Houston expert: Weighing the pros and cons of how to pay remote workers

Guest column

From startups to global corporations — here's what you need to know about paying remote workers. Photo via Getty Images

In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. job market saw a steady increase in hybrid and remote work opportunities. The mass adoption, however, of a more “flexible workplace” — and the teleconferencing technologies necessary to make it a widespread option — was not yet commonplace. And in many industries, the idea of offering employees the ability to work from home several days a week — or more — brought up concerns over loss of productivity and loss of control.

Although the tech industry was more open to the idea of hybrid and remote work (and offered the option to a growing number of employees) — it wasn’t until pandemic lockdowns sent millions of workers home in early 2020, that the landscape of the American workplace, as a whole, changed forever.

For those workers whose positions allowed them to work from home, there were challenges related to balancing remote work with remote learning and overcoming Wi-Fi and teleconferencing glitches.

To minimize the time necessary to adapt to a whole new way of doing business, tech companies stepped in — utilizing their innovation to power hybrid work spaces and provide applications and other means to facilitate virtual collaboration and solve network connectivity and security concerns.

As employees — in tech and other industries — adapted to the “new normal,” a few things became clear:

  • Productivity — in many cases — increased
  • Hybrid and remote work option are viable for the long term
  • Employees value flexibility (in many cases, they value it over a higher salary)
  • Remote work offered up a whole new world of opportunities — no matter where you live or where your business is located

For employees and employers alike, hybrid/remote work broke down geographic barriers — allowing tech companies to hire qualified talent anywhere in the world and providing employees with the ability to relocate to hometowns that offer lower living expenses, a better quality of life, or the opportunity to be closer to family in other cities or states.

This new geographic freedom also brought up a very important question — especially for tech companies based in regions with a high cost of living:

As we open job opportunities up to remote workers across the country, do we pay employees based on their location (cost of living) or the job description?

According to an April 2022 article in Fast Company, “Several large tech companies, including Meta and Google, announced that employees moving to cities with a lower cost of living would be taking a pay cut. For instance, Google employees moving to cheaper cities or outside of the office hub could see a cut—as high as 25 percent —in their compensation.”

While Reuters’ “Pay cut: Google employees who work from home could lose money,” by Danielle Kaye noted that “…smaller companies including Reddit and Zillow have shifted to location-agnostic pay models, citing advantages when it comes to hiring, retention and diversity.”

We have clients on both sides of this equation, but it is important to note that asking an employee to take a pay cut might be risky in a competitive labor market. Making a decision on location-based pay versus job-based pay should consider all factors involved to help determine what's best for your workforce and your business.

We outlined a few pros and cons for each pay model. As you make decisions for your own organization, it’s a good idea to consider the following:

Pros and cons of location-based pay

  • PRO: Workers are paid wages commensurate with where they live and can expect to cover state and local taxes, housing, and other expenses associated with that location.
  • PRO: A company can save on wage costs, mainly if remote workers live in more affordable markets.
  • CON: Employees who live in less expensive housing markets make less for the same work done by co-workers in locations with a higher cost of living.
  • CON: Companies may experience higher turnover rates if they impose a pay cut policy that penalizes employees who move to smaller, more rural locations.

Pros and cons of job-based pay

  • PRO: Employees who live in a lower-cost area can opt for a larger home and more expensive "extras" and save more than if they choose to live in a city with a higher cost-of-living.
  • PRO: A job-based compensation structure can be more straightforward to administer because it focuses on allocating pay systematically and not on where employees live, which may shift over time.
  • CON: Employees with specialized skills and expertise who live in more expensive geographic markets may not be compensated as generously as those who work for competitors with location-based pay policies. This can diminish a company's recruiting competitive edge.
  • CON: Employees who move to locations with increased legislative and regulatory requirements can create increased operational costs for employers as they comply with new laws in the new location.
  • CON: Job-based pay structures can increase a company's wage (operating) costs.

------

Lisa Bauer is director of compliance services at G&A Partners.

From Your Site Articles
Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston researcher secures $1.7M to develop drug for aggressive form of breast cancer

cancer research

A University of Houston researcher has joined a $3.2 million effort to develop a new drug designed to attack a cancer-driving protein commonly found in triple-negative breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most difficult-to-treat forms of cancer and accounts for 10 percent to 15 percent of all breast cancer cases. The disease gets its name because tumors associated with it test negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein, making it difficult to target. Due to this, TNBC is often treated with general chemotherapy, which can come with negative side effects and drug resistance, according to UH.

UH College of Pharmacy research associate professor Wei Wang is developing a drug that can target the disease more specifically. The drug will target MDM2, a protein often overproduced in TNBC that also contributes to faster tumor growth.

Wang is working on a team led by Wei Li, director of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Pharmacy’s Drug Discovery Center. She has received $1.7 million to support the research.

Wang and UH professor of pharmacology and toxicology Ruiwen Zhang have discovered a compound that can break down MDM2. In early laboratory models, the compound has shown the ability to shrink tumors.

Wang and Zhang will focus on understanding how the treatment works and monitoring its effectiveness in models that closely mirror human disease.

“We will study how the drug targets MDM2 and evaluate the most promising drug candidates to determine effective dosing, understand how the drug behaves in the body, compare it with existing treatments and assess early safety,” Wang said in a news release.

Li’s team at the University of Tennessee will be working on the chemistry and drug design end of the project.

“This work could lead to an entirely new class of therapies for triple-negative breast cancer,” Li added in the release. “We’re hopeful that by directly removing the MDM2 protein from cancer cells, we can help more patients respond to treatment regardless of their tumor type.”

10+ Houston innovation leaders in the spotlight at SXSW 2026

where to be

Houston's innovation scene will be well represented at South by Southwest (SXSW) this month.

The week-long, Austin-based conference and festival will spotlight some of the Bayou City's leaders in health care, energy, space and more. The event kicks off today, March 12, and runs through March 18. The SXSW Innovation Conference will feature keynotes, workshops, mentoring sessions and more throughout various venues in the city.

Here's who to see and when and where to find them:

March 12

Aileen Allen, venture partner at Mercury Fund

Mentor Session from 4-5:15 p.m. at Hilton Austin Downtown

Allen will host a mentoring session focused on funding, marketing, advertising, PR and the future of work.

March 13

Heath Butler, partner at Mercury Fund

SXSW Pitch-Smart Cities, Transportation, Manufacturing & Logistics from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Butler will judge five innovative startups as they pitch their solutions to advance smart cities, enhance transportation systems, modernize manufacturing, transform logistics, and strengthen government infrastructure and civic operations.

Jonathan Cirtain, CEO and president of Axiom Space

The Clock is Ticking for Space - Replacing the ISS from 4-5 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Cirtain will discuss Axiom's pursuit of building the world’s first commercial space station.

March 14

Jesse Martinez, founder and CEO of LSA Global

SXSW Pitch-Intelligent Systems, Robotics, & Multisensory Technology from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Martinez will judge five innovative startups as they pitch their technologies that aim to enhance the way people connect, communicate and share unique life experiences with those around them in a digital ecosystem.

Jennifer Schmitt, head of operations at Rhythm Energy

Powering Texas with Reliable Integrated High-Demand Energy from 10-11 a.m. at Marlow

Schmitt will join a panel to discuss how EirGrid, the state-owned electric power transmission operator in Ireland, is pioneering solutions as the country works toward 80 percent renewable integration by 2030.

Saki Sasagawa, director of business development for JETRO Houston

Now is Japan's Time: Leading the Future with Deep Tech from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Sasagawa joins a panel that will share real-time insights from diverse perspectives on the forefront of Japan’s deep tech and IP businesses.

March 15

Bosco Lai, CEO and co-founder of Little Place Labs

SXSW Pitch Alumni: Where Are They Now? from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Lai joins a panel of four former SXSW Pitch winners to share how they leveraged the platform to take their startups to the next level.

Tara Karimi, cofounder and chief science and sustainability officer at Cemvita

South by South America: The Rise of Southern Brazil Tech from 2:30-3:30. p.m. at The Line

Karimi will participate in a panel to discuss how Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's southernmost state, is attracting elite talent and AI infrastructure and share insights on navigating the next wave of South American tech growth.

March 16

Dr. Pavitra P. Krishnamani, emergency medicine physician at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Viva La Revolution: How the Digital Age is Transforming Wellness from 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. at Hilton Austin Downtown

Krishnamani will discuss the latest advancements and policies that can accelerate the digital age of health care, such as wearables, telehealth and artificial intelligence.

March 18

Charlie Childs, co-founder and CEO of Intero Biosystems

Spinning Out: What It Takes to Build a University Startup from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at The Line

Childs will join founders who spun their companies out of the University of Michigan to share the real story of navigating IP, early capital, team building, market validation and the “valley of death.”

Dr. James Allison, regental chair of immunology and director of The Allison Institute at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Padmanee Sharma, professor in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Beyond Checkpoints: Immunotherapy’s Next Act from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Allison and Sharma will sit down with 21-year-old, Stage 4 cancer survivor Sharon Belvin and Time Magazine journalist Alice Park will discuss the future of immunotherapy and what challenges remain.

Last year, Houston startups Little Places Labs and Helix Earth won top prizes in their respective categories at the prestigious SXSW Pitch event, held this year from March 13-14. No Houston startups were named finalists to compete in this year's event.

NASA revamps Artemis moon landing program by modeling it after Apollo

To the moon

NASA is revamping its Artemis moon exploration program to make it more like the fast-paced Apollo program half a century ago, adding an extra practice flight before attempting a high-risk lunar landing with a crew in two years.

The overhaul in the flight lineup came just days after NASA’s new moon rocket returned to its hangar for more repairs, and a safety panel warned the space agency to scale back its overly ambitious goals for humanity’s first lunar landing since 1972.

Artemis II, a lunar fly-around by four astronauts, is off until at least April because of rocket problems.

The follow-up mission, Artemis III, had been targeting a landing near the moon’s south pole by another pair of astronauts in about three years. But with long gaps between flights and concern growing over the readiness of a lunar lander and moonwalking suits, NASA’s new administrator Jared Isaacman announced that mission would instead focus on launching a lunar lander into orbit around Earth in 2027 for docking practice by astronauts flying in an Orion capsule.

The new plan calls for a moon landing — potentially even two moon landings — by astronauts in 2028.

“Everybody agrees. This is the only way forward,” Isaacman said.

The hydrogen fuel leaks and helium flow problems that struck the Space Launch System rocket on the pad at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in February also plagued the first Artemis test flight without a crew in 2022.

Another three-year gap was looming between Artemis II and the moon landing by astronauts as originally envisioned, Isaacman said.

Isaacman stressed that “it should be incredibly obvious” that three years between flights is unacceptable. He'd like to get it down to one year or even less.

Isaacman, a tech billionaire who bought his own trips to orbit and performed the world’s first private spacewalk, took the helm at NASA in December.

During NASA’s storied Apollo program, he said, astronauts’ first flight to the moon was followed by two more missions before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. What's more, he added, the Apollo moonshots followed one another in quick succession, just as the earlier Projects Mercury and Gemini had rapid flight rates, sometimes coming just a few months apart.

Twenty-four Apollo astronauts flew to the moon from 1968 through 1972, with 12 of them landing.

“No one at NASA forgot their history books. They knew how to do this," Isaacman said. “Now we're putting it in action.”

To pick up the pace and reduce risk, NASA will standardize its Space Launch System rockets moving forward, Isaacman said. These are the massive rockets that will launch astronauts to the moon aboard Orion capsules. At the same time, Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin are speeding up their work on the landers needed to get the astronauts from lunar orbit down to the surface.

Isaacman said next year will see an Orion crew rendezvousing in orbit around Earth with SpaceX's Starship, Blue Origin's Blue Moon or both landers. It's similar to the methodical approach that worked so well during Apollo in the late 1960s, he noted. Apollo 8, astronauts' first flight to the moon, was followed by two more missions before Armstrong and Aldrin aimed for the lunar surface.

“We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works,” he said.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommended that NASA revise its objectives for Artemis III “given the demanding mission goals.” It’s urgent the space agency do that, the panel said, if the United States hopes to safely return astronauts to the moon. Isaacman said the revised Artemis flight plan addresses the panel's concerns and is supported by industry and the Trump administration.

View All Listings