemployed people that take the tube for 1 hour in the morning and in the evening just for the sake of it.
So if I take the tube to see a show, then work should pay for that as well? I’m not working while sat on the tube any more than I’m working while on the way to the theatre.
And if people do decide to work on the train, then they can count that towards their working hours so there isn’t an issue.
If you’re not working on the train, then it clearly isn’t work time any more than that lunch break which companies also don’t pay you for.
Also what about people who have chosen to pay more for a property that is closer to the office? Should they be excluded from this subsidy? Effectively penalising them for not having a long commute? How is that fair on them?
> Since work from anywhere showed that a lot of work can be done remotely, if a company wants someone to work on premises it is obvious that they have to pay for the extra time and effort spent
The ironic thing was during COVID some people were complaining that their home expenses had gone up due to working from home and thus insisted they should be compensated for that too. The British government even issued tax credits to help such individuals.
