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

451–460 of 462 posts

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

#451

Post by greedo »

jandrese wrote: post #390
jstarfish wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I've worked retail. Employers try shenanigans like that, but it backfires because the lines get long and people start looking at alternatives. Business suffers, and then either they hire the people back or they go out of business. There is always the threat of laying off staff instead of paying more, but only a relatively minor portion of management is enough of a maniac to actually go through with it. I worked at a…

Worked 16 years for an owner-operator in Southern Cal. Every time min wage was increased, the number of hour permitted was limited so that total payroll remained the same. So sure we might not have had layoffs, but we definitely had less people working. This behavior was consistent with all the franchisees in So Cal.

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

#452

Post by red-iron-pine »

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…

Nah. Conventional wisdom says that "front loaded costs" of an employee are anywhere between 50-100% of an employees salary.

These costs cover a lot of things, to include health insurance, retirement (401k, Superannuation, etc.), but also cost of things like a desk, licenses for an employees computer & software, building/rental insurance for the office, and expected costs of heating and AC for said office (which can be costed and amortized out over a number of employees per year, per floor, etc.).

Most of that is built in, and the cash you save by not having to heat a giant fucking office can be turned into a $1500-on-hiring stipend for office gear and licenses. That corporations got themselves locked into terrible leases, or beholden to state and local tax incentives that drive RTO is not the worker's problem.

And that's a pittance compared to the amount of cash you can save by sending the jobs out of SV or NYC to Denver, or Nashville, or Upstate NY, and paying well, well above market but still $50k less than big city rates. If I have to eat a $1500 buck remote-worker-chair-subsidy to outsource to Shasta or Redding, and save $10k in the process, then so be it.

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

#453

Post by red-iron-pine »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #336
bmj wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but it was sublet to a new tenant. And my employer is not on the hook for paying for their food and coffee, and internet access.

Pretty sure the internet bill is still going up be paid.

different contracts. ISPs may or may not be tied to the building. Our bandwidth in our offices was generally on 2-year contracts. We were locked into the building for 10-years, but if we wanted to turn off the power and water and phones we could have.

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

#454

Post by plussed_reader »

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…

Except when the thunderstorm is very heavy and then it doesn't work, according to your post.

So which is it?

'Basically Unusable' is not un-tenable or non-working. The only fulcrum your wife has is if the people she reports finds her slow timing unacceptable due to the connection; use the provided work tools and make everyone feel the pain.

You're subsidizing their connection cost for free.

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

#455

Post by dghughes »

pie420 wrote: post #241
dghughes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got two monitors and a laptop on 1/3 of my computer desk. I'm huddled on a corner literally the point is right where I work. My mouse is 10cm from the desk edge. It sure feels like I need extra room.

You need a bigger desk not a bigger room. Make some compromises and remove some other furniture in the room to accommodate your bigger desk.

Bigger desk doesn't fit if the room is too small. I literally need more room the room itself.

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

#456

Post by Auracle »

thirdsun wrote: post #444
Auracle wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh no, she tried. We would have much rather kept the Starlink + hotspot combination, but since they would pay for neither (and required the 'land line') we dropped the hotspot.

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

#457

Post by Auracle »

plussed_reader wrote: post #454
Auracle wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except when the thunderstorm is very heavy and then it doesn't work, according to your post. So which is it? 'Basically Unusable' is not un-tenable or non-working. The only fulcrum your wife has is if the people she reports finds her slow timing unacceptable due to the connection; use the provided work tools and make everyone feel the pain. You're subsidizing their connection cost for free.

I think there's been one thunderstorm like that in the day since she's started remote work two or three years ago, and the connection dropped for 10 minutes. We usually get storms like that in the evening, and that happens maybe 5 times a year.

I guarantee the DSL has dropped way more than that. Before Starlink and the hotspot we had that's the service we used, and it was atrocious.

It's just an old policy in a very large company that's slow to update their policies.

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

#458

Post by Ferret7446 »

pixl97 wrote: post #371
changoplatanero wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into any sort of employment contract that they wish. As long as both parties are well informed then they should be free to agree on what expenses will be covered and what won’t

"Libertarian doesn't understand how democracy works" It doesn't matter if both parties are informed, the balance of power is what matters. It doesn't matter how well informed you are if your other option is starvation. Everyone, and I mean everyone I've ever met that makes this argument is coming from a position of power themselves. They some rare ability in a labor constrained market and want to generalized their si…

If you can't work because there is no job, then your option is still starvation.

The solution is a social safety net, not minimum wage and not both.

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

#459

Post by Ferret7446 »

haizhung wrote: post #216
tristor wrote: post #210

I've worked remotely for about 10 years now. I actually don't want my employer covering these expenses. If the employer is covering these expenses it requires me to document the expenses and comply with employer policies related to these expenses. For instance, an employer may mandate what speed of Internet service I am required to have, where I always want the fastest option (gigabit generally) and redundant links.…

I’d go out on a limb here and conjecture that you can still by stuff from your own money without submitting a claim.

You can't, that would be a huge legal liability for the company.

Specifically, you can as an individual, but the company would be obligated to enact policies that require its employees to document everything to shield itself from liability, the likely end result is that not documenting such things could be grounds for termination.

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

#460

Post by lobocinza »

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…

> I'd love my employer to offset some of my utility costs.

Yes but I would rather be paid more than waste my time and divulge a lot about my life to my employer. While these might be beneficial in the short term to those already employed this might hurt remote work employers and employees.

Post reply on HN