Oh wait, is this "rent" in the sense of the company essentially renting part of the worker's home? I read it as as paying the worker's share of the rent to the landlord! If that's the case then that would make a lot more sense.
This is rent as in paying a share of the worker's rent. But, as many working from home will concur, most can't work from home well without dedicating part of your living space to office work. That extra room or that part of the living room that was previously free space is now practically reserved for the company you work for.
I don't know if I agree with the policy, but I can see some sense in it. By paying for the living space sacrificed for WFH, companies are disincentivised to push for WFH after all lockdowns are over to save on office cost. Paying the same wage with less cost on office maintenance would be a dream come true for employers, of course, but that would shift the cost of the work space to the employer which I would find unfair.
As the article states:
> Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation.
> ... Luca Cirigliano, General Secretary of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions, told the paper that companies often use flexible workstations in order to save money on office rent.
> It is extremely unfair as well as illegal for employers to pass costs on to employees in this way, Cirigliano told the paper.
So, if the company forces you to work from home so they can save on rent, they have to pay you for "renting" office space from your house.
I get the motivation and incentives, I just can't make sense of it as paying a share of the worker's rent. It falls flat on its face from the start... e.g. what if the worker is the homeowner and not paying any rent? What if the worker is living with their parents/children/etc. who are the ones paying rent? etc. Like fundamentally it seems bizarre that the employee's living agreement with a 3rd party (or lack thereof) should be relevant...
Regardless of the home situation of the worker, the worker needs to reserve space from the home they paid for or are paying for. Many who don't pay rent still pay mortgages. And even if the house is paid off, the company is still basically claiming a working space that they can skimp out on.
The idea is that when a company lays claim to a space in your house, you should get something in return. It doesn't matter if there's four other people paying you rent while you from from home, your home is your space and not the employer's.
Note that this is just an addition to the wage, not a direct bank transfer to the letting agency. A lot of subletting is also done this exact same way (e.g. paying money to the original renter who passes it on to pay the rent).
But that's exactly what I'm saying then. The way to reason about this is that, as an employee, you leasing (or subletting) a portion of your home to the company, and hence they need to pay you rent for occupying your home. This is very much not paying your share of any rent (which may not even exist); it's paying their own share of a rental agreement they've effectively entered into. It makes so much more sense that way than trying to reason it around the employee's living agreement.
Instead of seeing it as leasing a portion of your home to your company looks at it in the words the law uses, the company must provide you with what you need for work. I am sure if they went to court and tried to have their fees for a co-working space paid it would also need to be paid by the company.
