Why Remote Work Is Not A Perk

This episode looks at the problem with framing flexibility or remote work as a perk. The point is simple: if the work can already be done flexibly, flexibility is not a bonus. It is just how the job should run. The same applies to remote work. When something changes how the role operates, how people are managed, and who a company can hire, it is structural, not decorative. The episode also looks at the in-office equivalents, like treating autonomy, focus time, or leaving at 5pm as benefits. In the end, this is about the difference between surface-level perks and real operating decisions.

Looking for Remote Work?

Click here remoteworklife.io to access a private beta list of remote jobs in sales, marketing, and strategy — plus get podcasts, real-world tips and business insights from founders, CEOs, and remote leaders. subscribe to my free newsletter

Connect on LinkedIn 

Transcript

Flexibility Is Not A Perk

SPEAKER_00 0:00

A lot of companies still talk about flexibility as if it sits in the perk section. And we think that gets the whole thing wrong. Hey, if we haven't met, I'm Alex Wilson Campbell's AI twin. Alex is the creator and host of the Remote Work Life podcast, where we spotlight the remote companies and location-independent founders and leaders shaping the future of business and work. Alex personally researches, writes, and edits every episode you hear here. And I'm his AI voice, so you don't miss the updates, even if you can't get to the studio. This one is about why flexibility and remote work more broadly should not be treated like a perk. Because once you look at how the work actually runs, that framing starts to fall apart. There are companies on LinkedIn and elsewhere that list flexibility as a perk, but if the work can already be done flexibly, that is not a perk. It is just how the job should run. And to me, it is a similar issue to how remote work gets framed. I've been thinking about what the in-office equivalent of calling remote a perk actually looks like. It is when normal, sensible operating decisions get dressed up as benefits. It is like highlighting autonomy as a benefit, or presenting leaving at 5 p.m. as progressive, or even suggesting that time to focus is a privilege. Those are not extras. They are choices about how the company operates. If a role needs deep work, people need uninterrupted time. That is not generous. It is basic infrastructure. If a role does not depend on everyone being in the same place at the same time, flexibility is not an incentive. It is common sense. That is why I struggle with remote being labelled a perk, because remote is not the same kind of thing as free lunches or ping pong tables or surface level benefits that sit around the edges of a job. Free lunches do not change the job. Ping pong tables do not change the job. Location does. It changes how the job runs. It changes how people are managed. It changes who you can hire. And once something starts changing the shape of the job itself, I do not think you can honestly call it a perk anymore. That is really the test for me. If removing it fundamentally changes how the work functions, then it was never a perk in the first place. It was part of the structure. That is why this matters beyond language, because the words a company uses usually tell you how seriously it takes the thing it is describing. If something structural is marketed like a lifestyle benefit, that usually suggests the model underneath has not really shifted. The company may be offering the language of flexibility, but it has not fully changed how it thinks about work. And that is where the tension tends to show up later. Not always straightaway, not always in a dramatic way. But people feel it over time. They feel it when flexibility is technically allowed, but not really supported. They feel it when autonomy is talked about more than it is trusted. They feel it when focus time is possible, only if somebody protects it for themselves. So for me, this comes back to a broader point. Some things companies market as benefits are not really benefits at all. They are operating decisions. They tell you how the company works, what the leadership values, and what kind of behavior is normal or has to be negotiated. That is why I keep coming back to this distinction. A perk sits on top. A structural decision changes the job. And remote work changes the job. Flexibility changes the job where the work allows it. Autonomy changes the job. Time to focus changes the quality of the work itself. So I think we need to be more careful with how these things are framed. Because once something becomes part of how the work actually happens, it is no longer a perk, it is part of the model. And if a company still talks about it like a perk, that usually tells you there is still a gap between the language and the reality. That is the part I think is worth paying attention to. That's it for today on the Remote Work Life Podcast. Before you head off alongside the podcast, Alex is building a small beta platform that pulls together senior level, growth-focused remote roles directly from employers' websites, not job boards. It's designed for experienced operators in sales, marketing, strategy, and finance. If you want early access as a founding member, you'll find the link in the show notes or via Alex's LinkedIn profile. You'll also get bonus content featuring founders, leaders, and CEOs from location independent and remote businesses.