Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home
swissinfo.ch
swissinfo.ch
- Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (office rent, utilities, insurance, etc).
- This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees.
- If authorities/employees start demanding that part of those costs are covered by the company, companies will push to get avoid work-from-home schemes, as they will want more control over those expenses...
I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.
For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Kent or Auburn instead - or Facebook building in the north-east of the Bay rather than the hyper-expensive south-west? Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial (similarly, Amazon attracts a lot of ex-MSFT folk from the Seattle Eastside).
It is a mystery.
But that explains the higher-rents!
Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which has the worst costs out there.
I fully understand wanting to stay in the Bay Area - but there's a big difference in land-value between being situated around Mountain View and San Francisco vs. the east-side of the Bay). What I don't understand is why the east-side of the Bay seems overlooked or even neglected lately (even more-so considering Berkeley's history).
Ha.
A lot of twenty-somethings are not so open-minded. Disparaging nearby neighborhoods as socially dead or otherwise undesirable is practically a pastime for young city folk (especially if they're dating!)
Berkeley is hardly cheap (more expensive than Seattle, for instance)
Lower housings costs, significantly higher salary, much lower taxes, and better weather along with more interesting/nicer outdoorsy stuff makes Seattle probably my #1 choice for where I’d like to live right now.
Which in the Bay is that true of?
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-bring-15000-employees-b...
Those are just one or two of the social costs. How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?
People who live close to work in an expensive area have traded money for time. Higher salary; shorter commute. They may not have the resources to move.
IMO, that’s a strange definition of free.
"How much does it cost in real money to relocate a family of 3 or 4?"
Versus living in the aforementioned very expensive area? Seems like it would probably save money to move somewhere more affordable.
Wouldn't it make more sense for those who need/want a work area outside their apartment to get a co-working space?
Whether or not it's a net saving vs. transport costs really depends on where you happen to live.
I think the developer perspective can cloud the fact that the overwhelming majority just have a laptop and a place to put it for their "workspace".
There's little that is special about software development from that point of view.
"All those people" who are in cafes really are a tiny little fraction of workers, and most co-working spaces I've been to have a wide variety of proper office environments because unsurprisingly a lot of people need a proper environment to get work done.
Everyone whose house I've seen who works from home more than every now and again has had a dedicated space.
Of course they can continue to spend that time doing the exact same walk if they want, no "make up some other way" necessary.
Depending on the location, they could just let you go. Imagine moving from Idaho to NYC. Drastic increase in cost. If an employer needs to compensate for that, I'm pretty sure theyll think long and hard whether its worth it.
My salary is how much money I'm willing to take to work for the company. If I can live somewhere cheaper, that number is lower.
If work from home becomes the norm long term, I can imagine we would need to think about a larger apartment for this reason.
Microsoft just announced 1500 jobs in downtown Atlanta, to be near Georgia tech and the tech hub. Not sure if they realize that developers who have working experience, likely now have kids now and arent going to settle for C level schools. Their location isn't even supported by mass transit that well (bus, but no train. They likely payed a premium for the space since it's "hip".
I've found it ironic that there's even such thing a tech hub, since we are the ones who create and push for remote work.
Even if you don’t live with someone, it helps a lot to have your work space separate from your living space. I believe there are studies about this that say it makes both better for your sleep and for your work productivity if your sleep space and work space are not the same space.
Some people will also need beefier internet plans than they normally needed, so they can support constant video conferencing.
Also, at least in Germany, not sure about Switzerland, you can only write off the rent, taxes-wise, for a separate office room with a door. You can't write off a desk in a room used for other purposes or a space in a hallway.
Not to mention if you have roommates or a spouse and kids.
That's not that easy.
While Switzerland doesn't do rent control per se and there can be regional differences depending on scarcity of real estate for rent a landlord is rather restricted in raising rent once a contract is signed.
The only reasons why a rent can be raised are:
- Additional investments into an apartment, but the raise needs to be in proportion to the investment
- The bench mark mortgage rate goes up (on the other hand the rent needs to be lowered when the bench mark rate goes down, which is rarely the case nowadays, with a benchmark of 1.25%)
- Inflation to a certain amount, but quite restricted
Else than that rents can't just be raised.
All that said and while I see where the decision is coming from I think it's a bit ludicrous and I don't think that many employees will actually try to get this benefit. To begin with: labor laws are more flexible than rental contract law. So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it.
But there's - at least in my opinion - an ethical edge. I, for one, felt highly privileged to be able to work from home and not being dependent on public transport during rush hour. In addition my employer invested a lot to get the infrastructure for thousands of people up to scratch in a very short time.
My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially safes my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.
Basically: It's based on a consumer price index with the starting point of May 2000 (100%) and which is published every few years.
A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase, since the last time rent was adjusted. This is based on his equity investment into the object.
Does this make sense?
[1] https://www.mieterverband.ch/mv/mietrecht-beratung/ratgeber-...
edit: slight clarification
So if inflation goes up by 10%, rent can only go up by 4%? Does that mean rent will be nearly free in 100+ years?
Much respect to your principles. I agree entirely with your viewpoint.
I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn. They feel that "it is not fair" because they did as much as they could for their company, the company did not care.
Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?
> So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it.
That is true for everything. Are you aiming on being always the cheaper employee in your company? That is an strategy that may work when there is lay offs, but I do not know much wealth you will accumulate in the long term with that strategy instead of trying to maximize your salary/benefits.
I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).
If you do not care for your well-being but you are willing to do sacrifices for your company, may I ask what sector your company works in? Maybe, is it an NGO?
I find that a little bit of grace goes a long way. Ask for a raise when you deserve it, absolutely. But if you ruthlessly try to extract every last penny from your employer, they will do the same to you.
Have you ever browsed HN at work? Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5?
I don't want my workplace to be a battleground over pennies. Treat your employer with some grace and they will do the same.
Unless, of course, your employer is already a greedy asshole. Then you should change employers.
I have to admit: Guilty on both counts.
But there's of course the other side. Where I went above and beyond to solve critical issues.
And while we're at it: You succinctly explained so much better what I mean than me in my long diatribe.
Thanks!
Why is it okay for an owner to try to squeeze every penny he can out of his employees but not okay for the employees to do it?
The real problem is that the company normally holds the leverage, so the employee has no recourse, no matter how "ethically" wrong the situation may be.
Not to mention a company without its employees is nothing.
So assuming everyone is working on good faith (neither side is cheating the other) your conscience should be more than clear when asking for more as in the example of rent. The risk is almost always on the side of the employee. For the company you're normally just a number.
The balance does shift depending on the company size, but I believe this logic still holds true.
An eye for an eye and all the world is eventually blind.
There's a story I was once told about how someone worked really late and then they came in late the next morning, but a VP happened to notice and they got in trouble despite having worked overtime.
I'm in favor of not being a "greedy jerk", but you have to do it for yourself. If you think you will be rewarded, that is delusional, and really just another type of greed.
I see where you're coming from and to answer one of your later question: I work in one of the most dog eat dog industries, which is finance.
That said, I don't see myself as a charitable extension of my employer. I'm well paid and fairly treated and as long this is the case my employer can expect me to deliver the best possible performance and my loyalty as long we're in a contractual relationship.
Let me qualify loyalty, becasue it touches exactly into the neither regions you're outlining (I was loyal all my life and now I get the boot. And while that gripe may be justified it's not really helpful). Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.
I expect decent treatment, supplying of all the tools, information, training and resources required to perform my job, human decency in general and a certain amount of fairness.
That's while the contract lasts and partially beyond, confidentiality being a good example for that.
I understand that it's a transactional agreement, which lasts as long the contract lasts and doesn't imply a job guarantee.
But one part of the deal and as long it's reasonably balanced is that I just wouldn't seek out ways how to squeeze a couple hundred francs a month extra, which I don't believe I have coming. I feel fairly and well enough paid so that I don't really factor in the use of a bit of power and my personal laptop, which is essentially the whole cost I incur.
For what it's worth my employer provides a laptop, but it's far more comfortable and convenient to work on my own system within their secure setup with a real keyboard and a 24" screen. That's my choice and if I have that option and chose to use it I don't see why that's my employers problem.
> Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?
Actually it's harder to fire employees in most European countries. Switzerland has comparatively liberal employment laws compared to a lot of other (western and southern) European countries. Liberal as in a contract can be terminated from both sides under respect of a notice period without a reason specified.
This is much harder in, for example France or Spain, which has the drawback that companies very much prefer temporary employment, which in turn leads to a two class employment system.
I think it's a bit of an attitude thing. Companies, whenever possible, prefer to hang on to their employees, even during downturns, since they consider it cheaper than to re-hire and retrain a lot of employees in the next upswing.
Differences in social security arrangements also make that more palatable for companies. And it's not only a cost thing, it's also the loss of important institutional knowledge, which is irreplaceable.
> I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).
I hope not. As I could hopefully illustrate I'm not in the corporate wellfare business. I don't believe in dumping and the one thing that bugs me so much with our race to the bottom capitalism we now have, best illustrated by the gig economy, is the "how can we squeeze out more and more, while treating vital partners (employees) like crap" attitude you see so much nowadays.
Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.
It's not about giving away the shop, but about fairness and trust.
Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.
I completely agree with that points. It is a matter of principle to behave professionally, not just for the company but for my own self esteem.
But, some experiences make me think twice before renounce to my rights. Many years ago, I was in a company that used to force employees to work on weekends. I had enough negotiation power to reject working on weekends. For me, it was not a problem. Weekend work was paid and I had no other responsibilities. But, my and other "top" colleagues rejection helped others to have the possibility to stand for their own rights.
I guess that I see the situation tinted by that perspective. If I renounce to a right, to say not to work on weekends, I may damage others that may end losing their right unwillingly. Some time later, I left the company for something better, thou. In my twenty five years of working for all kinds of companies, I have seen many different situations.
Japan and vacation days is a more general example. Even if employees have right to vacation days, it is difficult to take them when nobody else is doing so. As each employee renounces to their right to take vacations, they force the rest to do the same as it becomes a social stigma. To the extend, that for me, to renounce to your own vacation days becomes damaging to everybody else even done in good faith.
> Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.
So, maybe you have been lucky enough, or smart enough to not work for companies that have abused their position. I guess that I would be of your same opinion if I had the same experience. By default, I agree that employers and employees need to collaborate to maximize the benefits of the partnership.
> Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.
I completely relate to your actions. And, to avoid rewarding the wrong behavior is important and a good value to live for.
Can you clarify that? To be clear its normal not to change rents during the contracted period. When contract expires what are the rules for permissable rent increases for the next contract?
Each party can terminate the contract usually twice a year with a three month notice period.
Termination must follow certain formality and it's slightly lopside to the renters advantage in that a renter can challenge a termination, while the landlord can't.
Rent increases after a contract is terminated are possible within reason and within fair market value of the rent.
That rate just went down a couple months ago and most renters would be entitled to a rent reduction just by sending a registered letter to their landlord. Every one I know who did that for a 3% rent reduction as a result.
Signal apparently has a co-working space subsidy for remote employees which I think is a great idea.
That’s an unfair treatment. Most if not all of those are sunk costs for the remote employee.
If I want a new desk and have the company pay for it, I can just come with a 10k bill.
The company can lay out a bunch of avg prices for certain things and that's that.
It not like everybody has some unique equipment. I basically need a chair, a desk, a laptop and maybe a monitor. Those cost are easy controlled.
Expense systems are already in place for basically all companies as well.
My transportation costs were already being reimbursed. Now that I need no transportation any more, they can give me that money as rent support.
It's way too soon to call this. We're at the point where it doesn't not not-work.
On the other hand, employees suddenly gain a lot of free time, especially those on enormous commutes. But even for small-ish commutes and 1 day/wk in the physical office the numbers are significant - at 30min one way travel, 4 days HO give you 4 h of extra time - or 10% of their workweek. Fully remote with 1h one way travel? 10 hours or over a whole work day's equivalent of time.
On top of that employees gain other positive results like saving hard money on their car / public transport ticket and, especially for introverts or people with back issues, a large uptick in life quality as they don't have to stand in overcrowded subway cars or stuck in stop-n-go traffic jams.
The fair solution would be for employers to pay a fair share of rent and decent regulations-conforming equipment (chairs!) for those working from home - and giving a raise to those who physically have to come to the office, e.g. to deal with paperwork.
But the thing I like most about WFH is that it feels like I've gained a lot of time. I may only drive for 10 minutes, but it takes 5 minutes to pack up, 10 minutes to walk to my car, 10 minutes to drive, 5 minutes to...it feels like I have more than an hour additional free time every day.
Since WFH will require decent internet connection I surely hope one of those consequences is all landlord have an incentive to install Fibre Optics Internet connection. And not relying on junky Cables or DSLs.
This is an article (from yesterday) based on a pay-walled article (from yesterday, and in a different language), which itself is based on a court decision (from April 2019).
This is not related to the current pandemic (which the article vaguely states, but not explicitly).
Also, to give you a time-frame: The linked court decision is from April 2019, the legal fight started in 2016 and went over several instances.
a) Of course, a decision from 2019 is not related to the coronavirus lockdown
b) the "different language" is German, which is one of the official languages in Switzerland. If you want more sources, albeit also in German: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-de...
c) the public court decision has also been linked: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...
b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall.
c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
b) Swissinfo is a well-regarded, state-founded website that provides news in several languages. Their translation is probably very good. Tages Anzeiger has a free trial if you want to read the German original.
As I knew this a priori from reading the news somewhere else first, I didn't notice this vagueness in the article before you wrote about it. Hence, let me thank you for making this clear to all readers here.
This is real and now Swiss companies have to figure out how to deal with it.
This decision is from 2019, so they have to deal with it since 2019. Or did I miss something about the swiss legal system?
And, if challenged, I'm pretty sure that judges might "judge" different if confronted with the current "state-of-emergency"-kind of situation.
Our legal system is a bit different than in the US as we don't have US style case law though (not a lawyer so don't ask me for more details).
It was brought up again due to the current situation re home office and adds to the discussion in the country as well as elsewhere i think and is likely to be challenged now by employees with their respective employers.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individ...
You can if you are smart about it, because you can deduct part of a room. Deduct the area for your desk, office chair, but don't deduct the guest bed, etc.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
I thought it was a token amount, but then I don't know what rent in switzerland is like.
Is that like 3% or 30% ?
In Zurich 1500 would be a low rent, and 3000 would get you a 2 bedroom with view and quite spacious +80m^2
In any case, $154 is still not that significant, definitely not enough on its own to let you afford an extra bedroom to turn into an office, for instance.
From Numbeo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
Also I would be careful about numbers from Numbeo, I certainly don't pay $50/kg for beef.
It's financial death by a thousand cuts.
Health insurance can be expensive while for many of the people on HN it would be included in employer benefits in SF, but it's still not that bad. Last time I checked, the average payment in Switzerland for adults was $250 USD or so.
For $5k in the city, I would think you could at least get 1200 sqf or better. Also, it is hard to rent in Switzerland...like...the prices aren’t your biggest problem in renting a place, finding a place to rent at all and getting accepted by the real estate company is a PITA and you’ll often wish you could just pay more money to skip all of it.
For reference, in Norway, a lower-tier apartment would go for about >9000 NOK/month. You could find cheaper, but that'd be <20 square meters, or really kind landlords. (I've managed to secure two short-term contracts for a small urban apartment and a small rural house for 6000 NOK respectively, but that wasn't market rate in either case.)
Working from home not only saves businesses money it also increases your salary take-home here.
The entire notion of employer-provided healthcare is one of the reasons the US scores so low on economic freedom studies.
I don't understand this weirdly business-centric view that folks from the US have on the topic of healthcare. Surely a more productive view is that it is the best interests of society that we keep our fellow citizens as healthy as possible? Even ignoring the ethical arguments (which should be more than enough), healthy citizens make healthy workers and reduce long-term healthcare costs caused by preventable illnesses.
It's an absurdist notion that I should be obligated to work for specific-size companies to ensure I can afford the health and welfare of my family.
As long as we make sure they pay sufficient taxes for those benefits, it seems like the best deal for everyone.
As if they had any other source of money. _All_ their money comes from consumers. If we don't want regressive taxation, then take this money as welfare by raising income tax.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-li...
"If we send people a check, the costs are passed on to the taxpaying public, which includes rich people who pay extra taxes and does not include poor people who get out of a lot of taxes because of their low income. If we pressure fast food places to pay more, the costs are passed on to fast food consumers, who are less likely to be wealthy and more likely to be black than the general population."
I've passed on a low-wage job because I was poor and couldn't afford to buy clothes before starting work - when, realistically, they could have provided the shirts or, alternatively, vests. And so on. It shouldn't cost an employee money to have a job with an employer.
If you want someone to have decent internet or a phone, the employer should pay part of it. A decent enough computer? Pay for it or provide a laptop. Provide the webcam. If you require uniforms, pay for them on top of laundering them. Requiring a quiet room in the house to do meetings? Pay for a portion of rent. Otherwise, you are just passing red tape and costs to the employee.
Well in this case the swiss companies must pay the amount directly to the employee, so you should be happy?
I, as a taxpayer, don't quite fancy having to pay for Amazon's 300k remote employees home-office while the company they work for doesn't pay any tax.
> How do we draw the line?
The line is already drawn, as an employer you are legally required to pay for the tools your employees need to do their work. So if the employee is a developer, that would be a laptop for example. Coffee and tea is not deemed necessary, so you don't have to pay for it.
In my opinion, a proper space to work is definitly a requirement and should be added to that list for remote workers. As well as a microphone and probably webcam at a minimum.
Asking taxpayers to pay for this instead of businesses makes 0 sense (although it's already like that in some juridictions).
Edit: I forgot to add that employers that will be switching to remote-first for the long term are the one that will save money on rent, while their employees will have a higher rent on average. So it does make quite a lot of sense for employer to pay and keep the balance in that scenario.
If I need a desk and a room to work and they don't want to make space in their buildings, then they have to pay for me to set it up.
Nobody would bat an eye that a company has to pay for the laptops of their employer.
If you work remote for less than 50% of workdays in a year, that counts as a 450 euro deduction. But if you work for more than 50% of workdays from home, you get a 900 euro deduction. So people working mostly from home will exceed the automatic 750 euro deduction and should declare their expenses properly instead of relying on the automatic deduction.
You can also deduct equipment and Internet connections (50% of the cost if you use it partly for work). Although in the IT industry, it's pretty commonplace for the employer to pay for 100% of your home Internet connection, since it's a tax-free benefit to the employee.
If I were an employer and have rented an office space, whether the space is full or empty or half empty, I'm still paying more or less the same. Yes, there are coworking spaces where I can pay per headcount, but it's much more expensive (because the problem is now passed to the operator).
That includes things like:
* office-quality furniture -- sit/stand desks, chairs, videoconference equipment
* computers, monitors, whatever you would provide for them at work
* subsidies for lunch and snacks if it's the norm in your locale (it is for lots of companies in Silicon Valley)
* adequate lighting
* decent bandwidth internet connection
* housing market rate cash for the employee to rent a space with 1 additional bedroom than what they previously had, that can be converted into a dedicated workspace
* some reasonable budget for art/decorations/plants/whatever in your dedicated workspace. basically stuff that you would normally have in a modern office
All of this would probably still add up to much, much less than they spend on employees at a real office. It's for the company's own good as well -- do you really want your employees working out of a noisy cramped bedroom with 4 other housemates and strapped for cash to buy only used IKEA furniture with missing screws and sit cramped between a bed and a tiny desk, or do you want your employee to be focused in a comfortable workspace and get work done?
Then the staff member can outfit their workspace as they see fit.
Some companies will pay your gas or car insurance if owning a car is an inherent part of the job, it's kind of the same thing here.
i have an office at home that is not used outdide work. if i didn't work at home i could save money with a smaller apartment. seems only fair that my company pays that difference
Now, as an employee and still working from home, my company buys me a laptop and a development desktop machine, and I guess they'd probably help with the cost of a chair if I didn't already have one.
Compared to the cost of enlarging the London office if everyone who currently works from home had to work from the office (not to mention the lost productivity), these expenses are trivial.
I'm in the UK and looked into this a while back. My understanding is that the amount claimed is meant to be proportionite to the amount these are used for business purposes, just the same as for your electricity. So totally fine if you only use these things for business, otherwise not.
This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.
As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
The net result is still that you
- disincentivize companies to let people work from home
- give people who can work from home, (and already are at an advantage to cashiers/tellers/etc...) more benefits.
With a majority remote workforce, the company’s physical plant expenses should be reduced, effectively shifting the cost of utilities to the employee. All things being equal reduced expenses mean increased profits. This increase in profits generally does not go back to the employees, so even though their personal assets are effectively serving as a rent-free physical plant for the company, there’s no consideration of that in the company’s bottom line. Depreciable expenses plummet for them, and on and on.
I don’t like marrying it to salary and definitely prefer a reimbursement model, though that has a few new burdens for the employee, but that’s acceptable.
Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but have to pay for transportation only if they have to attend the company.
If you are an independent contractor, a company should pay your rate. If you are an employee the company should pay for the equipment needed for the job.
Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.
But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent).
Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X.
In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).
It's a zero sum game for them
No big deal, seems fair to me
If the situation becomes permanent some people may have to move to larger homes, upgrade some utility subscriptions, etc. But I'm afraid for most people this payout from the employer will come out of their future raises.
But yeah, I think people who work from home should make more money. Consider it a reward for not contributing to traffic congestion and pollution. :P If you really insist on working onsite, fine, maybe we can allow that but it's not a free perk!
If I have to work from home I need a larger apartment with an extra room, and it will be more expensive. During lockdown I'm using the room of my son, but it is not really a feasible arrangement in the long run.
Well, take a job that requires a truck, or expensive construction equipment, or whatever, to do. Is it surprising that a job that requires the employee to furnish his own such pays a bit more? In this case, the employee is asked to provide his own office (in a country where real estate is immensely expensive).
For example, some people are not living in an ideal "work" environment — smaller spaces, no air-conditioning, pets/children, noisy streets/neighborhoods, etc.
In my opinion workplaces provide a stable environment that negates the above-mentioned constraints and also encourages interpersonal contact; both of which (barring the current pandemic that necessitates WFH) would give a better median ROI across the workforce.
As a permanent thing, I’m not so sure. If I can live anywhere and know that I’m going to have to have an at home office, why does my employer have to pay for that? And what are the unintended side effects?
In Germany you can save up to 1250 EUR / year in your tax declaration if you have a dedicated work room, but the conditions are quite strict.
I don't know if all remote workers can benefit from it, but if that's not the case I hope Germany will adapt the law. Considering the benefits from an ecological point of view, I think it makes sense that the state also contributes to it.
Not sure if the automotive industry would agree, though...
I know the standard deduction was raised significantly to cover such items, and only a couple other deductions allowed in the simplified tax filing.
But if you want to go the complex route these things can still be deducted. Just may not be worth hiring a CPA to file your returns to get a couple hundred back as only the CPA wins in such a case....
I do feel too that the employer should provide the equipment and working environment.
So, the title is misleading.
The entitlement from these guys, just gross.
I don't know if I agree with the policy, but I can see some sense in it. By paying for the living space sacrificed for WFH, companies are disincentivised to push for WFH after all lockdowns are over to save on office cost. Paying the same wage with less cost on office maintenance would be a dream come true for employers, of course, but that would shift the cost of the work space to the employer which I would find unfair.
As the article states:
> Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation.
> ... Luca Cirigliano, General Secretary of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions, told the paper that companies often use flexible workstations in order to save money on office rent.
> It is extremely unfair as well as illegal for employers to pass costs on to employees in this way, Cirigliano told the paper.
So, if the company forces you to work from home so they can save on rent, they have to pay you for "renting" office space from your house.
The idea is that when a company lays claim to a space in your house, you should get something in return. It doesn't matter if there's four other people paying you rent while you from from home, your home is your space and not the employer's.
Note that this is just an addition to the wage, not a direct bank transfer to the letting agency. A lot of subletting is also done this exact same way (e.g. paying money to the original renter who passes it on to pay the rent).
I'd see that as a way to offset electricity costs and maybe invest in my setup, rather than cover the square meterage per se, but in my opinion it's a pretty good middle ground.
For a homeowner that has finished paying off their house, it might be reasonable to use a value equal to what the payment would be if they took out a 30yr mortgage to pay an amount equal to 80% of the cost of the house (ie, if they had a "standard" mortgage).
For the case of someone not paying for the place they live (living with a relative, etc), I don't have a good answer. I would guess try to determine what the rent _would_ be if they were? Presumably the amount they make helps contribute to the total household expenses, so the fact that it's not specifically billed to "rent" doesn't make a big difference.
Honestly, I think looking for a perfect answer in every case isn't a realistic goal. Instead, aim for as good as possible in as many cases as possible, and good enough in the rest.
The cost of my clothes (jeans/shirts/ties/etc.) as well as my daily coffee/tea/juice/lunch is for me to pay.
"Extra" stuff that I need to buy is for them to cover. E.g. a headset for calls, e.g. my professional certifications maintenance.
My home's wifi, I pay it for my use. Since I use it for work 8h per day (40h/week), one could argue that the employer should pay 40/168 of the cost (5x8/7x24).
Tbh, if there is the chance that I will be asked to go back to the office for $25 per month, I will gladly continue paying for my own wifi 100% and stay home :)
Perhaps, but that hardly seems to be something that should concern the courts?
However, a tax refund it less than a reimbursement.
I see this pattern amongst Americans these days thinking these sorta of shenanigans and morally questionable laws is unique to them? Is it a form of self flagellation?
Certain European countries let tax payers pay for 80% of their foreign/migrant workforce without getting their growing revenue or equity to the state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
However, an upfront flat "reimbursement" would probably be considered a taxable fringe benefit.
Being allowed to deduct it from the taxes is a recognition that it is a 'work expense' rather than a profit (because you're charging it from you customer). It's the same idea w.r.t the reinbursement.
The idea that the taxes of people who don't work from home are somehow subsidizing those who do is... just not how it works.
The tax code just changed this year.