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

141–150 of 462 posts

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

#141

Post by anarticle »

fckgw wrote: post #12
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…

The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.

The purpose of it being a tax deduction is because it is a productivity cost. By spending that money, you are producing (hopefully!) something useful for others.

Of course, there are loopholes, this model breaks down when you're talking about deducting a random boat you take clients out for fun. In this case we're talking about remote work.

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

#142

Post by trentnix »

They gotta get people back in those vacant, downtown offices somehow. If California can eliminate the savings that remote work brings for an employer, then maybe employers will choose to fill up those offices they are leasing.

But instead, this will just be a signal to any employers still on the fence to get out of California as soon as you’re able.

I work remote. I’m happy to work remote. And for that convenience, I’m willing to accept that there are some costs - electricity, water, heating and cooling - that I’m taking on. Why the government (and my fellow voters who choose to empower their government in this way) doesn’t allow me the agency to choose my own employment cost-benefits and trust that I can take care of myself continues to baffle.

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

#143

Post by teeray »

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…

I don’t think it’s completely either-or. There are companies out there that would try to negotiate favorable bulk-rate home Internet plans. This might not have been possible in the past, but 5G home Internet and Starlink make it more possible since these companies have a BATNA with traditional providers.

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

#144

Post by arcticbull »

ghaff wrote: post #136
dmoy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but uniforms (and related) that are deductible Not after 2017, I think?

Entirely possible. Presumably most people who wear uniforms don't itemize deductions today in any case. The broader point was that people get various random perks that don't get taxed and have various expenses that don't get reimbursed/deducted.

Credit card points aren't taxable because they fall under the IRS rebate rule. They're treated like a coupon. Earning and spending frequent flyer miles is approximately equivalent, from the perspective of the IRS, to a 20% off bread coupon at your grocery store.

It doesn't change your point of course, I just find it interesting.

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

#145

Post by cryptonector »

AYBABTME wrote: post #113
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…

But why not then demand that your employer cover your [reasonable] commuting costs, and even pay you for [reasonable] time spent commuting? That would greatly exceed your WFH costs, no doubt.

It's trivial to add demands like this. Employers have more pull in the legislatures than employees, so be careful what you wish for.

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

#146

Post by alistairSH »

ModernMech wrote: post #115
ghaff wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You should already be covered by the ADA for at least some of that.

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

#147

Post by civilitty »

timtom39 wrote: post #83
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…

My company is largely remote at this point and is moving away from CA for cost/tax reasons. For some portion of companies this is just one more reason to move headquarters. That being said, I live in a pretty population dense area and my largest cost by far is dedicated home office space. It would be nice for my company to pay for that but it would have also been nice for them to pay for gas for my commute when I had…

As a Californian who has lived here for a quarter century and has never threatened to leave, I’m glad the state doesn’t cater to startups who can’t afford an extra 5% for home office expenses for their remote workers. They have zero loyalty to the state and if all employees are remote there’s little benefit keeping the corp in CA. Everyone has to register to do business here and the FTB will get the bulk of its cut anyway.

Good riddance. We need the space more than we need the tax revenue. (no offense intended, the housing situation is just dire and I’ll use any excuse to convince people to move out cause so few actually people want to)

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

#148

Post by bee_rider »

scottshamus wrote: post #140
AYBABTME wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We’ll start being asked for utility bills during interviews and recruiters will screen for people with heat pumps. “Candidate must have updated insulation and new windows”

Seems pretty dystopian, but on the bright side it does reward the ecologically responsible I guess.

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

#149

Post by dataflow »

How does this interact with IP rights? Like say you have a single room in your house, and your employer buys you a desk and a chair. You sit on those after work to research ideas for a new startup and develop stuff on your own time. Does that now belong to the employer?

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

#150

Post by 28304283409234 »

scottshamus wrote: post #140
AYBABTME wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We’ll start being asked for utility bills during interviews and recruiters will screen for people with heat pumps. “Candidate must have updated insulation and new windows”

How is this a bad thing?
Post reply on HN