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

341–350 of 462 posts

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

#341

Post by ghaff »

manicennui wrote: post #284
petercooper wrote: post #41

This is a bit of a tangent but the post references an attitude in both the US and UK tax codes that grinds my gears: If, on the other hand, you feel you are a more effective leader if you stay abreast of developing news, but doing so is not part of your job duties, then subscriptions to various newspapers are not "necessary" for you to do your job and would not be reimbursable. This is a discouraging factor for emplo…

My employer will reimburse us for books and pays for conference attendance. The people who seem to benefit from this are the people who would have sought out the information on their own. Most employees won't do anything more than is required of them or demanded by their manager, and conferences are basically seen as an excuse to not work for a couple days by most of my coworkers. I personally pay for O'Reilly's serv…

Which is a pretty healthy attitude to have if you're a well-paid professional.

I'll happily let my employer pay for things that also benefit me personally. But I'm also not going to begrudge every equipment purchase or travel expense to buy/do things I want even if they're also connected to work in some manner.

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

#342

Post by Draiken »

Shawnj2 wrote: post #169
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah to give some context the average cost that employers pay for health insurance in the USA is $1,251 per month. For the big tech companies it's often higher due to better coverage/location. So this is nothing. Employers will not flinch at this.

I do think salaries will be adjusted a little bit in new listings but 115k vs 116k is not a huge difference and I doubt most medium or large employers will make a stink over reducing people’s pay over this

They might be adjusted, but not because they need to be. It's simply a great excuse to squeeze even more from employees.

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

#343

Post by VirusNewbie »

thehappypm wrote: post #192
changoplatanero wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into any sort of employment contract that they wish. As long as both parties are well informed then they should be free to agree on what expenses will be covered and what won’t

Are you opposed to a minimum wage?

Yes, it is immoral. You are taking away someone’s freedom to willingly enter into a contract. Plenty of successful societies do not have a minimum wage.

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

#344

Post by kwhitefoot »

FireBeyond wrote: post #157
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…

> For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. There's an adjustment needed. I have worked for and applied to healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. In Production. We're not "all in this together". We all know that equity is worth nothing until proven otherwise. Stop cheaping out and expecting your employees to invest in your success w…

> healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI.

When I did a gig for Statnett in Norway (the state owned company that owns and manages the high voltage power system) a couple of years ago; they provided a Windows laptop for me even though I was a contractor not an employee. There is no way that they would allow a device out of their control to connect to their network and services! The risks are far too high.

I could use my own more powerful laptop but only as a Citrix client.

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

#345

Post by lm28469 »

ModernMech wrote: post #115
ghaff wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the context of this is whether you should be reimbursed for the cost associated with an extra room if you choose to work remotely for a company that has offices, even if those offices are in higher CoL areas. (There's certainly an argument for providing a stipend for a co-working space for a fully remote company.) No one is arguing that a dedicated office isn't desirable. It's a question if someone else should pa…

> 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…

Sounds like you want your company to provide what your state should provide. American I assume ?

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

#346

Post by mindslight »

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 fundamental business dynamic is that transparently passing on expenses is a low margin behavior, while comping more things for "free" and charging for produced value leads to higher margins. Personally I'd rather workers have higher margins (ie higher pay) while personally choosing how to spend some of that income to fulfill the job requirements, than receiving lower pay while being able to nickle and dime employers for bureaucratically-approved expenses.

Of course it's not like the government really wants to encourage more small businesses that replace W-2 workers at large businesses, given how lopsided the tax code is against W-2 income.

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

#347

Post by harmon »

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…

I agree, honestly I feel a much better solution to this problem would be to extend the same tax advantages that you allude to when talking about a personal company to W2 employees.

Provision a home office? All of those expenses should be tax deductible.

BYOD? You should be able to expense a portion of the costs.

Pay for internet and power? You should be able to deduct a percentage of costs.

Have a work related meal? Tax deductible.

Drive your car to work? You should be able to deduct your mileage or depreciate your vehicle.

Pay for public transit passes to get to work? Tax deductible.

Etc, etc

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

#348

Post by xw3090 »

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…

I think in the short term, you're definitely right. It does not work in your favor if you want remote work in CA. The key issue is this, from the article:

"While the determination of whether an expense is "necessary" varies depending on the circumstances of a particular case, generally speaking, California employees who work from home are likely entitled to reimbursement"

Notice that necessary is in quotes, and the words generally, varies and likely, etc. Basically, none of this is hashed out and business owners have no idea what to pay and when. Expenses can be budgeted around but uncertainty makes this hard. And the risk of a significant surprise charge is real.

I think it's likely many businesses are just going to want to sit this out while the details are all worked out. Once the dust settles they'll do the math and make a decision.

So in the long term, it could be beneficial. In the short term, probably not.

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

#349

Post by WalterBright »

The percentage of utility bills one is entitled to reimbursement for is ripe for fraud and abuse.

BTW, if you have a home office, you can already deduct from taxable income a cut of those, but if you cheat on it the IRS is going to fix your wagon. The home office tax deduction also is going to reduce the basis of your profit on selling the house, meaning more taxes. Companies aren't set up like the IRS to audit your utility bills. Besides, do you really want your employer auditing the percentage of your electricity use? I'm sure they don't want to, either.

Me, I don't care to do the paperwork required for this, and don't do a home office deduction.

P.S. I'm not a CPA and this is not tax advice.

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

#350

Post by kwhitefoot »

scarab92 wrote: post #328
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shi…

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

That doesn't seem to be true of Norway. But Norway retains control of much of its primary resources. Australia could do the same; it's a political problem not a directly economic one.

Post reply on HN