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

311–320 of 462 posts

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

#311

Post by autoexec »

brightball wrote: post #229
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…

One of many reasons to have a personal LLC/S-Corp in my opinion. Another comment in the thread really nailed this well. If employers didn't pay for commute costs separately, why does this become a line item? The employer does pay for gas and commute costs, as well as cost of living expenses...in a paycheck. I place a high value on my home office setup so I have things exactly as I want them. I also live in a low cost…

> A law like this is essentially there just to further incentivize the return to office policies that we've all been reading about. Now there will be an additional cost associated with going remote.

Not an additional cost, just fewer savings for companies. I'm guessing that even having to reimburse employees for internet/power they're still saving a ton of money on those things (my last office was lit up everywhere 24/7), plus not needing to rent the office space, keep food and coffee available for employees, keep bathrooms stocked up, etc.

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

#312

Post by akira2501 »

bmj wrote: post #132
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…

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…

> Personally, as a fully remote employee, I don't how to feel about this.

Really? Just ask for a raise.

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

#313

Post by bmj »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #242
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…

Maybe for some, but it has certainly benefited me more than my employer because I value my time.

I guess I should have qualified that with "financially."

I also value my time, so I am not inclined to push for such a law in my state.

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

#314

Post by scarab92 »

volkadav wrote: post #301
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?

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 .

That doesn't sound that crazy.

Much of your energy bill is distribution costs, which is a combinational of infrastructure costs and transmission losses.

Transmission losses will be small anywhere in the UK (because it's tiny), but infrastructure costs will vary a lot based on population density.

It's cheaper to erect a few large transmission lines to London than it is to distribute power around the less dense North.

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

#315

Post by seanw444 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #235
seanw444 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stamp…

I didn't say or act like Utah is a utopia. You invented that. Only that I don't have to pay to use bathrooms. I have my own complaints with this place too. We're gradually getting overtaken by the very things I laugh at California for. Funnily enough, a large contributor to the problem is Californians fleeing the consequences of their decisions. I can hardly afford to live in my home state, but the unaware affluent wine-sipping Californians sure can. But I definitely am much happier here than most other places in the US for the time being.

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

#316

Post by akira2501 »

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…

> Doesn't really sound like it is going to break the bank,

"You did the math wrong. You cheated me. I'm getting a lawyer!"

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

#317

Post by bombcar »

dataflow wrote: post #183
arcticbull wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit card points aren't taxable because they fall under the IRS rebate rule. They're treated like a coupon. Earning and spending frequent flyer miles is approximately equivalent, from the perspective of the IRS, to a 20% off bread coupon at your grocery store. It doesn't change your point of course, I just find it interesting.

It never made sense, given that the entity issuing the rebate isn't the same one you're paying. Like if your employer (or really, anyone else) cut you a $1M check because you bought a $1M house from a random person, is that really not taxable income because it was a "rebate"?

The real ruling is that as long as you're not doing obvious scams and scandals with tax avoidance, the IRS doesn't really care.

So if you're getting "the equivalent" of $1k a year untaxed, the IRS yawns.

If you figure out how to run your entire salary through airline points, the IRS wakes up.

(The laws are complicated to decipher, but they basically come down to the above. The tax courts will look at things like "is this available to everyone, how much was it, etc, etc".)

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

#318

Post by mkii »

clausecker wrote: post #310
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.

Ah but that assumes legislators and politicians want to solve the housing problem.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

dehrmann wrote: post #294
hyperpape wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Go into Spotify and search for songs with Canada in the name. Now try California.

[deleted]

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

#320

Post by detourdog »

brightball wrote: post #229
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…

One of many reasons to have a personal LLC/S-Corp in my opinion. Another comment in the thread really nailed this well. If employers didn't pay for commute costs separately, why does this become a line item? The employer does pay for gas and commute costs, as well as cost of living expenses...in a paycheck. I place a high value on my home office setup so I have things exactly as I want them. I also live in a low cost…

One weird thing I learned about one of the Scandinavian countries is that part of the reporting taxes is reporting of labor for DIY home improvement.

The reasoning for this was that the economy could not be adequately measured if DIY work is not recorded.

This really demonstrated to me the American mindset of freedom. I have no idea about California. I think another motivation is that they are trying make sense of what will undoubtedly be a complex tax-reimbursement situation.

I have been a sole-proprietor since the 1990s. I think they are working towards normalizing that sole-proprietor lifestyle with longterm employment.

Post reply on HN