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

271–280 of 462 posts

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

#271

Post by civilitty »

valianteffort wrote: post #203
civilitty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there. You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors.

> And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there.

California stands alone as one of the top 5 or 6 biggest economies in the world. The 2008 GFC was a blip in our housing market even when the economy turned upside down. My city experienced less than 18 months of flat real estate prices before growing out of control again.

If an actual economic crisis caused by housing loans doesn't destroy California's housing market, forcing companies to pay their fair share certainly won't.

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

#272

Post by FireBeyond »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #257
ryandrake wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Businesses don't have some inherent, natural, god-given right to exist. We, the people, through the state, graciously allow them to exist and regulate them so that they operate in accordance with some public good. And even then, they have to earn their existence by being a financially viable business. It's a big hurdle, deliberately so. This idea that, ohhhhh we can't regulate business because it will make…

You might want to retake your constitutional law courses. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) grants the government power to regulate business. It does not grant citizens the right to do business. The right to do business and participate in commerce and trade is a natural right. You do not allow businesses to exist. You are nobody.

Then being more specific: you do not have a right to a profitable/successful business. Nobody is required to inconvenience themselves for the benefit of your business and pocket.

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

#273

Post by hyperpape »

dehrmann wrote: post #254
NeoTar wrote: post #79

Can I make my periodic reminder to US-Americans that two-letter state abbreviations are not universally recognized, and please to use full state names where possible. The case of California / CA is especially bad, since this is the ISO-code for Canada, so the article title is unnecessarily ambiguous.

California has more people, a larger economy, and more mindshare. It's probably safe to assume "CA" outside something obviously Canadian is California. Even Ontario CA is 50/50.

In the past few years, Canada's population passed that of California. Canada's population is growing very fast, while California's has grown modestly for a decade, and slightly shrank over the past few years.

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

#274

Post by schmookeeg »

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?

Presumably PG&E territory in the bay area.

We're in Alameda, who run their own utility and buys their power from PG&E and our rates are $0.15/kwh. I don't know how PG&E still exists as an entity, they were deserving of the pitchforks a long while ago.

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

#275

Post by vecinu »

valianteffort wrote: post #203
civilitty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there. You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors.

Property values should not be an investment or retirement fund, it is selfish to think so. Literally, by definition, if you think the value of YOUR home and SOME of your neighbors should increase to price others out, that is selfish.

Housing should not be an investment, period.

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

#276

Post by ghaff »

BetaDeltaAlpha wrote: post #232
tinco wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be clear, it's common for IRS mileage reimbursement rates to apply for driving for other than commutes (e.g. to drive to the airport or a customer site)--but not for a daily commute.

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

#278

Post by splitstud »

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.

[dead]

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

#279

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…

> your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount

If they have enough slack to reduce headcount they're going to do it anyway. Companies strive to hire enough people to get the job done and no more. They may not always get it right, but minor changes to expenses aren't going to affect headcount unless the company was already overstaffed and looking for an excuse to cut employees.

This is the same mistaken thinking you see from people who oppose minimum wage increases. The McDonalds down the street isn't going to cut staff because the wages went up, they need those staff to serve customers. In face the opposite can occur. The increase in money at the bottom is a huge stimulus to demand which increases traffic and requires even more staff.

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

#280

Post by dehrmann »

> Although the law regarding these expenses is not yet decided, remote California workers may also be entitled to reimbursement for:

> the cost of dedicated home office space

If that actually happens, expect lots of RTO. That extra bedroom for the home office is priced similarly to 100 sqft of office space.

Post reply on HN