5 ms·
Sounds like a low key way to force employees back into the office.
by freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Sounds 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.
- adrr 3y agoCompany can't afford $75 a month? Thats cheaper than the parking at my office which is $500/m per car.
- Spivak 3y agoSeems like it could be sorted pretty quickly if employers had to reimburse mileage and "reasonable commute times" for hourly calculations. Just the mileage for a 10 mile one-way commute would be $260/mo
- plz-remove-card 3y agoI personally like this idea better anyway.
- tayo42 3y agoThis was my first thought, but the article mentions the they interpret that situation to not be a necessary expense since your voluntarily working remote. Maybe not as bad as my first reaction. The expenses listed seemed pretty typical for benefits. My last job already let me expense my cell phoen, internet, gave me a stipend for office equipment
- n2d4 3y agoBut if you come to the office, they will have to pay that too. Electricity and internet is not free, even in offices. After all, the whole point of this decision is to equalise the "windfall", as the article says.
- frogpelt 3y agoIt seems apparent? Asking for employers to pay more for remote workers than they do for in-office employees will either result in fewer remote jobs or remote jobs paying lower salary (which will lead to lower demand for remote jobs).
- bcx5k15 3y agoIf it works out as say £150/seat/month to be in the office vs say £600/year for a reliable broadband connection, contributions toward power/heat, and providing a chair/desk/monitor setup, many won't consider the 2/3 cost saving worthwhile.
- karaterobot 3y agoOnly in a world where businesses are not motivated by profit. It would be far cheaper for businesses to stop leasing an office, or to lease a smaller office, than to force a return to work. Everything they'd have to pay for in a work from home scenario is also an expense in an office environment, plus the lease of the office space itself.
- rconti 3y agoI mean, it's a law blog describing the current state of the world, not new or proposed legislation or employer policy.