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

331–340 of 462 posts

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

#331

Post by mkii »

valianteffort wrote: post #283
kevingadd wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your mistake, it's not their responsibility to make you rich

I never said that. What the previous gent said was he wanted property prices artificially lowered. I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that. My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.

> What the previous gent said was he wanted property prices artificially lowered.

They never said that.

> I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that.

No, you were calling someone "myopic or selfish" because they suggested ways more people might be able to afford housing.

> My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.

You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors (who can't afford housing due to market dynamics and bad policies).

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

#332

Post by p_j_w »

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.

This criteria seems odd to me.

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

#333

Post by Supermancho »

jandrese wrote: post #279
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 thi…

> If they have enough slack to reduce headcount they're going to do it anyway.

This is so incorrect that it's hard to take seriously.

When revenues go down (for any reason), companies cut costs. Most employees are a cost. Why have 2 people when 1 will just have to work harder? A company rather cut and see what happens, when push comes to shove. Many company initiatives are also re-evaluated with a bottom-line mentality when revenues are down. That project that's 4 weeks overdue for a milestone? Time to cut it and everyone involved. When revenue is up, the opposite effect. "slack" is relative to market conditions. Job security along with it.

Small companies are often lean, but it's never surprising how much leaner they will run when money gets tight. Big companies can always pare down assets and associated headcount. These are just the things I see every time revenue is down, but far from an exhaustive list.

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

#334

Post by sufimalang »

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…

lets just call it the cost of doing business, if i am working for some one THEY should be the ones bearing the costs of the equipment required for me to work for THEM. I give them my time and they pay me. All that is needed to get the work done is employers responsibility.

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

#335

Post by ModernMech »

ghaff wrote: post #124
ModernMech wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want one. I think it's not a matter of want, given the kinds of situations I laid out. In my situation, I have ADHD and I'm autistic. If you want me to work I need to be alone to work. It's not a want or a desire. I cannot work in a room full of people and noises, so putting me in one is just the same as expecting me to code without a keyboard. My employer gives me a computer, why is it such a stretch that t…

A company is probably not going to give you a private office either. (Maybe they would for ADA reasons? Don't know IANAL.)

Maybe? I’ve always had private offices except when I worked at a startup, but I don’t work in tech anymore so maybe that’s the difference.

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

#336

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

bmj wrote: post #308
judge2020 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure the internet bill is still going up be paid.

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

#337

Post by callalex »

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?

.42 is cheap for PG&E, it goes up to .6 at peak times. PG&E is completely corrupt and broken. Utilities do not belong in the private sector.

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

#338

Post by xur17 »

jayd16 wrote: post #326
xur17 wrote: post #243

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. 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.

If it's just a fixed amount refunded to all employees, agreed there's no huge admin expense. If employees have different amounts (depending on their circumstances) that they get refunded, there is a lot of complexity required to set rules around what is acceptable, track receipts for these expenses, and have someone review and approve these.

For example, we used expensify at a previous company, and ignoring the human admin cost, there was a $20 / expense report fee the company had to pay.

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

#339

Post by renewiltord »

sokoloff wrote: post #300
renewiltord wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no new law. This is just someone's interpretation of existing tax law. You'll be hard-pressed to gain anything worthwhile from this. Doubt it will even exceed the standard deduction so no one takes it. If you do the whole "this area is my work space" deduction, you increase your chance of being audited. And then all the gains are wasted in handling that thing which is a bloody hassle.

What does an employer reimbursement of remote worker expense have to do with a standard deduction?

My mistake there. Confused it with the idea of deducting taxes for work expenses.

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

#340

Post by clausecker »

mkii wrote: post #318
clausecker wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They may not, but pressure from large corporate interests often works wonders.
Post reply on HN