Only 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.

I mean, it's a law blog describing the current state of the world, not new or proposed legislation or employer policy.

How so?

> 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.

Company can't afford $75 a month? Thats cheaper than the parking at my office which is $500/m per car.

> 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.

I've seen multiple employment ads in Seattle, "If you live within 50 miles of our office, this is an office position".

One had the balls to say "within 100 miles". In Seattle? Fuck that, 100 miles each way could easily be 2-3 hours each way.

This 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

Seems 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

I personally like this idea better anyway.

But 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.

If they already have an office, the marginal cost of electricity and internet is not likely to be as high as the employee's home internet cost.

Per the article, they only to pay a fraction of the employee's home internet cost

Many 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.

The 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."

California 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.

If 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.

It 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).