4 ms·

In this case, it makes no sense for employer to pay. Everyone lives differently, have different homes, different cost of utilities etc. It makes more sense to p

In this case, it makes no sense for employer to pay. Everyone lives differently, have different homes, different cost of utilities etc. It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly. If using this theory that just because someone is working from home, we should pay a portion of rent etc, then where do we stop. Why not pay for their coffee/tea while they are working at home. How do we draw the line ?

Voloskaya 6y ago
> It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly. I, as a taxpayer, don't quite fancy having to pay for Amazon's 300k remote employees home-office while the company they work for doesn't pay any tax. > How do we draw the line? The line is already drawn, as an employer you are legally required to pay for the tools your employees need to do their work. So if the employee is a developer, that would be a laptop for example. Coffee and tea is not deemed necessary, so you don't have to pay for it. In my opinion, a proper space to work is definitly a requirement and should be added to that list for remote workers. As well as a microphone and probably webcam at a minimum. Asking taxpayers to pay for this instead of businesses makes 0 sense (although it's already like that in some juridictions). Edit: I forgot to add that employers that will be switching to remote-first for the long term are the one that will save money on rent, while their employees will have a higher rent on average. So it does make quite a lot of sense for employer to pay and keep the balance in that scenario.
bpfrh 6y ago
I disagree, for me this is an extension of "the employer has to provide me with the tools to work". If I need a desk and a room to work and they don't want to make space in their buildings, then they have to pay for me to set it up. Nobody would bat an eye that a company has to pay for the laptops of their employer.
falcor84 6y ago
As they say, developers are machines that turn coffee into code. As such, if a line must be drawn, I would definitely draw it past coffee/tea and everything else which has a reasonable impact on developer productivity.

Voloskaya 6y ago

> It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly. I, as a taxpayer, don't quite fancy having to pay for Amazon's 300k remote employees home-office while the company they work for doesn't pay any tax. > How do we draw the line? The line is already drawn, as an employer you are legally required to pay for the tools your employees need to do their work. So if the employee is a developer, that would be a laptop for example. Coffee and tea is not deemed necessary, so you don't have to pay for it. In my opinion, a proper space to work is definitly a requirement and should be added to that list for remote workers. As well as a microphone and probably webcam at a minimum. Asking taxpayers to pay for this instead of businesses makes 0 sense (although it's already like that in some juridictions). Edit: I forgot to add that employers that will be switching to remote-first for the long term are the one that will save money on rent, while their employees will have a higher rent on average. So it does make quite a lot of sense for employer to pay and keep the balance in that scenario.

bpfrh 6y ago

I disagree, for me this is an extension of "the employer has to provide me with the tools to work". If I need a desk and a room to work and they don't want to make space in their buildings, then they have to pay for me to set it up. Nobody would bat an eye that a company has to pay for the laptops of their employer.

falcor84 6y ago

As they say, developers are machines that turn coffee into code. As such, if a line must be drawn, I would definitely draw it past coffee/tea and everything else which has a reasonable impact on developer productivity.