Live data from Hacker News

California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

nolo.com

431–440 of 462 posts

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

#431
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Simple when someone gets hired they list their internet expenses. Also isnt this basic admin just the cost of doing business? I should probably not tell you that in europe its common to be reimbursed for traveling expenses when going to the office. Calculated per commute at 0.19 euro per kilometer. So its unique per employee. No company has gone bankrupt due to administrative weight yet.

> No company has gone bankrupt due to administrative weight yet.

Administrative weight has absolutely been a factor in companies collapsing. That's an absurd statement.

And as a specific example, the company I work at just does a blanket credit for work from home expenses to every employee to avoid the administrative overhead. Yes it's not a huge admin overhead, but it's one more thing a company has to read and understand the rules on (in each state), enact policies / processes for, and have an employee process reimbursements for.

Frankly, as an employee this just feels unnecessary. I'm already comparing the cost of commuting, work clothes, etc when deciding where to work. The "work from home expenses" end up being less than the "work from an office" expenses, so I'm not sure why California finds it necessary for employers to reimburse one but not the other. It's adding extra complexity for fairly limited benefit (something California seems to be great at).

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

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. People rush to claim that XYZ will hurt businesses, glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. It’d sure be better for small businesses if pay was optional and employment could be forced but that doesn’t sound like a very nice world. The government could also make no taxes, give out free money, and give every company fre…

> glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. ...And, potentially, the planet. In my mind it's reasonable to expect employers to cover costs of things like equipment. But, I do wonder how much CA is considering it's own interests here. It seems like this could be abused to do things like bring people back to downtown areas impacted by COVID or lightly discourage hiring employees who don't live in sta…

It sounds like these aren’t actually new laws, and aren’t California specific, so it’s probably not the intent. This seems too conspiratorial on the part of the state.

According to the article, it’s mostly driven from lawsuits from employees. The basis is that if the employer uses the employee’s internet, it has to pay for part of the bill, because otherwise it’s an unfair “windfall”.

It rather seems like basic protections to prevent employers from offloading expenses onto employees.

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

#433

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…

Very interesting how a company run by irrational humans can be counted on to make "economically rational" decisions!

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

#434

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…

The only people we should expect to benefit are existing employees for ~1 year. After that it will be priced in. What an administrative and legislative waste.

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

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 w…

It's just so puzzling to me that so many capitalists have no problem with the laws of supply and demand unless it applies to labor. If there's a shortage of wheat, everyone expects the price of bread to go up. Everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts it. Shortage of oil? Gas prices go up. It sucks, but that's life. Shortage of labor? NO, WE CAN'T INCREASE WAGES. UNACCEPTABLE. NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE!

I don't think it's puzzling, at all but is instead smart rhetoric that exploits the protestant work ethic. You get to pay people less, and those people get to pat themselves on the back for their superior work ethic. It strikes me as a similar trade to how we pay teachers and NASA scientists less money because they get increased social standing.

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

#436
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no new startups? That ultimately hurts wages and offsets any cost savings from employers paying for your home internet which you’d already be paying for anyways

If a very new startup of 5-10 people can't buck an extra (being very pessimistic) $40k a year in employee expenses in a state that already has high CoL and labor that regularly expects 200k salaries: No, I guess not. That can be something to negotiate at offer time, or to consider relocating the startup for. >That ultimately hurts wages and offsets any cost savings from employers paying for your home internet overtim…

That would be a lot of marginal startups such as lifestyle business running on Plus all the previously slightly-better-than-marginal startups will now descend to being merely marginal.

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

#437
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go into Spotify and search for songs with Canada in the name. Now try California.

This criteria seems odd to me.

Why? It's mindshare. The world thinks about California a lot.

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

#438

My wife works remotely as an accountant. We have Starlink as it’s the best internet available in our area, and we used to have an unlimited hotspot as well for other reasons. We’re very close to a cell tower. Her company requires her to have some form of wired internet. So, instead of paying for the Starlink or the hotspot they’re paying for 25/1 mbps DSL that never actually reaches those speeds. The Starlink and hot…

They're paying for coverage in that thunderstorm; that's the business expense to ensure connectivity for their remote widget. Why would your wifes employer compensate for a tool that doesn't meet their needs?

It's so slow it's basically unusable for her. I don't know the full details of how her job works as far as uploads/downloads go but it seems that even with something 15x faster than that DSL connection she's often waiting a minute or two, and I know there have been times where she's been uploading something for 30+ minutes. Having those instances 10-15x slower would make it so she literally can't do her job.

The hotspot worked just fine in thunderstorms and was significantly faster. I even had our router set up to automatically bump over to the hotspot for the rare occasions the Starlink went down.

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

#439
post #194

Some quick napkin math: Say you work 100% remote, 8 hours a day. That's 2080 work hours a year, out of 8760 hours. That means you need to be connected to internet, have electricity, etc. 23.74% of the time - let's round that up to 24% Say a worker pays $600 / year for internet, $2400 for electricity / year, and - dunno - $1500 for your cellphone / year. So that's $4500 / year, and your employer must cover approximate…

My commute costs going into the office everyday for a year are far more than $1000/year. I estimate it’s about $4k/year and that’s with taking public transit & biking. Those commute costs aren’t covered by my employer. I’d gladly trade a $4K decrease in commute costs for a $1k increase in internet and electricity. Also internet is fixed so regardless if I’m remote or in office I’m still paying the same bill.

If you don't want that money I'll gladly take it. Or should my employer pay for my commute instead?

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

#440
post #338
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is where a little creative problem solving could come into play. You know, having all those "administrators" actually do their jobs.

One simple way to set this up that minimizes administrative overhead is to estimate a base amount for each remote employee, and automatically reimburse that amount. If the employee's actual expenses exceed the base amount, then and only then do manual processes and $20 expense reports need to be involved.

When I said "for each remote employee," it would probably work best to have the base amount set up individually for each remote worker, based on relevant factors such as cost of electricity and such, when they start working remotely. If the base amount proves to be consistently too low, after a period of say, 6 months, then the employee could file some sort of amendment and have the amount reviewed. If the increased reimbursement based on the amendment request is determined to be reasonable, then just retroactively reimburse the difference to the employee and continue forward with the new base amount. It should also probably be re-reviewed yearly.

That should get it done for every remote employee in the company, with a maximum of around 2 manual interventions per year, rather than an expense report every 2 weeks or anything ridiculous like that.

Post reply on HN