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

391–400 of 462 posts

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

#391

Post by johnnyanmac »

jstarfish wrote: post #380
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…

> This is the same mistaken thinking you see from people who oppose minimum wage increases. The McDonalds down the street isn't going to cut staff because the wages went up, they need those staff to serve customers. Shenanigans. You've never worked in retail. Even if you come back claiming otherwise, I'm still going to accuse you of lying about it because you could only be more out of touch with reality if you claime…

>One way or another, the retailer will not bear that cost of increased wages.

They will try to avoid it before the increase, and they will try harder after. That doesn't mean they can have a 100% unmanned mcdonalds if minimum wage somehow shot up to $30. And given that McDonald's main revenue isn't even on food, it's not even a good idea for that specific company to shut down locations over increased wages.*

That's clearly why they are investing more into those automated tellers. automation is the only way to reduce headcount but not affect throughput.

*Other chains might, though. I do wonder in this scenario if this would lead to small business rising up as large business find it untenable to hire entry level labor. I don't imagine so (they will pass the costs to the customer), but it's an interesting thought experiment.

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

#392

Post by n2d4 »

_ea1k wrote: post #59
n2d4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you come to the office, they will have to pay that too. Electricity and internet is not free, even in offices. After all, the whole point of this decision is to equalise the "windfall", as the article says.

If they already have an office, the marginal cost of electricity and internet is not likely to be as high as the employee's home internet cost.

Per the article, they only to pay a fraction of the employee's home internet cost

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

#393

Post by jandrese »

pixl97 wrote: post #351
Supermancho wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

1 having to work harder works when 1 will actually work harder... The problem is that is a failing paradigm these days and it's not uncommon to walk to up locations that say "closed, no staff". If the 'no immigration' voices get there way expect to see a rapidly declining population here in the US and these businesses that are used to abusing labor start to freak out.

"Closed, no staff" is quickly followed by "Retail space for rent". If you see that sign you can rest assured that the business is poorly managed.

Beyond the low pay it is quite likely that the manager is an asshole and the reason he can't find workers is because for what he's offering there are loads of opportunities for jobs at better managed stores in the area. This is a person who was spoiled when the job market was tight and now can't adjust to a new reality where people have options and if you suck they won't choose you. If the business isn't profitable without effectively slave labor then it was poorly structured.

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

#394

Post by valianteffort »

mkii wrote: post #331
valianteffort wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Because that is myopic or selfish. You didn't or couldn't buy a house when it was smart, now you want to screw over people who bought homes recently because prices are unaffordable. That is either selfish because you don't care about their property values (when they probably much like you had to work hard for it), or myopic because you didn't even consider it.

What exactly are you even proposing? You want the government to mandate cheaper land, construction material, and builder wages? To lower taxes on all of the above? People who think there is some simple solution "duh just build more houses!" are extremely myopic. Again it's not my problem, I'm not against building more houses and I also get NIMBY because "affordable" or government subsidized housing has a direct correlation to crime rates, lowering property values, and lowering the quality of schools.

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

#395

Post by kag0 »

troebr wrote: post #16

My biggest expense being remote is that I need an extra room for my office. Besides that, that would probably be heating in winter and electricity, but these are small compared to the cost of an extra room.

This is exactly what I think of when considering actual remote work expenses for myself. I live in 600sqft which is not bad for a place to live. But not great for one, let alone two people to work. In terms of quality of life, I think having to work a) within 10 feet of my bed , b) on the kitchen table, having to clean the table of work before every meal, or c) on the couch which is not at all ergonomic; are all huge steps down from the office.

If you already have an office/den to work from, I can see how it's not a big deal. But if you're looking at buying a first home and your requirements go from one or two bedrooms to three bedrooms/1 bedroom & two offices, that's brutal.

From the link

> Although the law regarding these expenses is not yet decided, remote California workers may also be entitled to reimbursement for: > * the cost of dedicated home office space (reimbursement is more likely if the employee was renting or had plans to rent the space to a third party prior to beginning remote work). (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 (2022).)

If that actually happens I would be very shocked/impressed. But I'm highly cynical of how wants vs needs are going to be interpreted there. To me the mental health benefit of being able to physically leave work is a need, but I know not everyone is likely to see it that way.

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

#396

Post by ModernMech »

lm28469 wrote: post #345
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…

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

Of course, there’s no other way to do it in America, that’s the political reality. You can see it in this thread, people wouldn’t want their taxes to pay for accommodations. Just look at our healthcare system, it’s the same thing.

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

#397

Post by ModernMech »

alistairSH wrote: post #146
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…

You should already be covered by the ADA for at least some of that.

Still not a matter of “want”, and the ADA had plenty of holes in it. For one getting a diagnosis for these disabilities is very difficult, and took me over a year just to find a provider covered under our healthcare system.

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

#398

Post by zacharytelschow »

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.

Not just time, but cost also. As my wife also works from home we've been able to scale back to a single car for 2 years now. Since owning, insuring, fueling, repairing, and maintaining a car typically runs $6k-$10k/year (depending on your tastes and mileage) I've gotten a substantial financial benefit from being remote.

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

#399

Post by mx_02 »

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…

Companies are already doing layoffs and hiring offshore. They dont care about you or me or anybody but profits.

Things will estabilize at some point and it's better for 99% of people if there are pro-workers laws in place by then.

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

#400

Post by [deleted] »

harmon wrote: post #347
brightball wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN