4 ms·

> For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. There's an adjustment needed. I have worked for and applied

> For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. There's an adjustment needed. I have worked for and applied to healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. In Production. We're not "all in this together". We all know that equity is worth nothing until proven otherwise. Stop cheaping out and expecting your employees to invest in your success without compensation. If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it.

vineyardmike 3y ago
> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. People rush to claim that XYZ will hurt businesses, glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. It’d sure be better for small businesses if pay was optional and employment could be forced but that doesn’t sound like a very nice world. The government could also make no taxes, give out free money, and give every company free office space. Just because it’d be good for small businesses doesn’t mean it’s actually good for society - which is the real metric to measure.
- atomicfiredoll 3y ago
  > glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. ...And, potentially, the planet. In my mind it's reasonable to expect employers to cover costs of things like equipment. But, I do wonder how much CA is considering it's own interests here. It seems like this could be abused to do things like bring people back to downtown areas impacted by COVID or lightly discourage hiring employees who don't live in state (and therefore pay sales tax.) That case could also end poorly for society (and the planet.)
  - lazide 3y ago
    The reality is no one cares about that, relative to their own wallets.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    It sounds like these aren’t actually new laws, and aren’t California specific, so it’s probably not the intent. This seems too conspiratorial on the part of the state. According to the article, it’s mostly driven from lawsuits from employees. The basis is that if the employer uses the employee’s internet, it has to pay for part of the bill, because otherwise it’s an unfair “windfall”. It rather seems like basic protections to prevent employers from offloading expenses onto employees.
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. This is really what it comes down to. If your business can't afford to employ people then people don't need to work for less, your business needs to cease operations. This bizarre entitlement entrepreneurs seem to experience baffles me. I don't care if the cost of labor makes your business inoperable. Tough shit. The last year or so I've had to make a lot of adjustments to my life to account for everything getting more expensive, it happens. If your business is on such a razor's edge that you can't deal with new expenses then it sounds like your business is poorly operated. I don't even understand how this isn't the norm. When I was hired on to my current job, they were prepared to send me home from my onboarding with everything I could need, including monitors and an expensable amount to equip an office. I didn't need really any of it because I was already setup for remote, but like, why wouldn't you be ready to do this? Asking workers to use their personal devices to do their jobs is some top tier horseshit, not only from ethics but from security perspectives too.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Yup. And often those same people will say to others "you need to live within your means". But when it comes to their business, all of a sudden they're entitled to a lot of things. I'm all for small business, and vehemently support many. But there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to a successful business.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > Yup. And often those same people will say to others "you need to live within your means". And it's ONLY when the given expense is labor. That is the only time this small business apologia goes on a rampage decrying whatever it is. Materials? Rent? Consumables? Safety stuff? Nothing. Crickets. Laborers are asking for something to offset their costs to work for you? The shit hits the fan and we get a round of think-pieces about entitled workers. Fuck off. Just fuck all the way off.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Thank you. Businesses don't have some inherent, natural, god-given right to exist. We, the people, through the state, graciously allow them to exist and regulate them so that they operate in accordance with some public good. And even then, they have to earn their existence by being a financially viable business. It's a big hurdle, deliberately so. This idea that, ohhhhh we can't regulate business because it will make them sad and even make some of them go out of business! The horror! They are not entitled to exist in the first place.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
> healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. When I did a gig for Statnett in Norway (the state owned company that owns and manages the high voltage power system) a couple of years ago; they provided a Windows laptop for me even though I was a contractor not an employee. There is no way that they would allow a device out of their control to connect to their network and services! The risks are far too high. I could use my own more powerful laptop but only as a Citrix client.
RamblingCTO 3y ago
> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. Think this through. What happens? What happens, when it's harder and harder to build and scale small businesses? You only have big players owning everything. I am struggling with that every week here in the EU and I'm very glad I don't produce anything, as it would be even harder. So this is a fine line, where we should be cautious of both extremes. There's a word for big enterprises calling for regulation to prevent competition and hinder small companies.
- lazide 3y ago
  Regulatory capture. Already a huge issue in the US.
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    That was what I meant, yes! Cheers
tengbretson 3y ago
No one has ever tried to ban you from saying no to any of the arrangements you described, but you will advocate to ban me from saying yes? Why don't you mind your own business?

vineyardmike 3y ago

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. People rush to claim that XYZ will hurt businesses, glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. It’d sure be better for small businesses if pay was optional and employment could be forced but that doesn’t sound like a very nice world. The government could also make no taxes, give out free money, and give every company free office space. Just because it’d be good for small businesses doesn’t mean it’s actually good for society - which is the real metric to measure.

atomicfiredoll 3y ago
> glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees. ...And, potentially, the planet. In my mind it's reasonable to expect employers to cover costs of things like equipment. But, I do wonder how much CA is considering it's own interests here. It seems like this could be abused to do things like bring people back to downtown areas impacted by COVID or lightly discourage hiring employees who don't live in state (and therefore pay sales tax.) That case could also end poorly for society (and the planet.)
- lazide 3y ago
  The reality is no one cares about that, relative to their own wallets.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  It sounds like these aren’t actually new laws, and aren’t California specific, so it’s probably not the intent. This seems too conspiratorial on the part of the state. According to the article, it’s mostly driven from lawsuits from employees. The basis is that if the employer uses the employee’s internet, it has to pay for part of the bill, because otherwise it’s an unfair “windfall”. It rather seems like basic protections to prevent employers from offloading expenses onto employees.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. This is really what it comes down to. If your business can't afford to employ people then people don't need to work for less, your business needs to cease operations. This bizarre entitlement entrepreneurs seem to experience baffles me. I don't care if the cost of labor makes your business inoperable. Tough shit. The last year or so I've had to make a lot of adjustments to my life to account for everything getting more expensive, it happens. If your business is on such a razor's edge that you can't deal with new expenses then it sounds like your business is poorly operated. I don't even understand how this isn't the norm. When I was hired on to my current job, they were prepared to send me home from my onboarding with everything I could need, including monitors and an expensable amount to equip an office. I didn't need really any of it because I was already setup for remote, but like, why wouldn't you be ready to do this? Asking workers to use their personal devices to do their jobs is some top tier horseshit, not only from ethics but from security perspectives too.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Yup. And often those same people will say to others "you need to live within your means". But when it comes to their business, all of a sudden they're entitled to a lot of things. I'm all for small business, and vehemently support many. But there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to a successful business.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > Yup. And often those same people will say to others "you need to live within your means". And it's ONLY when the given expense is labor. That is the only time this small business apologia goes on a rampage decrying whatever it is. Materials? Rent? Consumables? Safety stuff? Nothing. Crickets. Laborers are asking for something to offset their costs to work for you? The shit hits the fan and we get a round of think-pieces about entitled workers. Fuck off. Just fuck all the way off.
ryandrake 3y ago
Thank you. Businesses don't have some inherent, natural, god-given right to exist. We, the people, through the state, graciously allow them to exist and regulate them so that they operate in accordance with some public good. And even then, they have to earn their existence by being a financially viable business. It's a big hurdle, deliberately so. This idea that, ohhhhh we can't regulate business because it will make them sad and even make some of them go out of business! The horror! They are not entitled to exist in the first place.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

> healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. When I did a gig for Statnett in Norway (the state owned company that owns and manages the high voltage power system) a couple of years ago; they provided a Windows laptop for me even though I was a contractor not an employee. There is no way that they would allow a device out of their control to connect to their network and services! The risks are far too high. I could use my own more powerful laptop but only as a Citrix client.

RamblingCTO 3y ago

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it. Think this through. What happens? What happens, when it's harder and harder to build and scale small businesses? You only have big players owning everything. I am struggling with that every week here in the EU and I'm very glad I don't produce anything, as it would be even harder. So this is a fine line, where we should be cautious of both extremes. There's a word for big enterprises calling for regulation to prevent competition and hinder small companies.

lazide 3y ago
Regulatory capture. Already a huge issue in the US.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  That was what I meant, yes! Cheers

tengbretson 3y ago

No one has ever tried to ban you from saying no to any of the arrangements you described, but you will advocate to ban me from saying yes? Why don't you mind your own business?