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

151–160 of 462 posts

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

#151

Post by cryptonector »

trentnix wrote: post #142

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…

WFO costs still greatly exceed WFH costs. This helps RTO a bit, but only a bit. Perhaps it will be more psychological than anything.

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

#152

Post by ghaff »

memco wrote: post #116
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…

>Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes

How so? Are you arguing that the IRS 65.5 cents per mile doesn't appropriately compensate for costs?

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

#153

Post by solomonb »

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…

Many young people or those cheering for minimum wage/child labor laws/workplace safety do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good...

/s

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

#154

Post by Auracle »

My wife works remotely as an accountant. We have Starlink as it’s the best internet available in our area, and we used to have an unlimited hotspot as well for other reasons. We’re very close to a cell tower.

Her company requires her to have some form of wired internet. So, instead of paying for the Starlink or the hotspot they’re paying for 25/1 mbps DSL that never actually reaches those speeds. The Starlink and hotspot both are/were closer to 200/10.

We never use the DSL, apart from the very occasional heavy thunderstorm.

Sometimes what companies think you require doesn’t match up with reality.

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

#155

Post by changoplatanero »

cptskippy wrote: post #109
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…

Your claim is baseless right now. How does it do more harm than good?

Similar to how California made a law that prohibited charging for access to public restrooms. The intention was free public restrooms for everyone but the result was that most of the public restrooms closed up and it’s harder than ever to find somewhere to go.

The top comment is warning people that these type of laws that attempt to mandate certain behavior often backfire

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

#156

Post by dheera »

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…

Where I live, dedicated home office space is about 1/4 the cost of commercial rent, in terms of $/sqft. It would be stupid for companies to not pay for it in lieu of commercial real estate.

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

#157

Post by FireBeyond »

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…

> For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses.

There's an adjustment needed. I have worked for and applied to healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. In Production.

We're not "all in this together". We all know that equity is worth nothing until proven otherwise.

Stop cheaping out and expecting your employees to invest in your success without compensation.

If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it.

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

#158

Post by renewiltord »

sokoloff wrote: post #87
lm28469 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't it be covered by your salary ? Otherwise why don't companies pay for my gas/tire/shoe soles/&c ?

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…

Yeah, but the rest of us don't want that because we have to pick up the slack in taxes. Personally, I would prefer if I just didn't pay any income taxes. That way, I would save a few hundred thousand and my employer could pay me a hundred thousand less and I'd come out ahead.

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

#159

Post by alistairSH »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #110
rubiquity wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s these things called home offices and many have converted a room to be one when working from home all the time.

Its not unheard of to carve out the home office already for tax purposes.

Maybe not unheard of, but currently not allowed for most employees. IIRC, the current test is: 1. Exclusive use 2. Primary place of business (NOT primary workplace - WFH employees usually don't qualify)

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

#160

Post by bee_rider »

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…

This seems hard to work out (I guess I should read the bill first, but), for example if someone has a stay-at-home house or some roommates, kids, etc, does the company have to work out the incremental cost of heating the house for one additional person?

Does the company get some input as to what the thermostat should be set to?

If you are a renter with included utilities, do they pay the landlord instead?

If you are living in a van, do they pay for your oil changes and parking tickets? Ok, I guess this last one is kinda silly.

Post reply on HN