4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe reality is no one cares about that, relative to their own wallets.
- vineyardmike 3y agoIt 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.