Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#61

Post by SoftTalker »

paxys wrote: post #51
daenz wrote: post #7

The article makes 2 main points: 1) that this lawsuit will cause companies to take WFH away. and 2) It's extremely difficult to bill things like fractional electricity and internet usage. The first is a flimsy premise because companies simply don't have the power to take WFH away and I think they know that. If they did, they would. But the collectivization for WFH, brought by lockdowns, is far too powerful. So powerf…

The difference is that this lawsuit's judgement will affect not just Amazon but every tech company in California. The thousands of companies that popped up remote-friendly positions overnight will all have to reassess their stance now that they could be on the hook for employees' electricity, internet and even rent. Right now Amazon and Google have to compete with a startup that is offering a competitive salary and f…

If you look at the IRS rules for deductibility on a home office, they are pretty strict. It needs to be a physically defined area that is used only for work. If you use the same area as living space, or use the same desk and computer for personal stuff, it's not deductible. If you work off of a laptop, sometimes sitting on the couch, sometimes at the kitchen table, it's not deductible. I don't know if California law is more relaxed, but if it is, then I would think that any expense reimbursements would be taxable income at the federal level.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#62

Post by dehrmann »

swatcoder wrote: post #26
mmastrac wrote: post #5

It does raise the question of why large companies _aren't_ responsible for paying for commuting costs. We've obviously never done it that way, but is there a reason that we couldn't?

Because (thank goodness) employers don’t have a say in where you live or what your commute looks like. If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great. The employer doesn’t need to know or…

The WFH corollary is if your employer started paying for a WFH spare bedroom (which almost certainly costs more than office space for one desk), they'd only pay you for median (at best) rent for that room. Why should they pay for a bedroom in SF when you could just as easily be in Akron.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#63

Post by whiddershins »

kodah wrote: post #3

I'm not sure I agree with the article. I'm not even sure that I get corporate logic at this point. Offices cost money, much more money than configuring an enterprise for remote work. There's always that minor percentage of employees who cannot develop successful patterns to work from home. As the pandemic showed, these folks are the minority today. Under this paradigm, as long as remote work costs less than a buildin…

I don’t think most people work well from home.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#64

Post by indymike »

daenz wrote: post #7

The article makes 2 main points: 1) that this lawsuit will cause companies to take WFH away. and 2) It's extremely difficult to bill things like fractional electricity and internet usage. The first is a flimsy premise because companies simply don't have the power to take WFH away and I think they know that. If they did, they would. But the collectivization for WFH, brought by lockdowns, is far too powerful. So powerf…

I really like being able to work from home, or for that matter anywhere I can plug in the laptop. That said, this article is a lot more significant than it looks, not because of labor/management power dynamics, but because California law has created an incredibly risky situation for employers that allow remote workers. And after looking at the statute, it looks like you couldn't even do a home office stipend and be safe from a lawsuit.

> The first is a flimsy premise because companies simply don't have the power to take WFH away and I think they know that.

If you view this from the position of power dynamics, reality is the issuer of paychecks will eventually win, especially because they will be driven by fear of lawsuits like this. This isn't the first time people got ran out of the office: back when 9/11 happened, everyone went remote, loved it, and then had to go back. Yes, tech wasn't as good, but we had WebEx (slow internet, though), instant messaging (better than slack & friends) and email.

> So powerful, in fact, that it's a hiring advantage for your competitors if you attempt to bar WFH.

I'm not so sure this is the case. For a lot of people, there was not a salary adjustment when COVID set them free of the office. A lot of people moved to lower cost areas... and kept their salary. Eventually, salaries will normalize to local prevailing wage, plus or minus for the job title and positioning of the job (i.e. we are a better employer and have better pay and benefits) and companies will use a round of layoffs to adjust this. It makes no sense to pay a developer SV salary if they are in Modoc, Indiana or moved to Estonia now.

> Billing for fractional usage is not impossible nor difficult, and you can bet if a company was billing a customer for fractional usage, they would have it down to an exact science.

The point the article is making is that employees suing over de minimus costs is really bad for workers. The energy star tag on my monitor and laptop say I can power both for $28 per year. The guy in the article is suing over $50-$100/month. Seems like there's a lot to argue about... so there is substantial risk. It will cost the employer $18k-$50k to deal with the lawsuit.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#65

Post by treis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
treis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger cost would be a rent equivalent on a home office. That's probably low five figures annually. But I don't agree with the overall conclusion. Ultimately the cost of an employee boils down to one number. If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less.

> If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less. I mean, if you assume a monopsony where market clearing prices are set by demand alone, with no supply side effect, sure.

Not really. If the market clearing price was X before there's no reason it will change from X. The compensation will just in the form of Y rent + (X - Y) salary

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#66

Post by witheld »

swatcoder wrote: post #26
mmastrac wrote: post #5

It does raise the question of why large companies _aren't_ responsible for paying for commuting costs. We've obviously never done it that way, but is there a reason that we couldn't?

Because (thank goodness) employers don’t have a say in where you live or what your commute looks like. If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great. The employer doesn’t need to know or…

Just cap the commute costs to the mean of the commute cost of local businesses.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#67

Post by toxik »

dijit wrote: post #16
esoterica wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means people with cheaper commutes get paid less than people with more expensive commutes. Why would you do that? You’re effectively rewarding people for living further from work and driving less fuel efficient vehicles, which both makes no business sense and is terrible for the environment.

I think the business doesn't really care where you live. I have made decisions to live close to my offices, not just for commute but because I consider myself responsible to go in when things break and spending 1.5hrs commuting won't do that. When I priced it up when I lived in London it came out to be about the same cost to live closer to the office than to commute even with public transport (which is not horrendous…

> I think the business doesn't really care where you live.

I know Palantir at least have explicit bonuses for living within some distance of the office. It can’t be that uncommon.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#68

Post by D13Fd »

quickthrowman wrote: post #48
daenz wrote: post #7

The article makes 2 main points: 1) that this lawsuit will cause companies to take WFH away. and 2) It's extremely difficult to bill things like fractional electricity and internet usage. The first is a flimsy premise because companies simply don't have the power to take WFH away and I think they know that. If they did, they would. But the collectivization for WFH, brought by lockdowns, is far too powerful. So powerf…

> 2) It's extremely difficult to bill things like fractional electricity Electricity metering is a solved problem, simply put all the office receptacles and lights on a single circuit and use a CT (current transformer) and a 120v submeter [0] to record energy usage. Landlords use these for tenant energy monitoring and billing in commercial real estate. [0] https://www.leviton.com/en/products/1n120-1d Honeywell even m…

Next on HN: Company x required me to re-wire my house if I wanted to work from home…

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#69

Post by sofixa »

philliphaydon wrote: post #4

In australia you can claim things like internet or computer and such at home if it’s used for work. Used to claim back half my internet costs every year.

The law is same here in France. If it's used for work purposes, the employer should cover it at least at 50%.

In a similar vein, commute costs ( by public transit) and food at lunch are covered at 50% or more, because they're making you come into an officr. Of course with remote work those no longer apply.

Re: Amazon Engineer Sues for Work from Home Costs

#70

Post by treis »

witheld wrote: post #66
swatcoder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because (thank goodness) employers don’t have a say in where you live or what your commute looks like. If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great. The employer doesn’t need to know or…

Just cap the commute costs to the mean of the commute cost of local businesses.

That just adds one more cost to doing business. And a potentially expensive one if it goes to litigation.

Money for work is simple and easy for both sides.

Post reply on HN