California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #333

jandrese wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mentali…

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

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…

Post by JoshTko » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:52 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…

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

Post by AYBABTME » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

scottshamus wrote: post #140

AYBABTME wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a small expense for employers, and can be a real difference in costs for the employee. I don't think you're correct. If I spend 100% more on heating everyday because I work from home so need to heat 24/7, that's nothing to an employer (100-200$/m) but could be a significant deduction from a family's budget. Meanwhile the employer would have otherwise heated up an office space and paid all bills there. I've been…

We’ll start being asked for utility bills during interviews and recruiters will screen for people with heat pumps. “Candidate must have updated insulation and new windows”