California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by seanw444 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #197

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…

Why are you assuming causation? Perhaps bathrooms had to be charged for due to a sufficiently significant portion of the population causing damage to them. Perhaps the California law requiring free bathrooms was a way for California leaders to shirk responsibility for providing clean bathrooms to all and foist costs onto private businesses. I always assume this is the case when government requires businesses to do pr…

They don't have as much of the demographic that causes damage to property because of the religious and cultural backbone here that (decreasingly so) binds this state. For all the complaints people throw at the Mormons, standard of living, average level of education, and crime rate, are all fantastic compared to most other places.

As the culture becomes one to not punish those for bad actions, not shaming bad lifestyle choices, and begins to artificially force an unnatural level of multiculturalism, society rips apart.

I'm not even a conservative either. But this "social progressivism at all costs" disorder that our country has developed is going to have dire, and inevitable consequences.

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

#322

Post by LightHugger » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

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 prices are better off destroyed though. It doesn't take away the home from people who overpaid for it, making homes accessible is better for society outside of some myopic nonsense where someone's net value drops, the actual homeowner can just keep using their home as before.

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

#323

Post by orWhattian » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#324

Post by fergie » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

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…

> Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by…

A weak argument that can be made about any general improvement to worker pay snd conditions. Its clear that societies that encourage workers rights have the strongest economies.

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

#325

Post by mkii » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

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

I'm sure that's a major factor and not the fact that Utah has 1/10th of the population of California.

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

#326

Post by jayd16 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

xur17 wrote: post #243

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…

> 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. So California is adding a bunch of administrative expenses for something that will net out to a few thousand dollars max per employee. Workers that have to go the office easily spend more than this on…

What's the admin expense? Won't it just be another line item in the paycheck? It's only an issue if the employer makes requests that exceed the that budget and get called out.

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

#327

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

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.

If my older neighbors are trying to make my children renters for life, they might be the selfish ones.

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

#328

Post by scarab92 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #195

safety1st wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simply isn't true except when you're talking about the largest companies. The vast majority of American businesses don't have a place of business in all 50 states, or retail outlets, etc. etc. -- the majority of American businesses are small, operate in one or a handful of states, and as a result do in fact skip California. Sames goes I expect for "businesses hiring remote workers," only a Californian would have…

California does not care if some 2 person company in Ohio will be slightly less likely to hire a 3rd person remotely from California - the number of remote jobs going to California from these types of companies is close to 0. Even if you assume 100% of them go away - I'd wager voters in California would prefer to have current conditions improved than an ever so slight increase in opportunities in the future. Yes - sm…

Higher cost jurisdictions experience a hollowing out of their economies over time.

Last mile, geographically constrained jobs like transport and retail remain, but higher skill jobs that are mobile leave, either because it was more cost effective for the employer or because the employer couldn't compete and failed.

Australia experienced this and its economy now is little more than primary resource extraction, all shipped overseas for processing and value adding. Some basic service industry jobs, like retail, but none of them go anywhere because the companies don't have any real presence here except a shopfront.

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

#329

Post by seanw444 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

mkii wrote: post #325

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 I'm sure that's a major factor and not the fact that Utah has 1/10th of the population of California.

You can ignore variables if you'd like, but some other lower population states have worse per-capita stats themselves.

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

#330

Post by secabeen » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

schmookeeg wrote: post #274

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?

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.

The cost of the power itself is not the driving cost of electricity, it's the distribution and grid maintenance costs. PG&E can sell power delivered easily and in bulk to Alameda in the heart of the bay area quite cheaply. Delivering the same kWh to all of the smaller communities in the rural north third of the PG&E coverage area is where much of the costs are.