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

California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

nolo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 462 posts

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#111

Post by sokoloff »

chrischen wrote: post #98
sokoloff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer that my employer consider some of my expenses for working from home to be expenses rather than things that I pay out of my salary. Suppose I have $500/mo in "real" expenses. I'm better off if my company reduces my otherwise-salary by $500/mo and gives me an expense reimbursement for even $400/mo. That $400/mo is non-taxable to me and tax-deductible to the company. So, the company saves $100/mo (the dif…

So in the end it’s all part of salary. Not tax-exempting just shows how inept the company’s finance team is more than whether or not they value your time.

Salary is always taxable to the employee. The expense documentation and reimbursement process above requires it to not be part of salary.

It's part of the overall value proposition to the employee, but it cannot be part of salary.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#112

Post by Shawnj2 »

TrackerFF wrote: post #61

Some quick napkin math: Say you work 100% remote, 8 hours a day. That's 2080 work hours a year, out of 8760 hours. That means you need to be connected to internet, have electricity, etc. 23.74% of the time - let's round that up to 24% Say a worker pays $600 / year for internet, $2400 for electricity / year, and - dunno - $1500 for your cellphone / year. So that's $4500 / year, and your employer must cover approximate…

At that point it’s basically another benefit so I don’t think that’s super terrible for employers

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#113

Post by AYBABTME »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #99

Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…

It's a small expense for employers, and can be a real difference in costs for the employee. I don't think you're correct. If I spend 100% more on heating everyday because I work from home so need to heat 24/7, that's nothing to an employer (100-200$/m) but could be a significant deduction from a family's budget.

Meanwhile the employer would have otherwise heated up an office space and paid all bills there.

I've been remote for a decade now and it always struck me as odd, but I didn't care enough to push for it. But as the remote concept is being used by many employers to cut on office expenses, employees with no alternative should be compensated for the extra expense they incur. It's just common sense, like paying for your mileage when you drive for business.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#114

Post by cptskippy »

TrackerFF wrote: post #61

Some quick napkin math: Say you work 100% remote, 8 hours a day. That's 2080 work hours a year, out of 8760 hours. That means you need to be connected to internet, have electricity, etc. 23.74% of the time - let's round that up to 24% Say a worker pays $600 / year for internet, $2400 for electricity / year, and - dunno - $1500 for your cellphone / year. So that's $4500 / year, and your employer must cover approximate…

And how much does a business save by having to buy/rent, insure, secure, power, internet, water, clean, and climate control a large building for all of it's employees vs reimbursing them for working from home?

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#115

Post by ModernMech »

ghaff wrote: post #105
ModernMech wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the parent's point. Your setup works for you but what if you and your partner both need to work? Do you both work at your desks in your bedroom? How does that impact your partner's sleep? What if you need to work late but they need to get up early? What happens when they have a meeting when you have a meeting? What if their work involves being on the phone all day? I think you're looking at this from a…

But the context of this is whether you should be reimbursed for the cost associated with an extra room if you choose to work remotely for a company that has offices, even if those offices are in higher CoL areas. (There's certainly an argument for providing a stipend for a co-working space for a fully remote company.) No one is arguing that a dedicated office isn't desirable. It's a question if someone else should pa…

> if you want one.

I think it's not a matter of want, given the kinds of situations I laid out. In my situation, I have ADHD and I'm autistic. If you want me to work I need to be alone to work. It's not a want or a desire. I cannot work in a room full of people and noises, so putting me in one is just the same as expecting me to code without a keyboard.

My employer gives me a computer, why is it such a stretch that they also give me a room? They want the work done at the highest quality, don't they? It's making them a lot of money, isn't it? So what's the problem?

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#116

Post by memco »

TrackerFF wrote: post #61

Some quick napkin math: Say you work 100% remote, 8 hours a day. That's 2080 work hours a year, out of 8760 hours. That means you need to be connected to internet, have electricity, etc. 23.74% of the time - let's round that up to 24% Say a worker pays $600 / year for internet, $2400 for electricity / year, and - dunno - $1500 for your cellphone / year. So that's $4500 / year, and your employer must cover approximate…

I would guess even lower than those estimates. Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes: I expect they wouldn’t be on the hook for even the full percentage of electricity and data for work devices used from home. This could be a nice offset but I would be surprised if companies start picking up the tab for a full 8 hours of electricity for a home, let alone 8 hours of usage of a single computer. Additionally if it requires tracking and reimbursement the way miles do it will be a burden not all employees will bear.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#117

Post by mempko »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #99

Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…

If you are using your own equipment and resources, how are you an employee and not a contractor? Businesses should compensate because the agreement is the business uses their capital and your labor to make money. But if they also use your capital in addition to your labor, then the employee needs ownership of the business because they are devoting their capital to the business.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#118

Post by unshavedyak »

kortilla wrote: post #52
ghaff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're going to pay for an extra room--which seems very unlikely (or should be) to be reimbursable as opposed to working on the kitchen table--the actual incremental costs seem pretty trivial. Even if you reimburse some pro-rated amount of internet and/or mobile, that's maybe $100/month in the US. ADDED: If you don't have an option to go into an office, a stipend for a co-working space may be reasonable.

Working from the kitchen table doesn’t work if you have a family or really anyone else in the house.

Yup. As someone who has WFH for ~10 years now, it's imo essential. Covid obviously didn't affect my working habits much given i was already WFH, but i knew some who were forced home. They lived in tiny apartments and did that.. kitchen table, couch, etc. It was very rough for them, though they had multiple people in the apartment.

My wife and i both WFH, with dedicated offices. I can't imagine not having them, and we've discussed this being a required feature of future home purchases.

It's privileged for sure, as it increases home size which is an astronomical expensive these days. But not having to buy a home in close proximity to SF or Seattle makes this much more approachable. [good] Internet is the most difficult thing as you go rural, in our experience. However in WA for example some counties/towns have objectives to lay fiber, which is amazing to live more affordably with remote work.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#119

Post by dmoy »

samtho wrote: post #24
pfisherman wrote: post #7

I like the idea, but not the implementation. I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead. Doing so creates positive incentives for companies to hire remote workers in California. Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. I also think that it would be more equitable since an employee’s home office setup belo…

This does not work differently in other states as far as I’m aware, California just might be more willing to enforce the laws already in place. Additionally, this not a tax credit which is money owed to you by the tax authority, rather a deduction which is a very standard vehicle in calculating net income (revenue minus costs). Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned, for example, as long as…

> Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned

Strictly speaking, if we're talking federal taxes, then post TCJA the IRS does care who takes the deduction. W-2 employees can't deduct expenses like that anymore. Not that big a deal for Internet costs, but it hits some professions pretty hard (e.g. professional musicians where the instrument is quite expensive relative to their income).

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#120

Post by phpisthebest »

frumper wrote: post #51
Loughla wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.

Work expenses paid for by an employee are typically tax deductible. This wouldn't be anything new. The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible. This would also not be anything new. The idea isn't that the "cost" is borne by the taxpayer, it is that the employee/employer shouldn't pay a tax on the money they used to produce the income.

Tax Deductions, and Tax Credits are very different things and should not be conflated as you have here
Post reply on HN