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

231–240 of 462 posts

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

#231

Post by wredue »

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…

FUD.

No evidence.

I reject your claims. Prove that people billing their employers for certain home workspace costs “will amount to millions of dollars” over and above my regular employment burden.

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

#232

Post by BetaDeltaAlpha »

tinco wrote: post #222
tristor wrote: post #210

I've worked remotely for about 10 years now. I actually don't want my employer covering these expenses. If the employer is covering these expenses it requires me to document the expenses and comply with employer policies related to these expenses. For instance, an employer may mandate what speed of Internet service I am required to have, where I always want the fastest option (gigabit generally) and redundant links.…

Is it typical that gas for commute is not covered? In The Netherlands that's a government regulation as well, never realised that might be uncommon.

I've never heard of anyone in the US having an employer cover their gas in a non-company owned vehicle.

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

#233

Post by changoplatanero »

thehappypm wrote: post #192
changoplatanero wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

On principle, yes. The superbowl halftime show is a good example. As an observer, sometimes its hard to tell if the artist in the halftime show is being paid by the NFL to entertain the fans or if they are paying the NFL (effectively accepting a negative wage) for the chance to promote their personal brand. If they can accept a negative wage when they want why can't I be free to negotiate the same for myself?

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

#234

Post by syntaxing »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223
Guvante wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 3,0…

$0.42/kWh!??! Jesus Christ. I think I'm paying around $0.0629/kWh. Where is this?

I moved out of CA but it was already 0.40 a couple years ago. My friends told me it’s close to 0.60 now. I’m more curious where you are, I’m in a low(er) cost of living and I still pay 0.17.

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

#235

Post by FireBeyond »

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…

> Living in Utah which tends to be a very anti-business-mandate place

Very non-coincidental that Utah has one of the highest concentrations of MLM businesses in the country.

Or the "industry" of "youth treatment" that is centered in Utah. Conversion therapy, etc.

Thousands of allegations stretching decades of abuse, physical, sexual and emotional, federal inquiries.

And still the Utah Office of Licensing rubber stamps its inspections of such facilities:

> analysis by APM Reports and The Salt Lake Tribune reveals that those inspectors almost never find violations. More than 98 percent of the time, they check the box marked "compliant." Across the 670 reports, the data reveals inspectors assessed more than 53,000 items in total. But they documented only 861 deficiencies. That means inspectors determined that treatment programs were noncompliant only 1.6 percent of the time.

> The most common ding? Not having the proper employee paperwork.

You might sit back, "entertained", by California. But pretending like Utah is some utopian vision is equally laughable, or would be if it didn't come at such a high cost.

Perhaps there's a middle ground between Utah and California.

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

#236

Post by jandrese »

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…

No chance in hell that work at home expenses are anywhere near the lease cost (or even taxes!) for office space. Not even in the same order of magnitude.

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

#237

Post by genewitch »

I saw the headline, and was going to send this to my friend who i got a job at a California company who now works remotely across the country, then realized she works for the company that owns nolo.com

Cute, i wonder if they're reimbursing these days, because they didn't reimburse anything when i was 3/5ths remote 11 years ago.

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

#238

Post by mwint »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223
Guvante wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 3,0…

$0.42/kWh!??! Jesus Christ. I think I'm paying around $0.0629/kWh. Where is this?

California.

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

#239

Post by artursapek »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223
Guvante wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 3,0…

$0.42/kWh!??! Jesus Christ. I think I'm paying around $0.0629/kWh. Where is this?

[flagged]

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

#240

Post by mountainofdeath »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #220
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…

Only a availability heuristic, but I closed 2 consulting contracts that were a _hard_ "no we don't hire contractors" by letting them know I don't live in California. Conversation changed as soon as they realized I was under AZ law for contracting/consulting services. I was charging $10k per week, and one contract was a total of 6 months. The total value of that contract was $240k (before my expenses and taxes). That…

Correct me if I am wrong but the only material differences between contractor and employee status are

1. Who pay's the employer side income taxes. Contractors pay both sides. 2. Not eligible for benefits, you have to go to overpriced open market. 3. The contractor can deduct reasonable expenses they incur. 4. A contract will not necessarily be renewed whereas for an employee, the assumption is the job will be there in perpetuity.

Post reply on HN