California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by safety1st » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #165

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…

That would be true except the types of companies hiring a lot of remote workers already have a lot of remote workers in California. California has the luxury of being able to do whatever it wants and companies not really having much of a choice to say - we'll just skip the California market. It's a bigger market than Germany & Japan. This would go over less well if a state like Mississippi tried it.

This simply isn't true except when you're talking about the largest companies. The vast majority of American businesses don't have a place of business in all 50 states, or retail outlets, etc. etc. -- the majority of American businesses are small, operate in one or a handful of states, and as a result do in fact skip California.

Sames goes I expect for "businesses hiring remote workers," only a Californian would have the arrogance to believe that all those businesses are somehow addicted to hiring in California.

So what this kind of stuff does is crush small businesses in California, and leave only the large ones standing. By the way small businesses drive most of the growth in the US and owning one used to be a way to have control over your own destiny while making a good living, but hey I guess all that stuff's out of fashion in this brave new world where only five companies matter and they have a revolving door set up between their boards and the government.

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

#192

Post by thehappypm » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

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

Are you opposed to a minimum wage?

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

#193

Post by Thrymr » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #126

glimshe wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your heart is in a good place, but... No more tax complexity, PLEASE. Let's stop using the tax system for encouraging/discouraging behaviors.

That's literally one of the purposes of the tax system. It's to encourage and discourage behavior.

It sure does encourage hiring accountants and lawyers.

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

#194

Post by conk » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

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 commute costs going into the office everyday for a year are far more than $1000/year. I estimate it’s about $4k/year and that’s with taking public transit & biking. Those commute costs aren’t covered by my employer. I’d gladly trade a $4K decrease in commute costs for a $1k increase in internet and electricity. Also internet is fixed so regardless if I’m remote or in office I’m still paying the same bill.

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

#195

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

safety1st wrote: post #191

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be true except the types of companies hiring a lot of remote workers already have a lot of remote workers in California. California has the luxury of being able to do whatever it wants and companies not really having much of a choice to say - we'll just skip the California market. It's a bigger market than Germany & Japan. This would go over less well if a state like Mississippi tried it.

This simply isn't true except when you're talking about the largest companies. The vast majority of American businesses don't have a place of business in all 50 states, or retail outlets, etc. etc. -- the majority of American businesses are small, operate in one or a handful of states, and as a result do in fact skip California. Sames goes I expect for "businesses hiring remote workers," only a Californian would have…

California does not care if some 2 person company in Ohio will be slightly less likely to hire a 3rd person remotely from California - the number of remote jobs going to California from these types of companies is close to 0.

Even if you assume 100% of them go away - I'd wager voters in California would prefer to have current conditions improved than an ever so slight increase in opportunities in the future.

Yes - small businesses employ the majority of workers. Do small businesses from outside of California with no current presence in California making new hires into California in a given year make up even 0.1% of total jobs? No.

On the flip side - close to 20% of Californians work remote full-time. And some estimates are as high as 40% for workers that work from home at least once a week.

Is this a good policy? Who knows.

Is it going to be popular? I think so.

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

#196

Post by johnnyanmac » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #176

devmunchies wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might give businesses the ammo they need to require the employees to come into the office.

This law has been in effect for years.

It's been in effect for office work. CA is one of the few states expanding this to Remote work (according to the article).

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

#197

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

seanw444 wrote: post #187

changoplatanero wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why are you assuming causation?

Perhaps bathrooms had to be charged for due to a sufficiently significant portion of the population causing damage to them.

Perhaps the California law requiring free bathrooms was a way for California leaders to shirk responsibility for providing clean bathrooms to all and foist costs onto private businesses. I always assume this is the case when government requires businesses to do provide something at a price the government sets. The politicians get all the acclaim and none of the headaches of fixing (or not really fixing) the problem, win win for them.

If Utah does not have the population that causes damage to bathrooms, then its politicians would not yet have needed to come up with a law requiring free bathrooms.

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

#198

Post by Guvante » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

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…

A computer uses 150kWh/year @ $0.42/kWh that is $75/year. Certainly internet is possible at $60/month so $720/year. Say you have a generous $500/5 years for equipment plan and you are still below $1,000/year/employee.

Yes there are other expenses but you should already be providing a PC etc.

How are you getting to millions at a small company? Certainly a shop with 3,000 people is out a few million but... You have 3,000 people you are doing fine.

Heck with 20 people $1m is what $50k/person? You wouldn't spend that leasing everyone a Mercedes at $605/month.

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

#199

Post by jerlam » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

My company implemented a temporary reimbursement for internet / phone access when we were all involuntarily WFH a few years ago. Few people bothered, even though it was technically free money.

The requirements for submission were annoying and repetitive, the expense system was slow and aggravating to use, the submission could be rejected for any number of unclear reasons, we all felt that it was completely unnecessary, and the amount reimbursed was nearly trivial compared to our salaries.

If California really wants to go this route, it should be a simple stipend added to the paycheck. Requiring companies to determine themselves the correct amount, implement their own rules, and have employees spend their time copying bills sounds like a lose-lose scenario where all parties are annoyed.

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

#200

Post by sureglymop » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

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...

Instead, let's actually just not even try because we can't reach perfection and utopia anyway.