4 ms·

Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of

Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but have to pay for transportation only if they have to attend the company.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Your plumber is not an employee. Your plumber should be paying for the tools of their employees, yes. If you are an independent contractor, a company should pay your rate. If you are an employee the company should pay for the equipment needed for the job.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I would argue that there should be no employees and only independent contractors but this is going to be kind of offtopic for this thread.
Voloskaya 6y ago
I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office. Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.
alistairSH 6y ago
Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent). Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X. In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).

Pfhreak 6y ago

Your plumber is not an employee. Your plumber should be paying for the tools of their employees, yes. If you are an independent contractor, a company should pay your rate. If you are an employee the company should pay for the equipment needed for the job.

dependenttypes 6y ago
I would argue that there should be no employees and only independent contractors but this is going to be kind of offtopic for this thread.

Voloskaya 6y ago

I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office. Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.

alistairSH 6y ago

Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage? But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent). Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X. In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).