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

441–450 of 462 posts

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

#441

Post by m463 »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223
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…

$0.42/kWh!??! Jesus Christ. I think I'm paying around $0.0629/kWh. Where is this?

PG&E current rates:

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/Res_Inclu_TOU_Current.xlsx

average billing is currently 38.2c/kwh

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

#442

Post by chii »

lednax wrote: post #426
jandrese wrote: post #393

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…

Good. If the business can’t operate, it doesn’t deserve to exist.

Add yet society find it acceptable to subsidize farming of food.

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

#443

Post by RamblingCTO »

lazide wrote: post #429
RamblingCTO wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. Think this through. What happens? What happens, when it's harder and harder to build and scale small businesses? You only have big players owning everything. I am struggling with that every week here in the EU and I'm very glad I don't produce anything, as it would be even harder. So this is a fine line, where we should be cautious of bot…

Regulatory capture. Already a huge issue in the US.

That was what I meant, yes! Cheers

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

#444

Post by thirdsun »

Auracle wrote: post #438
plussed_reader wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hots…

I mean your wife could probably explain her employer that the company is paying for a connection that doesn't provide enough bandwidth to do the job and that the money would be better spent on the Starlink connection.

Of course they might just conclude that your remote location isn't compatible with the demands of the job though.

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

#445

Post by dewaldr »

535188B17C93743 wrote: post #223
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…

$0.42/kWh!??! Jesus Christ. I think I'm paying around $0.0629/kWh. Where is this?

Pay for electricity and actually get it? Luxury!

Here in South Africa the rate is about 0.15 (USD, depending on exchange rate), but they keep turning off the electricity because the state-owned utility cannot make enough of it. Load shedding they euphemistically call it instead of the blackouts it really is. Of course they also complain about loss of revenue because we use and thus pay for less kWh if they keep turning it off.

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

#446

Post by detourdog »

mrThrowaway9001 wrote: post #420
detourdog wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One weird thing I learned about one of the Scandinavian countries is that part of the reporting taxes is reporting of labor for DIY home improvement. The reasoning for this was that the economy could not be adequately measured if DIY work is not recorded. This really demonstrated to me the American mindset of freedom. I have no idea about California. I think another motivation is that they are trying make sense of wh…

No, there is no such thing in "Scandinavian" countries about reporting labor when doing DIY home improvements. You can deduct the material, or bought labor, when selling the house. But no your own labor, unless you run a company and hire yourself. That might work, but then you have to spend taxes in your company for that income. Clarification: This is in Sweden, a Scandinavian country. Edit #2: If you have a specific…

Sorry, it was I believe a comment on HN that told a story of having to track their own labor on a home improvements.

This tracking needed to be reported so that economic growth could be better measured.

I couldn't remember the specific country so I referred to it as a country in a region. I also couldn't remember the reporting process and assumed taxes.

I was reminded of the comment when I read the California story. I thought many of the comments were too cynical and narrowly focused. I wanted to broaden the conversation by pointing out that there are many reasons to collect data have new definitions of labor.

I consider HN as a place to throw out thoughts and see the reaction. I don't state anything I don't believe to be true. I'm happy to correct my worldview as needed through dialog.

I certainly do not claim that the notion is true, most likely any false hood is through my poor understanding and expression.

I certainly mean no disrespect to any social effort to create an equitable base line for human existence. I have great admiration for the region of Scandinavia and the Baltic Region as well.

I'm currently from the New England region of the United States.

I wasn't trying to make a statement regarding superiority of one type of social organization over another.

The point I thought was critical is that labor data is used by governments for central planning.

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

#447

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

It's a shame, having to pay for a more functional and advanced society.

Also, this isn't what's killing small business.

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

#448

Post by culopatin »

The company I work for just decided that me being remote is not for the benefit of the company but for my benefit. That if I want to keep working remote I have to cover my internet now.

The office is in Kansas City… they hired me remote day 1, the role was remote, and I never lived in Kansas City.

I don’t know if I’m glad that this does not affect them or if I wish it did. On one hand it’s ~$900 more a year. On the other hand, more pressure for them to kick me if they had to do cuts.

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

#449

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

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…

My first thought when reading the headline is that I'm ok paying for most personal things if I get to work remote as it means I'm more likely to work remote.

Obviously the company should be supplying laptop, monitors, etc, but unless I'm going through an egregious number of pens, paper, etc, I'm completely ok supplying it myself.

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

#450

Post by tristor »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #411
tristor wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the state requires it to be covered for all employees and it's subject to audit, whether or not I pay for anything additional, I'd still have to follow the policies and provide supporting documentation so my employer would be able to comply with the legal requirement. That's the hassle.

So you don't want more coverage because you don't feel like doing paperwork? I fail to see the issue. These laws have good faith in them and of you refuse to give paperwork after multiple prompting you more or less waive that coverage. They have to follow the law but they can't force you to hand over your energy bill. Alternatively, they will estimate based on data they already have and throw it into soke benefits ac…

> So you don't want more coverage because you don't feel like doing paperwork?

We're talking about around $85/mo, and in every company I've been at that offered this (voluntarily) I declined, because spending 2-3 hours filling out paperwork for $85 is not a good deal. It's an annoyance. If it's legally mandated, now it's a mandated annoyance.

Post reply on HN