Question: Would you accept a pay cut to switch to an employer who was environmentally responsible?
Option 1: Yes, if it meant receiving 10-20% less pay
Option 2: Yes, if it meant receiving <10% less pay
Option 3: No, only if the pay was the same. Environmental-stewardship isn't a priority.
Option 4: I'd burn prairie chickens if it meant lower heating costs.
A recent survey of over 1,000 employees at large U.S. companies found over 70% would be more likely to choose to work at a company with a strong environmental agenda.
Would you take a pay cut to work for an environmentally-responsible company?
Is that a trade-off one should even have to make? Or is this just another false choice to convince Millennials to work for less pay? (sarcasm)
Personally, I work for a nuclear-heavy utility and receive a fair wage for my area of the country. I don't feel I am forced to make this trade-off. I fall into the second or third option from the poll because I do admire my company's efforts to change my industry's environmental footprint.
For the referenced survey:
That definitely feels like a false choice.
Maybe more appropriately I'd quote the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not even false."
Nope. That's too hard to measure regarding the environmental impact.
I am all for preserving the environment but I agree with Sam that it's hard to measure so no.
I suppose if my current company burned plastics with coal and diesel fuel in massive burn pits behind the compound, and the new company had wind farms, Japanese Zen gardens, and served Perrier water in potato starch cups... then yes, I'd consider a 15% pay cut. But if we're talking going from IniTech to IniTrode, then I really think it's a non-starter.
Most environmentalism is defined by the state in which you reside. What we really need is a (hate to use this term) "common sense" recycling program. Like John Kerry and Arnold Schwartznegger always say... the whole Climate nonsense means nothing to most people. Ask them if they want clean air, clean water, and less land-fills... and now we're getting somewhere.
Climate Change... in reality, has been so politicized by left-leaning policies, that it's lost any value it might have had as a real issue. Every "solution" to climate change is some sort of tax, or a redistribution of wealth to OUTSIDE of the United States. I almost question sometimes whether or not it was literally the intention of the Democrats to purposely turn people against Climate Change. But that's all I'll say about that.
As for "common sense," I look to what the fabled Wayne Huizenga did when he owned Waste Management back in the late 1980s in South Florida. He pioneered a type of recycling system where you can literally throw all of your recycling into one container. There's no nonsense sorting or checking labels. You throw all your non compostable garbage into one bin, and Waste Management sorts it. They send your trash through a series of trials to include magnetism, buoyancy, and density. All of this separates glass from plastics from various metals. Their system allows for near perfect separation of materials which are then sent out to companies that process and use them to make new products.
The Waste Management processing plants get all of their power from wind, solar, and burning of natural gas (methane) ports that come from the decomposition of the consumable waste that isn't recyclable. They genuinely make money off the trash, and that's in addition to the fees associated with the collection and processing of it.
Anyway, I'm always shocked when I move to a state, like Maryland, where they don't even have any real recycling programs. Furthermore, when I lived in Maryland, I was told by the trash company that most of the recycling just gets thrown into the normal trash anyway, and very little of it actually gets recycled because it costs them too much money.
STARK, STARK difference between a state like Maryland and Florida.