It does raise the question of why large companies _aren't_ responsible for paying for commuting costs. We've obviously never done it that way, but is there a reason that we couldn't?
Because (thank goodness) employers don’t have a say in where you live or what your commute looks like.
If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great.
The employer doesn’t need to know or become invested in any of those choices. Otherwise, we end up on a road where employers push for you to live in ways that are most appropriate to their financial interests. No thanks.
That said, many employers do offer things like universally available metro passes or gas cards as a token acknowledgment of commute costs more broadly. That seems like a good balance of autonomy and support.
The WFH corollary is if your employer started paying for a WFH spare bedroom (which almost certainly costs more than office space for one desk), they'd only pay you for median (at best) rent for that room. Why should they pay for a bedroom in SF when you could just as easily be in Akron.
Actually many large companies subsidize or outright cover public transit costs. Many subsidize parking costs if they don’t provide free parking.
But mode of transportation is mostly left to the individual. They pay you enough and you can decide where to live and how to commute. Everybody’s needs are different — why have a program?
The answer I heard is because part of the initial salary negotiations the employer/employee should have already factored that in.
However, it could make sense that if they initially worked from home, then had to start commuting, the company should pay for gas, car maintenance, tolls, public transportation, etc.
Then, the same goes in reverse, if the worker agreed to the salary working from the office, when forced to work from home, they could make a case of the company having to pay for monitors, a desk, electricity, a faster internet, etc.
The company offers you a salary/wage. It is up to you to determine whether that can cover your commute costs and if the job is worth it when factoring that in. If the company gets involved in calculating individual commute expenses for everyone, they’ll have to hire a department of accountants to handle it. Instead, companies pay you a lump sum (salary) and you decide what to do with it. This is one of the basic purposes of our market economy
Long time ago I worked for a company where people were paid for time they were travelling to the office (with transport cost covered on top of that). This rule applied only to older folks who had their contracts signed when such terms were offered (at the time when I was joining this clause was already removed). This was in London and some people were travelling 2 hours one way (so 4 hours of paid travelling time every day). Though.. I also thought it is a bit waste of life to spend 4 hours travelling every single day.
That means people with cheaper commutes get paid less than people with more expensive commutes. Why would you do that? You’re effectively rewarding people for living further from work and driving less fuel efficient vehicles, which both makes no business sense and is terrible for the environment.
I think the business doesn't really care where you live.
I have made decisions to live close to my offices, not just for commute but because I consider myself responsible to go in when things break and spending 1.5hrs commuting won't do that.
When I priced it up when I lived in London it came out to be about the same cost to live closer to the office than to commute even with public transport (which is not horrendously expensive) -- assuming I paid myself what my boss would pay me for my time commuting.
If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great.
The employer doesn’t need to know or become invested in any of those choices. Otherwise, we end up on a road where employers push for you to live in ways that are most appropriate to their financial interests. No thanks.
That said, many employers do offer things like universally available metro passes or gas cards as a token acknowledgment of commute costs more broadly. That seems like a good balance of autonomy and support.