DB's arguments for a 5% privilege tax for remote workers:
(Better put by Justin in his post)
Remote work impacts the ecosystem surrounding the office. Less use of public infrastructure, office maintenance staff loses jobs = less contribution to the economy.
Solution? According to DB, governments should be charging extra tax for those who work remotely.
But here's what DB's planning for themselves:
- Remote work for 2 days/week or more perenially
- Already getting rid of office space & extra staff
Now isn't that contradicting yourself, DB? 😅
What does everyone else think?
Here's what our users had to say:
Mark Walter said "Just read the article and saw that DB spent around $2 Billion on rent and furniture in 2019 🤯. I think they have finally understood that employees want flexible schedules and not flashy offices."
Justin said "Certainly a headscratcher 🤔 But then again banks are hardly new to contradictory behavior - negative interest rates, bad investments, government bailouts, criticizing crypto then selling it themselves, etc. 🤣"
Karthik Sridharan said "I am not entirely sure about the context because I have quite followed the DB narrative closely, but do you think that they are being contradictory here? They suggested that there should be a remote worker tax (which is super absurd, in my opinion). But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't opt for remote work themselves, right? Am I missing something here?"
Justin said "Ha, no, you're right, @karthik. The move itself isn't actually contradictory. Particularly if they even go as far as making good on paying their own proposed "tax." I was just being facetious and wanted to make a cheap joke. 😅"
Karthik Sridharan said "haha, fair point. No even Hrishikesh has been doing the same and I haven't had the chance to ask him about this either 😆"
Karthik Sridharan said "Wow, that is really quite archaic. Wouldn't have expected that from a bank in Germany. To be honest, we don't get such stuff even in the most traditional banks of India! Now, that's something"