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

301–310 of 462 posts

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

#301

Post by volkadav »

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?

We're around there (hand-waving here about exchange rate) in Scotland. What's fucked up is that most of the UK's power is generated in the north and yet electricity rates are based on how far you are from London.

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

#302

Post by memco »

ghaff wrote: post #152
memco wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess even lower than those estimates. Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes: I expect they wouldn’t be on the hook for even the full percentage of electricity and data for work devices used from home. This could be a nice offset but I would be surprised if companies start picking up the tab for a full 8 hours of electricity for a home, let alone 8 hours of usage of…

>Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes How so? Are you arguing that the IRS 65.5 cents per mile doesn't appropriately compensate for costs?

Yes, although it is pretty good. My gas currently costs only 14 cents per mile so the other 51.5 cents needs to cover the cost for insurance and maintenance and the purchase price which can mean that you could come out ahead or behind depending on the situation. The company isn’t required to pay the full cost of operating the vehicle if they are more than the 65.5 cents so from that I am extrapolating that companies aren’t going to be paying the full price per employee just some averaged price. It will be a help to those who are currently paying out of pocket costs and will hopefully not be an undue burden on employers or employees.

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

#303

Post by throw1230 »

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…

Employee rights don't benefit you, said the businessman.

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

#304

Post by p_j_w »

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.

Is it not myopic or selfish for my neighbors to insist that I shouldn’t be able to afford a home because of their precious investment?

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

#305

Post by compumike »

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?

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... “Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, August 2023 and 2022 (Cents per Kilowatthour)” — according to this, both $0.42/kWh and $0.06/kWh would be outliers, relative to any state-wide residential averages.

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

#306

Post by legitster »

> For example, one court found that when an employee had to use his personal cell phone to make work calls, his employer was required to reimburse him for a portion of his phone bill even though the employee did not incur any additional expenses because he had an unlimited data plan. The court found that any other interpretation would result in an unfair windfall to the employer.

I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, but this seems like an accounting headache that's more trouble than it's worth.

Especially for bills that are at a fixed monthly cost - I already am paying for internet, the marginal cost to me is nothing.

And furthermore, if I knew someone who was so insistent on penny pinching their employer in such a way, I would ask if they really want to give their employer such "hooks" into their personal life and finances? Do I really want to be in a situation where I go to my employer and say "as you can see, 40% of my time online was spent working" and then they get to audit my records and find that 50% of the time I was spent working was also on Netflix? Is that change in precedent worth the few bucks you save?

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

#307

Post by selectodude »

switch007 wrote: post #248
535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

$0.06?! Jesus, where is that?!

Somewhere with real time pricing. The cheapest normal pricing is down around 12-13 cents per kWh. Granted due to the enormous nuclear base load in Chicago, I routinely pay 1-2 cents per kWh. I paid zero cents at 4am.

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

#308

Post by bmj »

judge2020 wrote: post #219
bmj wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully remote work has always benefited the employer more than the employee, at least financially. Before the pandemic closed my employer's local office space (we were all told just to work from home), part of the employer's budget for each employee included infrastructure costs (office space, furniture, internet access, maybe food, beverages, etc). My salary did not change when I became fully remote, so the company r…

Unless it was already a short-term lease agreement, which is not super common in CRE, chances are your company was still footing the bill for their lease on that office space. Most office space is leased on 5-10 year terms.

You are correct, but it was sublet to a new tenant. And my employer is not on the hook for paying for their food and coffee, and internet access.

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

#309

Post by switch007 »

selectodude wrote: post #307
switch007 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$0.06?! Jesus, where is that?!

Somewhere with real time pricing. The cheapest normal pricing is down around 12-13 cents per kWh. Granted due to the enormous nuclear base load in Chicago, I routinely pay 1-2 cents per kWh. I paid zero cents at 4am.

Jealous! Paying about $0.30 here in the UK

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

#310

Post by clausecker »

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…

They should do it the other way round: employer has to reimburse you for your commute and pay commute time as work time. Guess how quickly companies will put pressure on legislation to solve the housing problem.
Post reply on HN