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

181–190 of 462 posts

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

#181

Post by jedberg »

bee_rider wrote: post #160
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…

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…

This is all somewhat settled law. It's the same rules as a home office deduction but with exceptions. They pay based on the square footage of your dedicated workspace compared to your home.

If you don't have a dedicated workspace, you can't take the home office deduction and your employer technically doesn't have to reimburse you anything (so this is more beneficial to wealthy people with dedicated home offices).

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

#182

Post by plussed_reader »

Auracle wrote: post #154

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 hot…

They're paying for coverage in that thunderstorm; that's the business expense to ensure connectivity for their remote widget.

Why would your wifes employer compensate for a tool that doesn't meet their needs?

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

#183

Post by dataflow »

arcticbull wrote: post #144
ghaff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It never made sense, given that the entity issuing the rebate isn't the same one you're paying. Like if your employer (or really, anyone else) cut you a $1M check because you bought a $1M house from a random person, is that really not taxable income because it was a "rebate"?

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

#184

Post by maweaver »

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…

According to the article, electricity costs are not yet decided, so it's probably closer to $2,100/year. Also that's only for workers who are required to be remote, not those that choose to be, so likely doesn't apply to all employees (edit: sorry, required or encouraged to be remote)

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

#185

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

CA CoL is already high and layoffs happen regardless. I fail to see the downside unless you are a very new startup.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

changoplatanero wrote: post #168
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 don’t understand why people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into any sort of employment contract that they wish. As long as both parties are well informed then they should be free to agree on what expenses will be covered and what won’t

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by seanw444 »

changoplatanero wrote: post #155
cptskippy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find it funny how California causes its own issues, makes laws to fix said issues, and then causes more issues as a result. Living in Utah which tends to be a very anti-business-mandate place, and which does not have any such law, I've never had to pay for a bathroom. In fact, places where you have to ask for a key from a clerk are quite rare as well.

Watching California gradually kill itself through administrative bloat, Orwellian laws, and degeneracy has been quite entertaining.

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

#188

Post by JohnBooty »

phpisthebest wrote: post #107
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…

Dont inject reality... If we pass the rights laws and elect the correct people with the correct opinion we can have a utopia... We just have to do it...

Don't inject reality... If have no laws and let the corporations decide our rights, we can have a utopia...

We just have to do it...

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

#189

Post by bee_rider »

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…

What does age have to do with it?

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

#190

Post by malakai521 »

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?

It could incentivize employers to stop allowing remote work or start mandating going to the office
Post reply on HN