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

51–60 of 462 posts

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

#51

Post by frumper »

Loughla wrote: post #34
tensor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.

Work expenses paid for by an employee are typically tax deductible. This wouldn't be anything new. The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible. This would also not be anything new. The idea isn't that the "cost" is borne by the taxpayer, it is that the employee/employer shouldn't pay a tax on the money they used to produce the income.

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

#52

Post by kortilla »

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.

Working from the kitchen table doesn’t work if you have a family or really anyone else in the house.

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

#53

Post by bannedbybros »

losteric wrote: post #32
intrasight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because state regulations make things unaffordable

Real estate is the primary thing that makes cost of living so high, and that's primarily a city problem. California state actually passed laws that require increasing housing supply: https://www.kqed.org/news/11965492/san-francisco-takes-forev... - which cities are dragging their feet on

[dead]

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

#54

Post by _ea1k »

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.

I'm sure the WFH needs have factored into many home purchases in the past few years. It is a real expense.

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

#56

Post by alwaysrunning »

I work 100% remote, have for over a decade, if my employer/contractor won't cover my expenses it tells me exactly what type of employer/company it is. If you can't recognize the value in me working fm home you won't see the value in me as an employee. Hard pass.

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

#57

Post by _ea1k »

Waterluvian wrote: post #17
m3kw9 wrote: post #13

This would accelerate back to office a bit. Remote workers seemed to have barked up the wrong tree this time

No not "remote workers". More, "some interest group local to California that may involve some unclear number of remote workers."

It is shocking how quick people are to blame perceived beneficiaries instead of the people actually pushing for changes.

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

#58

Post by toomuchtodo »

tedivm wrote: post #45
pfisherman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They'll still fail because they won't be able to twist employees enough to reach the minimum footfall floor required for the economic activity needed to sustain before times downtowns, but it will be annoying while they try.

Mayor of NYC complains about remote work, but then expands it to non union NYC employees because they can't retain talent [1]. Mayor of Minneapolis complains Target and the local county won't fully RTO, but leadership at those orgs goes "meh" and continues because they want to retain talent [2] [3].

[1] https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/805-23/mayor-ad...

[2] https://kfgo.com/2023/08/26/downtown-businesses-ask-target-t...

[3] https://www.minnpost.com/twin-cities-business/2023/10/why-ar...

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

#59

Post by _ea1k »

n2d4 wrote: post #38
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…

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.

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

#60

Post by ghaff »

bombcar wrote: post #48
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).

Add frequent flier miles, "kickbacks" of a couple percent on credit card expenses that are reimbursed, clothing (such as suits) and commuting expenses that are not reimbursed, but uniforms (and related) that are deductible, etc. As you say it's a mishmash that doesn't have a real basis in some overarching principles.
Post reply on HN