Well, yeah. Same job done remotely- shouldn’t matter in the least bit WHERE you’re doing it from. And if they worked out your pay ahead of time, then that’s where it should stay- I think it completely sucks that they’d say “Oh, you’re doing a great job on this job, but you happen to work somewhere different. So we’re going to drop your pay. Not because you’re doing a bad job, or because we can’t afford it, but because we think you don’t need to be paid so much based on where you’re living while you work remotely. If you lived somewhere more expensive, we’d pay you more for the same exact job.”
That’s entirely craptastic. It’s a different situation if someone is hired to work remotely- in that case, you make it clear that a lower salary is the tradeoff for having the freedom to work wherever you choose, AND you make that salary the same across all locations. You want to work remote? You get the freedom to do it from Dubuque, Miami, North Platte, or downtown San Francisco, but we’re paying you the same. The choice is up to you.
I guess where I get tripped up is on the tiered salaries for remote work, combined with people who were effectively forced into remote work and who are getting their pay cut based on where they’re living, not on their job performance. I mean, that’s kind of the point of remote work- you can do it from anywhere, so the location shouldn’t factor into pay at all.
I’m entirely fine with presenting existing workers with the choice of in-person at your current rate, or remote at some lower rate. That’s fair. And I’m fine with salaries being different for in-person work in different cities as well- workers rarely have as much choice in that matter either.
But the idea that someone working remotely from San Francisco is paid more than someone working remotely from rural Kansas for the same exact job and performance, just because THEY choose to live in San Francisco sticks in my craw. It seems almost like the employer is sticking their nose into the type of lifestyle their employees choose to live, and subsidizing people who choose to live in more expensive environments.
FWIW, I’m pretty against the idea that someone transferred from San Francisco to Dubuque involuntarily should have to take a pay cut because Dubuque is cheaper- that’s part of involuntarily transferring people, IMO. You pay them the same or more (if it’s somewhere more expensive), and you don’t deliberately screw them because “they don’t need it”.