25 ms·
California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses
- jacobkg 3y agoI was reading an article on California worker protections and came across a reference to this. For some reason I had never heard about this law in spite of living and working remotely in CA for years. Note that it may only apply if the employee lives in CA.
- extr 3y agoDoes this apply to workers in CA who work for employers headquartered out of state?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- RationPhantoms 3y agoWhat about workers in other states (NY) working for a CA-based employer?
- ghaff 3y agoPresumably they would have to comply with labor laws in the state as they do today.
- jacobkg 3y agoUnclear. I first learned about this law in an article about employees potentially losing benefits by moving out of state: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-10-31/remote-workers-are-moving-out-of-california-what-benefits-and-rights-could-they-lose https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-10-31/remote-wor...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago“Headquarters” is irrelevant for state employment laws. If an employee is working within the geographic boundaries of state A, then that employee’s employer is an employer in state A and has to follow all the laws of state A. Same for state taxes.
- freitzkriesler2 3y agoSounds like a low key way to force employees back into the office.
- gumby 3y agoHow so?
- londons_explore 3y agoMany employers currently have a "work from the office 3/4/5 days a week" policy, but don't really enforce it. This will force them to enforce it, with the threat of having to pay a big bill if any employee claims to be working from home.
- danans 3y agoThe article clarifies that scenario: "However, if your organization has returned to in-person work, but you choose to work from home, it's less likely that your business expenses will be seen as "necessary"—as you could have avoided them by working from the office or other worksite."
- ghaff 3y agoCalifornia regulations aside, my understanding is that's sort of the tax code today. My accountant always told me that home office expenses were a questionable deduction if you had an office to go into if you wanted to.
- plz-remove-card 3y ago> 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, etc. I think CA had good intentions here, but I think it's going to give employers one less reason to hire remote employees in CA.
- api 3y agoThis is California. We can't have any affordable living options.
- gumby 3y agoHow is this related to that?
- intrasight 3y agoBecause state regulations make things unaffordable
- losteric 3y agoReal 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-forever-to-approve-new-housing-california-officials-are-forcing-change https://www.kqed.org/news/11965492/san-francisco-takes-forev... - which cities are dragging their feet on
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- losteric 3y agoRTO requires living near an absurdly unsustainably expensive tech hub and/or intolerably long commutes (ie working hours).
- pfisherman 3y agoI like the idea, but not the implementation. I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead. Doing so creates positive incentives for companies to hire remote workers in California. Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. I also think that it would be more equitable since an employee’s home office setup belongs to them and not their employer.
- fckgw 3y agoThe company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
- tensor 3y agoThe 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.
- Loughla 3y agoOkay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
- frumper 3y agoWork 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.
- ghaff 3y agoTax deductible (which for most people in the US means nothing today) is different from being reimbursed.
- m3kw9 3y agoThis would accelerate back to office a bit. Remote workers seemed to have barked up the wrong tree this time
- Waterluvian 3y agoNo not "remote workers". More, "some interest group local to California that may involve some unclear number of remote workers."
- _ea1k 3y agoIt is shocking how quick people are to blame perceived beneficiaries instead of the people actually pushing for changes.
- troebr 3y agoMy 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.
- ghaff 3y agoUnless 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.
- rubiquity 3y agoThere’s these things called home offices and many have converted a room to be one when working from home all the time.
- laweijfmvo 3y agoHow do you value the opportunity cost of an extra bedroom?
- kjkjadksj 3y agoIts not unheard of to carve out the home office already for tax purposes.
- photochemsyn 3y agoWhat the definition of 'employee' vs. 'independent contractor with a non-compete clause in their contract' in relation to this?
- tedivm 3y agoSince it's California, which has banned non compete clauses, the second category doesn't actually exist.
- petercooper 3y agoThis 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 employees, employers and office holders to develop ancillary skills that would improve their work because training, materials, and courses for such are not considered entirely "necessary" to do the job. The government then sits around wondering why per employee productivity growth has flatlined when self-improvement and education, even entirely within the scope of someone's job, is often a taxable benefit.
- bombcar 3y agoIt 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).
- ghaff 3y agoAdd 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.
- dmoy 3y ago> but uniforms (and related) that are deductible Not after 2017, I think?
- ghaff 3y agoEntirely possible. Presumably most people who wear uniforms don't itemize deductions today in any case. The broader point was that people get various random perks that don't get taxed and have various expenses that don't get reimbursed/deducted.
- bombcar 3y agoExpenses such as this are pre-tax, so there is a benefit to the employee for the employer to take (say) $500 a month from salary and designate it as "remote worker expense reimbursement)". You lose less than $500 after-tax and gain $500 cash (untaxed).
- chrischen 3y agoYea it seems like a pro-company benefit because all these companies can start treating all this as pre-tax benefits like the good old free untaxed lunch days. So it seems like they are trying to target remote work companies because the shift to remote work means companies were effectively paying employees post tax for home work environments.
- alwaysrunning 3y agoI 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.
- lm28469 3y agoShouldn't it be covered by your salary ? Otherwise why don't companies pay for my gas/tire/shoe soles/&c ?
- sokoloff 3y agoI would prefer that my employer consider some of my expenses for working from home to be expenses rather than things that I pay out of my salary. Suppose I have $500/mo in "real" expenses. I'm better off if my company reduces my otherwise-salary by $500/mo and gives me an expense reimbursement for even $400/mo. That $400/mo is non-taxable to me and tax-deductible to the company. So, the company saves $100/mo (the difference between $400/mo and $500/mo), and I have an extra ~$100/mo ($400 - $500/mo * (1 - marginal_tax_rate)), assuming a marginal tax rate (combined fed/state/local) of 40%.
- chrischen 3y agoSo in the end it’s all part of salary. Not tax-exempting just shows how inept the company’s finance team is more than whether or not they value your time.
- sokoloff 3y agoSalary is always taxable to the employee. The expense documentation and reimbursement process above requires it to not be part of salary. It's part of the overall value proposition to the employee, but it cannot be part of salary.
- renewiltord 3y agoYeah, but the rest of us don't want that because we have to pick up the slack in taxes. Personally, I would prefer if I just didn't pay any income taxes. That way, I would save a few hundred thousand and my employer could pay me a hundred thousand less and I'd come out ahead.
- TrackerFF 3y agoSome quick napkin math: Say you work 100% remote, 8 hours a day. That's 2080 work hours a year, out of 8760 hours. That means you need to be connected to internet, have electricity, etc. 23.74% of the time - let's round that up to 24% Say a worker pays $600 / year for internet, $2400 for electricity / year, and - dunno - $1500 for your cellphone / year. So that's $4500 / year, and your employer must cover approximately $1080 of that. If the company has 1000 employees, that's a million in extra costs. Doesn't really sound like it is going to break the bank, especially not if your employer is also able to cut previous office-related costs. Also, employers would probably start to offer a bit lower salaries to the workers that don't live in very high cost of living areas...if you pay 1000 employers on average $100k / year, that's a minimum $100m in annual salary expenses. If employees are willing to take a $99k salary for guaranteed 100% remote work, with the above expenses covered, then those costs are offset for the employer...
- ramesh31 3y agoI've said over and over again that I would easily take a 50% salary cut to stay remote if it were the only option. I don't want to "get one over" on anyone, work multiple jobs, or slack off. I just want a square deal that does not dictate my physical location in life.
- timtom39 3y agoMy company is largely remote at this point and is moving away from CA for cost/tax reasons. For some portion of companies this is just one more reason to move headquarters. That being said, I live in a pretty population dense area and my largest cost by far is dedicated home office space. It would be nice for my company to pay for that but it would have also been nice for them to pay for gas for my commute when I had one. I think CA is likely overplaying their hand. They are not the place of choice for many remote employees (because of taxes) and are trying hard to not be the place of choice for remote companies.
- civilitty 3y agoAs a Californian who has lived here for a quarter century and has never threatened to leave, I’m glad the state doesn’t cater to startups who can’t afford an extra 5% for home office expenses for their remote workers. They have zero loyalty to the state and if all employees are remote there’s little benefit keeping the corp in CA. Everyone has to register to do business here and the FTB will get the bulk of its cut anyway. Good riddance. We need the space more than we need the tax revenue. (no offense intended, the housing situation is just dire and I’ll use any excuse to convince people to move out cause so few actually people want to)
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoMy personal red line is when the employer insists a camera has to always be on in the working area. That's when I tell 'em, as nicely as possible, with an "aw shucks I'm terribly sorry", that they're gonna have to pay rent.
- gosub100 3y agojust wear an AZ wildcats shirt and loop the video feed?
- foobiekr 3y agoAre there employers that insist on an always on camera in the working area? Who?
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoFlorida company got sued for doing it, not because they were doing it, but because they were doing it to someone who was in the Netherlands. NE law overrides right-to-work, even for a US employee, because it's in NE territory. <Redacted_Name_of_Defense_Prime> subsidiary had a department that did it - "do not turn off computer, do not block camera, if camera inoperative get one from IT" - but it was only for full time WFH staff. Supposedly the machine wouldn't boot up all the way without the camera coming on. US employees in right to work states probably don't have a legal argument against this. And as always, if you do bring legal action, you're blacklisting yourself pretty badly. Whistleblowing, ethics complains, lawsuits are first filter passes for HR; hell, even for current employees, central "Ethics Hotlines" fire back caller IDs right back to local HR. So the troublemakers can get on the pink slip short list; doesn't hurt that the typical "troublemaker" is mid-late career, so it saves more money too. Sure, that's a shambling pile of DFARS violations, but that doesn't keep it from happening.
- sproketboy 3y ago[dead]
- vondur 3y agoSo the article says these costs are reimbursable if you are required to work from home, but not if you are voluntarily doing it. So many of us that are required to be in the office sometime during the week but may work remote other times, how would this affect them?
- chrischen 3y agoDoes this mean independent contractors and small (1-2 people) companies can start deducting these things?
- timtom39 3y agoYou can already deduct many of these and should be. Talk to an accountant but deduction is usually ratio of usage for work vs personal. Also, keep your personal and work expenses very separate in case there is ever an audit.
- smileysteve 3y agoIndependent contractors and small (self-owned) companies should definitely be claiming the home office expense... There has not been a point in the last 40 years where they shouldn't be https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/home-office-deduction-at-a-glance https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/home-offi...
- NeoTar 3y agoCan I make my periodic reminder to US-Americans that two-letter state abbreviations are not universally recognized, and please to use full state names where possible. The case of California / CA is especially bad, since this is the ISO-code for Canada, so the article title is unnecessarily ambiguous.
- jacobkg 3y agoSorry about that! I updated the title
- NeoTar 3y agoThanks so much! Shouting into the darkness sometimes has results! :-D
- AlotOfReading 3y agoI was curious about the historical precedent here. The earliest usage of "CA" referring to Canada I could find was a 1913 British abbreviation guide, and it doesn't seem to have been in common use until ISO 3166 was published in the 70s. "CA" referring to California was standardized by the USPS in 1907 to avoid confusion with Colorado, and the term seems to have been in wide use well before that point because it's documented in the 1880's Webster dictionary as referring to California. It doesn't help that the official subdivision code for California according to 3166 is "CA".
- dehrmann 3y agoCalifornia has more people, a larger economy, and more mindshare. It's probably safe to assume "CA" outside something obviously Canadian is California. Even Ontario CA is 50/50.
- hyperpape 3y agoIn the past few years, Canada's population passed that of California. Canada's population is growing very fast, while California's has grown modestly for a decade, and slightly shrank over the past few years.
- DonnyV 3y agoThis is what happens when you have no regulations. This would of never come up if California actually regulated the electric companies and internet providers.
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoMany young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above. This law does not work in your favor.
- phpisthebest 3y agoDont inject reality... If we pass the rights laws and elect the correct people with the correct opinion we can have a utopia... We just have to do it...
- JohnBooty 3y agoDon't inject reality... If have no laws and let the corporations decide our rights, we can have a utopia... We just have to do it...
- sureglymop 3y agoInstead, let's actually just not even try because we can't reach perfection and utopia anyway.
- nxm 3y agoBe careful so that your state doesn’t turn into…California
- phpisthebest 3y agoIf government programs where judged by their results and not their intention I would have more faith in trying things via government But in reality government programs are only ever judged by their intentions, never their results, and if anyone attempts to apply some kind of ROI metric to them the inevitable retort is "we just did not spend enough tax payer money for it to be effective" or "evil rich people lobbied for a loop hole that is just close it then we would have utopia" but of course that utopia never comes
- lbrito 3y agoDuring the pandemic, Canada had something similar, but subsidized by the government. For 2020 and 2021, if you worked remotely during part of the year because of the pandemic, you would get a tax credit. The value of the credit was either flat (a few hundred dollars) or proportional to things like the size of your home office (multiplied by work related expenses like internet, power etc). It was a sizeable credit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- armchairhacker 3y agoThis is stupid as someone who would work remote for a pay cut. I will pay for the electricity, laptop, etc. myself. I’d much rather have them pay hourly workers for commute time and reimburse in-office workers for gas/bus/subway costs.
- wirrbel 3y agoI’m all for workers protection but by this logic possible workers should get their commute costs covered by additional pay and at some point maybe the negotiated salary should be the default pay.
- clcaev 3y agoPresumably this standardizes a category of expense reimbursement which is not subject to federal and state taxes.
- eagleinparadise 3y agoSomeone I'm close to is an exec in the architecture and engineering industry and during covid told me that companies are going to go back to office because of the nightmare dealing with these kinds of issues. He made the point that, what happens if your employee gets hurt working from home? It's a silly example but the employer could be liable for some reason since the employer could have failed to provide a "safe working environment". Not sure if this actually could happen in reality, but an employer has to think about these possibilities and determine the risk (and mgmt overhead) of remote vs in person
- FireBeyond 3y agoMy ex-employer actually covered that, had verbiage along the lines of "a safe and comfortable" working environment at home. To their credit, though, if you were concerned about something, you could ask. (But then, how far does that go? A non-slip mat? Shelving? Rewiring your home for old electrical?)
- anarticle 3y agoI'm a professional, I buy my own tools whenever possible. Gigabit ethernet, big monitor, nice keyboard, desk, chair, rocket fast machine. I've been remote for 13y. It would be nice to get reimbursed, sure, but also I don't want to deal with the administrivia.
- gosub100 3y agoI worked at a remote-first place that made you use your own damn computer! No reimbursement.
- anarticle 3y agoNo corp-it spyware at least! And the sky is the limit for how nice of machine you can build/buy.
- FireBeyond 3y agoSure. I'm similar, too, been fully remote since 2007. Within reason. When a healthcare startup wanted to me to work on PHI on my BYOD? No. Not a chance.
- trentnix 3y agoThey gotta get people back in those vacant, downtown offices somehow. If California can eliminate the savings that remote work brings for an employer, then maybe employers will choose to fill up those offices they are leasing. But instead, this will just be a signal to any employers still on the fence to get out of California as soon as you’re able. I work remote. I’m happy to work remote. And for that convenience, I’m willing to accept that there are some costs - electricity, water, heating and cooling - that I’m taking on. Why the government (and my fellow voters who choose to empower their government in this way) doesn’t allow me the agency to choose my own employment cost-benefits and trust that I can take care of myself continues to baffle.
- cryptonector 3y agoWFO costs still greatly exceed WFH costs. This helps RTO a bit, but only a bit. Perhaps it will be more psychological than anything.
- dataflow 3y agoHow does this interact with IP rights? Like say you have a single room in your house, and your employer buys you a desk and a chair. You sit on those after work to research ideas for a new startup and develop stuff on your own time. Does that now belong to the employer?
- Auracle 3y agoMy wife works remotely as an accountant. We have Starlink as it’s the best internet available in our area, and we used to have an unlimited hotspot as well for other reasons. We’re very close to a cell tower. Her company requires her to have some form of wired internet. So, instead of paying for the Starlink or the hotspot they’re paying for 25/1 mbps DSL that never actually reaches those speeds. The Starlink and hotspot both are/were closer to 200/10. We never use the DSL, apart from the very occasional heavy thunderstorm. Sometimes what companies think you require doesn’t match up with reality.
- plussed_reader 3y agoThey're paying for coverage in that thunderstorm; that's the business expense to ensure connectivity for their remote widget. Why would your wifes employer compensate for a tool that doesn't meet their needs?
- Auracle 3y agoIt's so slow it's basically unusable for her. I don't know the full details of how her job works as far as uploads/downloads go but it seems that even with something 15x faster than that DSL connection she's often waiting a minute or two, and I know there have been times where she's been uploading something for 30+ minutes. Having those instances 10-15x slower would make it so she literally can't do her job. The hotspot worked just fine in thunderstorms and was significantly faster. I even had our router set up to automatically bump over to the hotspot for the rare occasions the Starlink went down.
- thirdsun 3y agoI mean your wife could probably explain her employer that the company is paying for a connection that doesn't provide enough bandwidth to do the job and that the money would be better spent on the Starlink connection. Of course they might just conclude that your remote location isn't compatible with the demands of the job though.
- 3y ago
- kkfx 3y agoThe "correct compensation" IMO is simply a negotiated fee for the temporary rent of the home office, negotiating if the worker just provide walls or a complete office ready to work. If he/she provide just the walls it's up to the employer provide and get back the rest. If it's already fully operational it's up to the employee keep it up and running. For the IT part, it's up to the company IT choosing a fully managed or partially managed setup, case by case. This might sound complex and long, but it's the way to avoid problems on both sides and a way to mitigate on both sides the "quick&easy" change that allow employers to drop employees as objects, and employees to treat employers like stakeholders in a consulting setup witch is by far the main friction point in full remote work.
- adolph 3y agoWould such reimbursement count as income for Federal taxes if the reimbusement is for things that the IRS doesn't deem deductible for full time employees working from home?
- snarfy 3y agoTo be fair, if they are going to do that they should pay for transportation costs of in-office workers too.
- rixtox 3y agoI ask the opposite - should employers reimburse commute expenses for return to office workers? Gas / electric, and time wasted on traffics etc?
- throw93 3y agoTo be blunt, if reimbursing your employees for better working environment makes your business non-feasible then your business is based on exploiting workers and does not deserve to exist.
- jerlam 3y agoMy company implemented a temporary reimbursement for internet / phone access when we were all involuntarily WFH a few years ago. Few people bothered, even though it was technically free money. The requirements for submission were annoying and repetitive, the expense system was slow and aggravating to use, the submission could be rejected for any number of unclear reasons, we all felt that it was completely unnecessary, and the amount reimbursed was nearly trivial compared to our salaries. If California really wants to go this route, it should be a simple stipend added to the paycheck. Requiring companies to determine themselves the correct amount, implement their own rules, and have employees spend their time copying bills sounds like a lose-lose scenario where all parties are annoyed.
- wintermutestwin 3y agoHard to look at this objectively when employees don’t get reimbursed for their commute time and expenses.
- tristor 3y agoI've worked remotely for about 10 years now. I actually don't want my employer covering these expenses. If the employer is covering these expenses it requires me to document the expenses and comply with employer policies related to these expenses. For instance, an employer may mandate what speed of Internet service I am required to have, where I always want the fastest option (gigabit generally) and redundant links. Filing more expense reports in the horrid system made by SAP also is not on my list of things I want to do. For the ~$1k/yr or so in expenses that I'd get back, I'd rather eat it. This is less than you spend on gas to commute and that's not covered, so frankly I don't care. Just pay me a fair salary with reasonable benefits and stay the fuck out of my personal life/home as an employer.
- haizhung 3y agoI’d go out on a limb here and conjecture that you can still by stuff from your own money without submitting a claim.
- tristor 3y agoIf the state requires it to be covered for all employees and it's subject to audit, whether or not I pay for anything additional, I'd still have to follow the policies and provide supporting documentation so my employer would be able to comply with the legal requirement. That's the hassle.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoSo you don't want more coverage because you don't feel like doing paperwork? I fail to see the issue. These laws have good faith in them and of you refuse to give paperwork after multiple prompting you more or less waive that coverage. They have to follow the law but they can't force you to hand over your energy bill. Alternatively, they will estimate based on data they already have and throw it into soke benefits account (if one exists). I also imagine there is a maximum coverage rate to prevent abuse, since existing laws require to pay only a portion based on how much office space you dedicate in your house.
- mountainofdeath 3y agoThis is stupid. In an ideal US world, where healthcare insurance premiums aren't insane and aren't skewed toward large corporations, then everyone should be a contractor. The person hiring you sends you payment and you do the work in accordance with your contract. At the end of the quarter, you total up your expenses (as already allowed under existing law) and subtract them from your revenue. You owe taxes on what is left. With remote work, its really hard to anticipate costs you do not control e.g electricity. Furthermore, even the IRS insists that only subtract expenses that are substantially used for work. Years ago, anyone with a home office would consider their entire mortgage a business expense. Now, its subject to a complex set of rules taking into account the time spent actually working and the relative square footage of your work area relative to your home. Furthermore, isn't this creeping into the territory of company towns? At what point would it just be cheaper to throw people into barracks, deducting room, board and laundry and simply remit the rest to the worker?
- genewitch 3y agoI saw the headline, and was going to send this to my friend who i got a job at a California company who now works remotely across the country, then realized she works for the company that owns nolo.com Cute, i wonder if they're reimbursing these days, because they didn't reimburse anything when i was 3/5ths remote 11 years ago.
- Salgat 3y agoI'm only okay with this if we also force employers to reimburse commute.
- perfectstorm 3y agoi wonder how this would work when you are hired as remote, but your company has an office nearby?
- dehrmann 3y ago> Although the law regarding these expenses is not yet decided, remote California workers may also be entitled to reimbursement for: > the cost of dedicated home office space If that actually happens, expect lots of RTO. That extra bedroom for the home office is priced similarly to 100 sqft of office space.
- Arubis 3y agoPoint of clarification from TFA: my reading is that this applies to _any_ employer when the _employee_ is California-based, not any employee when the employer is California-based.
- olliej 3y agoNow if only they would do so for expenses from going to the office: gas, tolls, car maintenance, time, etc
- legitster 3y ago> For example, one court found that when an employee had to use his personal cell phone to make work calls, his employer was required to reimburse him for a portion of his phone bill even though the employee did not incur any additional expenses because he had an unlimited data plan. The court found that any other interpretation would result in an unfair windfall to the employer. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, but this seems like an accounting headache that's more trouble than it's worth. Especially for bills that are at a fixed monthly cost - I already am paying for internet, the marginal cost to me is nothing. And furthermore, if I knew someone who was so insistent on penny pinching their employer in such a way, I would ask if they really want to give their employer such "hooks" into their personal life and finances? Do I really want to be in a situation where I go to my employer and say "as you can see, 40% of my time online was spent working" and then they get to audit my records and find that 50% of the time I was spent working was also on Netflix? Is that change in precedent worth the few bucks you save?
- WalterBright 3y agoThe percentage of utility bills one is entitled to reimbursement for is ripe for fraud and abuse. BTW, if you have a home office, you can already deduct from taxable income a cut of those, but if you cheat on it the IRS is going to fix your wagon. The home office tax deduction also is going to reduce the basis of your profit on selling the house, meaning more taxes. Companies aren't set up like the IRS to audit your utility bills. Besides, do you really want your employer auditing the percentage of your electricity use? I'm sure they don't want to, either. Me, I don't care to do the paperwork required for this, and don't do a home office deduction. P.S. I'm not a CPA and this is not tax advice.
- WalterBright 3y agoDoes California really want to make it more expensive to hire remote employees?
- eYrKEC2 3y agoIf I were an employer hiring for a remote CA position I would just do accounting -- we were going to hire you for $150k, but now it will be $146.3k with an expected $3.7k of expense reimbursements.
- culopatin 3y agoThe company I work for just decided that me being remote is not for the benefit of the company but for my benefit. That if I want to keep working remote I have to cover my internet now. The office is in Kansas City… they hired me remote day 1, the role was remote, and I never lived in Kansas City. I don’t know if I’m glad that this does not affect them or if I wish it did. On one hand it’s ~$900 more a year. On the other hand, more pressure for them to kick me if they had to do cuts.