3 ms·

I get the motivation and incentives, I just can't make sense of it as paying a share of the worker's rent. It falls flat on its face from the start... e.g. what

I get the motivation and incentives, I just can't make sense of it as paying a share of the worker's rent. It falls flat on its face from the start... e.g. what if the worker is the homeowner and not paying any rent? What if the worker is living with their parents/children/etc. who are the ones paying rent? etc. Like fundamentally it seems bizarre that the employee's living agreement with a 3rd party (or lack thereof) should be relevant...

jeroenhd 6y ago
Regardless of the home situation of the worker, the worker needs to reserve space from the home they paid for or are paying for. Many who don't pay rent still pay mortgages. And even if the house is paid off, the company is still basically claiming a working space that they can skimp out on. The idea is that when a company lays claim to a space in your house, you should get something in return. It doesn't matter if there's four other people paying you rent while you from from home, your home is your space and not the employer's. Note that this is just an addition to the wage, not a direct bank transfer to the letting agency. A lot of subletting is also done this exact same way (e.g. paying money to the original renter who passes it on to pay the rent).
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  But that's exactly what I'm saying then. The way to reason about this is that, as an employee, you leasing (or subletting) a portion of your home to the company, and hence they need to pay you rent for occupying your home. This is very much not paying your share of any rent (which may not even exist); it's paying their own share of a rental agreement they've effectively entered into. It makes so much more sense that way than trying to reason it around the employee's living agreement.
  - La1n 6y ago
    Instead of seeing it as leasing a portion of your home to your company looks at it in the words the law uses, the company must provide you with what you need for work. I am sure if they went to court and tried to have their fees for a co-working space paid it would also need to be paid by the company.

jeroenhd 6y ago

Regardless of the home situation of the worker, the worker needs to reserve space from the home they paid for or are paying for. Many who don't pay rent still pay mortgages. And even if the house is paid off, the company is still basically claiming a working space that they can skimp out on. The idea is that when a company lays claim to a space in your house, you should get something in return. It doesn't matter if there's four other people paying you rent while you from from home, your home is your space and not the employer's. Note that this is just an addition to the wage, not a direct bank transfer to the letting agency. A lot of subletting is also done this exact same way (e.g. paying money to the original renter who passes it on to pay the rent).

mehrdadn 6y ago
But that's exactly what I'm saying then. The way to reason about this is that, as an employee, you leasing (or subletting) a portion of your home to the company, and hence they need to pay you rent for occupying your home. This is very much not paying your share of any rent (which may not even exist); it's paying their own share of a rental agreement they've effectively entered into. It makes so much more sense that way than trying to reason it around the employee's living agreement.
- La1n 6y ago
  Instead of seeing it as leasing a portion of your home to your company looks at it in the words the law uses, the company must provide you with what you need for work. I am sure if they went to court and tried to have their fees for a co-working space paid it would also need to be paid by the company.