Does this apply to workers in CA who work for employers headquartered out of state?
What about workers in other states (NY) working for a CA-based employer?
Presumably they would have to comply with labor laws in the state as they do today.
California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
31–40 of 462 posts
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this related to that?
Because state regulations make things unaffordable
Real estate is the primary thing that makes cost of living so high, and that's primarily a city problem. California state actually passed laws that require increasing housing supply: https://www.kqed.org/news/11965492/san-francisco-takes-forev... - which cities are dragging their feet on
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#33I like the idea, but not the implementation. I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead. Doing so creates positive incentives for companies to hire remote workers in California. Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. I also think that it would be more equitable since an employee’s home office setup belo…
The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
Why the company and not the employee?
I think that the taxpaying public receives benefits from the remote work arrangement; such as less traffic, noise, pollution, and consumption of public resources such as roads.
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
The consequence is that the company will want to improve efficiency by paying for all the utilities for all employees in a single building. E.g. less WFH.
Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
> If you work from home in California, your employer might be required to contribute to your internet bill, electricity bill, and other expenses necessary to do your job. If a company already has an office near you they may just say you need to come into the office, they will not pay for your internet and electric bill. If you drive into the office they don't have to pay for your car, insurance, registration, gas, et…
Seems like it could be sorted pretty quickly if employers had to reimburse mileage and "reasonable commute times" for hourly calculations. Just the mileage for a 10 mile one-way commute would be $260/mo
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
> If you work from home in California, your employer might be required to contribute to your internet bill, electricity bill, and other expenses necessary to do your job. If a company already has an office near you they may just say you need to come into the office, they will not pay for your internet and electric bill. If you drive into the office they don't have to pay for your car, insurance, registration, gas, et…
This was my first thought, but the article mentions the they interpret that situation to not be a necessary expense since your voluntarily working remote. Maybe not as bad as my first reaction.
The expenses listed seemed pretty typical for benefits. My last job already let me expense my cell phoen, internet, gave me a stipend for office equipment
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many employers currently have a "work from the office 3/4/5 days a week" policy, but don't really enforce it. This will force them to enforce it, with the threat of having to pay a big bill if any employee claims to be working from home.
The article clarifies that scenario: "However, if your organization has returned to in-person work, but you choose to work from home, it's less likely that your business expenses will be seen as "necessary"—as you could have avoided them by working from the office or other worksite."
California regulations aside, my understanding is that's sort of the tax code today. My accountant always told me that home office expenses were a questionable deduction if you had an office to go into if you wanted to.
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
> If you work from home in California, your employer might be required to contribute to your internet bill, electricity bill, and other expenses necessary to do your job. If a company already has an office near you they may just say you need to come into the office, they will not pay for your internet and electric bill. If you drive into the office they don't have to pay for your car, insurance, registration, gas, et…
But if you come to the office, they will have to pay that too. Electricity and internet is not free, even in offices.
After all, the whole point of this decision is to equalise the "windfall", as the article says.
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
The consequence is that the company will want to improve efficiency by paying for all the utilities for all employees in a single building. E.g. less WFH.
[deleted]
Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
Why the company and not the employee? I think that the taxpaying public receives benefits from the remote work arrangement; such as less traffic, noise, pollution, and consumption of public resources such as roads.
Because the company is the one directly receiving the most benefits?