It will be interesting to see whether the courts see a difference between incremental expenses vs things the employee was already purchasing (e.g. internet vs electricity)
It will be interesting to see whether the courts see a difference between incremental expenses vs things the employee was already purchasing (e.g. internet vs electricity)
In the absolute best case, this will become a class action lawsuit. All ~4000 employees will get a couple thousand dollars as reimbursement. Lawyers will make a few million. Amazon will find the money from under some couch cushion. And then they will allocate a portion of everyone's salary to "WFH expenses" to be in the clear legally. Meanwhile the plaintiff's name will be all over the news and their future job prospects will take a huge hit.
But I don't agree with the overall conclusion. Ultimately the cost of an employee boils down to one number. If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less.
Probably better to put an upper salary bound on it. Stops the abuse of minimum wage workers while avoiding most of the silliness.
I mean, if you assume a monopsony where market clearing prices are set by demand alone, with no supply side effect, sure.
> My best bet? The Amazon engineer will win.
> And then he and every other California employee will lose. Here's why.
Exactly as you say, it's not a battle worth fighting, the employee is a fool, or a tool.