6 ms·

Some 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 inte

Some 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 ago
I'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 ago
My 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 ago
  As 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)
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there. You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors.
    - photonbucket 3y ago
      Half of us want the property values lowered, so that it's even possible to buy something
      - valianteffort 3y ago
        And a lot of people were stuck buying at inflated prices.
        kevingadd 3y ago
        That's your mistake, it's not their responsibility to make you rich
        valianteffort 3y ago
        I never said that. What the previous gent said was he wanted property prices artificially lowered. I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that. My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.
- dheera 3y ago
  Where I live, dedicated home office space is about 1/4 the cost of commercial rent, in terms of $/sqft. It would be stupid for companies to not pay for it in lieu of commercial real estate.
- brightball 3y ago
  > 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. This is probably the best equivalent comparison I've seen in the thread. Paying commute costs vs paying home office costs.
  - genewitch 3y ago
    i'm unsure if i've mentioned this ever, but i had a company give me a large bonus (to my salary) when i requested remote work, with a contractual rider stating that my salary would go up an additional $15,000 if i moved within 20 minutes of the office within 1 year. The bonus was to entice me to come to the office more often - that is, to offset my pain and suffering, wear and tear, fuel costs, etc. I still did 3/5 days remote.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
It seems reasonable to take whatever square footage is your desk/office space out of your rent and bill that to your employer too.
Shawnj2 3y ago
At that point it’s basically another benefit so I don’t think that’s super terrible for employers
- AnotherGoodName 3y ago
  Yeah to give some context the average cost that employers pay for health insurance in the USA is $1,251 per month. For the big tech companies it's often higher due to better coverage/location. So this is nothing. Employers will not flinch at this.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    I do think salaries will be adjusted a little bit in new listings but 115k vs 116k is not a huge difference and I doubt most medium or large employers will make a stink over reducing people’s pay over this
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      $1000 is an order of magnitude less than the negotiable range for most white collar workers' salary. It's completely rounding error.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      They might be adjusted, but not because they need to be. It's simply a great excuse to squeeze even more from employees.
cptskippy 3y ago
And how much does a business save by having to buy/rent, insure, secure, power, internet, water, clean, and climate control a large building for all of it's employees vs reimbursing them for working from home?
memco 3y ago
I would guess even lower than those estimates. Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes: I expect they wouldn’t be on the hook for even the full percentage of electricity and data for work devices used from home. This could be a nice offset but I would be surprised if companies start picking up the tab for a full 8 hours of electricity for a home, let alone 8 hours of usage of a single computer. Additionally if it requires tracking and reimbursement the way miles do it will be a burden not all employees will bear.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes How so? Are you arguing that the IRS 65.5 cents per mile doesn't appropriately compensate for costs?
  - memco 3y ago
    Yes, although it is pretty good. My gas currently costs only 14 cents per mile so the other 51.5 cents needs to cover the cost for insurance and maintenance and the purchase price which can mean that you could come out ahead or behind depending on the situation. The company isn’t required to pay the full cost of operating the vehicle if they are more than the 65.5 cents so from that I am extrapolating that companies aren’t going to be paying the full price per employee just some averaged price. It will be a help to those who are currently paying out of pocket costs and will hopefully not be an undue burden on employers or employees.
cryptonector 3y ago
Office costs are easily 10x that. Meanwhile, should employers also reimburse employees for commuting costs? Why not? Those costs probably exceed the wfh costs to the employees. Does CA require the reimbursement of commuting costs? If not, is it not fair to view this new requirement as a backdoor way to increase return-to-office pressure?
changoplatanero 3y ago
I don’t understand why people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into any sort of employment contract that they wish. As long as both parties are well informed then they should be free to agree on what expenses will be covered and what won’t
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thehappypm 3y ago
  Are you opposed to a minimum wage?
  - changoplatanero 3y ago
    On principle, yes. The superbowl halftime show is a good example. As an observer, sometimes its hard to tell if the artist in the halftime show is being paid by the NFL to entertain the fans or if they are paying the NFL (effectively accepting a negative wage) for the chance to promote their personal brand. If they can accept a negative wage when they want why can't I be free to negotiate the same for myself?
    - ghaff 3y ago
      You pretty much can as a non-employee. I'm fully able to earn well below minimum wage writing a book for reputational purposes.
      - coffeebeqn 3y ago
        Heck - start a restaurant or something and make -$30k a year for a few years
  - VirusNewbie 3y ago
    Yes, it is immoral. You are taking away someone’s freedom to willingly enter into a contract. Plenty of successful societies do not have a minimum wage.
maweaver 3y ago
According to the article, electricity costs are not yet decided, so it's probably closer to $2,100/year. Also that's only for workers who are required to be remote, not those that choose to be, so likely doesn't apply to all employees (edit: sorry, required or encouraged to be remote)
conk 3y ago
My commute costs going into the office everyday for a year are far more than $1000/year. I estimate it’s about $4k/year and that’s with taking public transit & biking. Those commute costs aren’t covered by my employer. I’d gladly trade a $4K decrease in commute costs for a $1k increase in internet and electricity. Also internet is fixed so regardless if I’m remote or in office I’m still paying the same bill.
- dragonmost 3y ago
  If you don't want that money I'll gladly take it. Or should my employer pay for my commute instead?
akira2501 3y ago
> Doesn't really sound like it is going to break the bank, "You did the math wrong. You cheated me. I'm getting a lawyer!"

ramesh31 3y ago

I'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 ago

My 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 ago
As 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)
- valianteffort 3y ago
  And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there. You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors.
  - photonbucket 3y ago
    Half of us want the property values lowered, so that it's even possible to buy something
    - valianteffort 3y ago
      And a lot of people were stuck buying at inflated prices.
      - kevingadd 3y ago
        That's your mistake, it's not their responsibility to make you rich
        valianteffort 3y ago
        I never said that. What the previous gent said was he wanted property prices artificially lowered. I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that. My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.
dheera 3y ago
Where I live, dedicated home office space is about 1/4 the cost of commercial rent, in terms of $/sqft. It would be stupid for companies to not pay for it in lieu of commercial real estate.
brightball 3y ago
> 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. This is probably the best equivalent comparison I've seen in the thread. Paying commute costs vs paying home office costs.
- genewitch 3y ago
  i'm unsure if i've mentioned this ever, but i had a company give me a large bonus (to my salary) when i requested remote work, with a contractual rider stating that my salary would go up an additional $15,000 if i moved within 20 minutes of the office within 1 year. The bonus was to entice me to come to the office more often - that is, to offset my pain and suffering, wear and tear, fuel costs, etc. I still did 3/5 days remote.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

It seems reasonable to take whatever square footage is your desk/office space out of your rent and bill that to your employer too.

Shawnj2 3y ago

At that point it’s basically another benefit so I don’t think that’s super terrible for employers

AnotherGoodName 3y ago
Yeah to give some context the average cost that employers pay for health insurance in the USA is $1,251 per month. For the big tech companies it's often higher due to better coverage/location. So this is nothing. Employers will not flinch at this.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  I do think salaries will be adjusted a little bit in new listings but 115k vs 116k is not a huge difference and I doubt most medium or large employers will make a stink over reducing people’s pay over this
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    $1000 is an order of magnitude less than the negotiable range for most white collar workers' salary. It's completely rounding error.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    They might be adjusted, but not because they need to be. It's simply a great excuse to squeeze even more from employees.

cptskippy 3y ago

And how much does a business save by having to buy/rent, insure, secure, power, internet, water, clean, and climate control a large building for all of it's employees vs reimbursing them for working from home?

memco 3y ago

I would guess even lower than those estimates. Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes: I expect they wouldn’t be on the hook for even the full percentage of electricity and data for work devices used from home. This could be a nice offset but I would be surprised if companies start picking up the tab for a full 8 hours of electricity for a home, let alone 8 hours of usage of a single computer. Additionally if it requires tracking and reimbursement the way miles do it will be a burden not all employees will bear.

ghaff 3y ago
>Companies only pay a fraction of the gas mileage used on a car for work purposes How so? Are you arguing that the IRS 65.5 cents per mile doesn't appropriately compensate for costs?
- memco 3y ago
  Yes, although it is pretty good. My gas currently costs only 14 cents per mile so the other 51.5 cents needs to cover the cost for insurance and maintenance and the purchase price which can mean that you could come out ahead or behind depending on the situation. The company isn’t required to pay the full cost of operating the vehicle if they are more than the 65.5 cents so from that I am extrapolating that companies aren’t going to be paying the full price per employee just some averaged price. It will be a help to those who are currently paying out of pocket costs and will hopefully not be an undue burden on employers or employees.

cryptonector 3y ago

Office costs are easily 10x that. Meanwhile, should employers also reimburse employees for commuting costs? Why not? Those costs probably exceed the wfh costs to the employees. Does CA require the reimbursement of commuting costs? If not, is it not fair to view this new requirement as a backdoor way to increase return-to-office pressure?

changoplatanero 3y ago

I don’t understand why people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into any sort of employment contract that they wish. As long as both parties are well informed then they should be free to agree on what expenses will be covered and what won’t

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 3y ago
Are you opposed to a minimum wage?
- changoplatanero 3y ago
  On principle, yes. The superbowl halftime show is a good example. As an observer, sometimes its hard to tell if the artist in the halftime show is being paid by the NFL to entertain the fans or if they are paying the NFL (effectively accepting a negative wage) for the chance to promote their personal brand. If they can accept a negative wage when they want why can't I be free to negotiate the same for myself?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    You pretty much can as a non-employee. I'm fully able to earn well below minimum wage writing a book for reputational purposes.
    - coffeebeqn 3y ago
      Heck - start a restaurant or something and make -$30k a year for a few years
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  Yes, it is immoral. You are taking away someone’s freedom to willingly enter into a contract. Plenty of successful societies do not have a minimum wage.

maweaver 3y ago

According to the article, electricity costs are not yet decided, so it's probably closer to $2,100/year. Also that's only for workers who are required to be remote, not those that choose to be, so likely doesn't apply to all employees (edit: sorry, required or encouraged to be remote)

conk 3y ago

My commute costs going into the office everyday for a year are far more than $1000/year. I estimate it’s about $4k/year and that’s with taking public transit & biking. Those commute costs aren’t covered by my employer. I’d gladly trade a $4K decrease in commute costs for a $1k increase in internet and electricity. Also internet is fixed so regardless if I’m remote or in office I’m still paying the same bill.

dragonmost 3y ago
If you don't want that money I'll gladly take it. Or should my employer pay for my commute instead?

akira2501 3y ago

> Doesn't really sound like it is going to break the bank, "You did the math wrong. You cheated me. I'm getting a lawyer!"