Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#71

Post by Broken_Hippo »

codegeek wrote: post #26

Everytime I see "must pay", it scares me. Yes I know that employees get exploited etc but instead of making employers pay, why not let employees get a tax deduction or even a credit ? As an employer, I can tell you that the burden of employer paying for everything is not necessarily a good idea. It is not about the money only but also about the added overhead/red tape. In US, I am already sick of for example health i…

Health care really isn't the same thing. Employees don't need health insurance to work somewhere - and many pass, especially if they get insurance elsewhere (through a spouse, for example).

I've passed on a low-wage job because I was poor and couldn't afford to buy clothes before starting work - when, realistically, they could have provided the shirts or, alternatively, vests. And so on. It shouldn't cost an employee money to have a job with an employer.

If you want someone to have decent internet or a phone, the employer should pay part of it. A decent enough computer? Pay for it or provide a laptop. Provide the webcam. If you require uniforms, pay for them on top of laundering them. Requiring a quiet room in the house to do meetings? Pay for a portion of rent. Otherwise, you are just passing red tape and costs to the employee.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#72

Post by sailingparrot »

codegeek wrote: post #26

Everytime I see "must pay", it scares me. Yes I know that employees get exploited etc but instead of making employers pay, why not let employees get a tax deduction or even a credit ? As an employer, I can tell you that the burden of employer paying for everything is not necessarily a good idea. It is not about the money only but also about the added overhead/red tape. In US, I am already sick of for example health i…

> I would gladly pay the same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with insurance companies and their bullshit.

Well in this case the swiss companies must pay the amount directly to the employee, so you should be happy?

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#73

Post by mehrdadn »

jeroenhd wrote: post #61
mehrdadn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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...

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#74

Post by Broken_Hippo »

djmobley wrote: post #59
ryneandal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes on the healthcare thing. Decouple insurance from employers completely.

Employers should get the benefit of healthy employees, but not incur the cost?

Health insurance shouldn't depend on work or the size of your employer, period. Not only should employers have healthy employees, but the applicants should be too.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#76

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

marcinzm wrote: post #52
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Ke…

>Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which…

But the Bay Area is a big place and I consider the whole area to be socially alive.

I fully understand wanting to stay in the Bay Area - but there's a big difference in land-value between being situated around Mountain View and San Francisco vs. the east-side of the Bay). What I don't understand is why the east-side of the Bay seems overlooked or even neglected lately (even more-so considering Berkeley's history).

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#77

Post by sailingparrot »

dependenttypes wrote: post #37
buro9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.

Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but…

I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office.

Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#78

Post by cyphar »

djmobley wrote: post #59
ryneandal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes on the healthcare thing. Decouple insurance from employers completely.

Employers should get the benefit of healthy employees, but not incur the cost?

Employers are presumably paying taxes, so funding it through taxes is not letting them off the hook. Additionally, what about people who are unemployed (which is now >20% by U6 in the US) or work in jobs that don't offer healthcare? And what if you get fired? Or you want to change jobs but have a health condition which means you'll be in trouble without health insurance? Or your employer changes health insurance providers without consulting you and now your coverage or doctor has changed? These aren't hypotheticals, they're the daily reality of millions of people in the US.

I don't understand this weirdly business-centric view that folks from the US have on the topic of healthcare. Surely a more productive view is that it is the best interests of society that we keep our fellow citizens as healthy as possible? Even ignoring the ethical arguments (which should be more than enough), healthy citizens make healthy workers and reduce long-term healthcare costs caused by preventable illnesses.

Post reply on HN