Being able to work from home (WFH) is one of my top 5 goals, for a job. Until this pandemic hit, working from home wasn't an option. However, it isn't just my employer that wasn't interested in letting their employees WFH, it is nearly all of the employees in my state. Until the pandemic hit. Now I suspect there's a lot of rethinking going on, around the C-suites throughout my state.
But its a complicated thing. A couple weeks ago my CIO invited everyone in IT to attend a video conference being hosted by Gartner. The presentation was on how to prepare for the coming budget cuts, which are inevitable. I learned a lot as to what things look like, from the C-suite's point of view. The important point for this discussion, was when the Gartner rep talked about what savings IT might realize by people WFH. Their research suggests none. Employees WFH didn't save IT any money at all, or whatever savings it realized wasn't worth the effort. So, looking only at WFH, I would presume that the C-suite will say to those employees wanting to WFH, "Too bad, so sad, not going to happen. It doesn't help the bottom line."
The Gartner guy did point to a different metric, that of the savings from not needing to pay for rent for office space, utilities, etc. If you couple that with WFH, then it has a positive impact upon budget cuts. (As an aside, in my situation this doesn't help, as my employer owns the building I work in 70 some miles away.)
But the primary doubt that the majority of employers have in my state, has been proven wrong. We're able to get things done, even though we're remote. I don't think any of them can defend that old argument in fact of the empirical evidences. And I noticed in yesterday's USA Today, that of those people WFH, 75% want it to continue past the pandemic.
To answer your question, Steve, yes, I'd be willing, within limits, to take a pay cut to continue WFH. If that does happen, I'm certain it will result in a pay cut. One of my colleagues who works on my team, lives some 300 miles south. Obviously, he can't go to the home office as the rest of us do. And his pay is already significantly less than mine. I'm also ambivalent about lowering the pay of individuals, because it seems to communicate that the value they give isn't as important as their location.
Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.