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

41–50 of 462 posts

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

#41

Post by petercooper »

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 employees, employers and office holders to develop ancillary skills that would improve their work because training, materials, and courses for such are not considered entirely "necessary" to do the job. The government then sits around wondering why per employee productivity growth has flatlined when self-improvement and education, even entirely within the scope of someone's job, is often a taxable benefit.

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

#42

Post by rubiquity »

ghaff wrote: post #23
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.

Unless you're going to pay for an extra room--which seems very unlikely (or should be) to be reimbursable as opposed to working on the kitchen table--the actual incremental costs seem pretty trivial. Even if you reimburse some pro-rated amount of internet and/or mobile, that's maybe $100/month in the US. ADDED: If you don't have an option to go into an office, a stipend for a co-working space may be reasonable.

There’s these things called home offices and many have converted a room to be one when working from home all the time.

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

#43

Post by bombcar »

Expenses such as this are pre-tax, so there is a benefit to the employee for the employer to take (say) $500 a month from salary and designate it as "remote worker expense reimbursement)".

You lose less than $500 after-tax and gain $500 cash (untaxed).

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

#44

Post by fckgw »

tensor wrote: post #22
fckgw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.

The consequence is that the company will want to improve efficiency by paying for all the utilities for all employees in a single building. E.g. less WFH.

Encourage WFH and then the company doesn't need to pay for an office building at all! It's almost like businesses have to pay for infrastructure for the employees to be able to do their jobs, whether it's in an office park downtown or the home office in the suburbs.

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

#45

Post by tedivm »

pfisherman wrote: post #33
fckgw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.

Why the company and not the employee? I think that the taxpaying public receives benefits from the remote work arrangement; such as less traffic, noise, pollution, and consumption of public resources such as roads.

Lots of cities disagree with you- they want people to return to office because they're worried their down towns are going to collapse due to lack of office workers.

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

#46

Post by plz-remove-card »

Spivak wrote: post #35
plz-remove-card wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you work from home in California, your employer might be required to contribute to your internet bill, electricity bill, and other expenses necessary to do your job. If a company already has an office near you they may just say you need to come into the office, they will not pay for your internet and electric bill. If you drive into the office they don't have to pay for your car, insurance, registration, gas, et…

Seems like it could be sorted pretty quickly if employers had to reimburse mileage and "reasonable commute times" for hourly calculations. Just the mileage for a 10 mile one-way commute would be $260/mo

I personally like this idea better anyway.

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

#47

Post by karaterobot »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #4

Sounds like a low key way to force employees back into the office.

Only in a world where businesses are not motivated by profit. It would be far cheaper for businesses to stop leasing an office, or to lease a smaller office, than to force a return to work. Everything they'd have to pay for in a work from home scenario is also an expense in an office environment, plus the lease of the office space itself.

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

#48

Post by bombcar »

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…

It becomes equivalent if the company buys the newspaper subscription for the company and you have access to it.

This whole area is a gray mishmash of arguments (does buying pizza for the office count as an expense or a salary item? Depends on frequency, the tax courts, etc).

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

#49

Post by tedivm »

photochemsyn wrote: post #18

What the definition of 'employee' vs. 'independent contractor with a non-compete clause in their contract' in relation to this?

Since it's California, which has banned non compete clauses, the second category doesn't actually exist.

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

#50

Post by laweijfmvo »

rubiquity wrote: post #42
ghaff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're going to pay for an extra room--which seems very unlikely (or should be) to be reimbursable as opposed to working on the kitchen table--the actual incremental costs seem pretty trivial. Even if you reimburse some pro-rated amount of internet and/or mobile, that's maybe $100/month in the US. ADDED: If you don't have an option to go into an office, a stipend for a co-working space may be reasonable.

There’s these things called home offices and many have converted a room to be one when working from home all the time.

How do you value the opportunity cost of an extra bedroom?
Post reply on HN