There’s no doubt about the fact that a much larger portion of the world’s workforce than ever before is moving towards the practice of working and collaborating more remotely, but even in the most intriguing of the lives of so-called digital nomads there are some serious drawbacks. For all that it offers (and there is plenty that it offers), remote work comes at a price and I mean that quite literally.
You’d be very lucky to earn the same wages as someone doing the exact same job you’re doing remotely, but for the fact that they’re employed permanently. There are many reasons for this, of course, which I think it would be interesting to discuss.
Subordination is for sale
We kick things off with a little bit of a cynical view on the matter, but it is what it is. Employers seem to be willing to pay for your subordination as an employee and it definitely goes beyond the practicality of being able to better manage someone who is standing right there with you in the same room. I.e. your boss pays you, therefore the typical corporate working environment tends to tolerate the view that that subsequently gives this boss of yours the right to be a bit of a pain in your, err, neck…
This is also why many remote workers are willing to take the implicit pay-cut when they choose to work remotely over having to deal with a pain-in-the-neck boss.
Local labour laws are legally-bypassed
Remote workers generally aren’t under the protection of any local labour laws, which is why they inevitably have to take a pay-cut in relation to their permanently employed counterparts. So it becomes an exclusive matter of the value of the work you produce over the time and effort you put into it, under some physical supervision.
Accessibility is for sale too
In pretty much the same way that your subordination seems to add a few hundred pounds to your pay package, your accessibility as an employee is also for sale. Employers that enjoy the “security” of being able to gain access to you directly, anytime during the working day and sometimes even after hours, essentially pay you for it. This is one of the reasons why if someone works remotely they have to settle for less remuneration than that of their permanently employed counterpart.
I mean if you’re a remote worker, your employer is pretty powerless over their accessibility to you, even though a large chunk of that really depends on your own integrity and diligence as someone who has chosen to work remotely.
Accessibility as a factor of how much one has the potential to earn can also be expressed in more of a practical manner, such as how an Atlanta car accident lawyer may have a much busier working day than a lawyer who solely does consultations remotely. I suppose it’s a matter of having direct access to a specific market in which the customers also want to enjoy some visible accessibility to the service provider they’re spending their money with.