Californians: Would you support this Remote Work Law?
Here are the salient features of the law aimed at addressing the affordability crisis in the Bay Area and the eroding tech middle class: 1) Any white-collar worker who requests to work from home must be allowed to do so by their employer, as long as “home” is located anywhere in California 2) Employers that object to the request must present a thorough “business hardship justification” exemption in front of the California Labor Board 3) The employer may lower the employee’s salary to match the lower cost of living in the alternative California locale, and the employee can either accept the lower salary, or cancel the request to work from home 4) Once designated as work-from-home, an employer cannot ask an employee to come to the workplace more than once a week. The only exception to this rule is if there are a series of designated multi-team meetings that necessitate more than one day for face-to-face collaboration. The employer must also bear all costs of transporting the employee, and providing them with room and board. The employer also cannot force the employee to drive – the employer must either fly the employee in, or let the employee take a taxi. 5) Employees who are interviewing for a new position with a new employer can request that their role be designated as “work-from-home”. At this point in time, the employer can ask for the prospective employee’s home location, and appropriately adjust the salary commensurate with that location’s cost of living. 6) Companies with less than 20 employees are exempt from this law but can still take advantage of it, if they choose 7) As an added incentive, employers who hire work-from-home employees will also receive tax breaks as follows: a. The difference between the unemployment rate in the work-from-home county and the employer’s main headquarters in California will be offered as a tax break b. The amount of the tax break will be calculated as follows: average differential between HQ and employee’s home county for the fiscal year. 8) Example of (7). Assume 3 employees for Company A are designated as remote, and that Company Alpha is located in San Mateo County with a 2.8% unemployment rate. Employee 1 is located in Orange County with a 3.7% unemployment rate, Employee 2 is located in Santa Barbara County with a 4.7% unemployment rate, and Employee 3 is located in San Diego with a 4.3%. The differentials for all 3 remote employees between their home counties and headquarters would be 0.9%, 1.9%, and 1.5% respectively, which on average come out to 1.43%. Therefore, Company Alpha can expect a tax break of 1.43% for their fiscal year. Please note: if the work-from home employee lives in a County with a lower unemployment rate than HQ, then that differential will not be included in the calculations and will be considered a zero differential. 9) To make use of the tax break, at least 25% of the company’s Californian employees must be designated as work-from-home. 10) This law only applies to white-collar workers. The definition of a white-collar worker means any “knowledge worker” who performs the majority of his/her work in front of a computer or smartphone.
Real legislation?
Yes, real legislation
Sorry I misunderstood Google. There is no real legislation in the works at the moment. I have drafted this remote work law after talking with several second-tier tech workers (i.e. not FAANG) and blue-collar workers. I am trying to get a sense for whether this law might pass or not. As I suspected, the vast majority of privileged FAANG employees would try and block this from happening.
Will it affect the housing price?
It will have the net effect of raising housing prices in California. The second tier tech workers (like me, you, and other enterprise tech companies) who don’t earn what FAANG does Will be able to go to those locations in California where we can afford houses. The vast blue-collar population that is leaving California all together will now be able to afford apartments in the bay area and perhaps condos or town homes elsewhere. It’s all about finding a solution to “fill“ the rest of California and not concentrating housing in the bay area.
How would it not lead to creating cities with only narrowly skilled, single occupation residents? Would it be healthy when kids read about other occupations in their picture books in kindergarten but never see any other type of worker IRL? Mr. Roger's Neighborhood...not!
I want a law which makes it mandatory for employers to provide a quiet environment at work. I go to work when I don’t have to work 😐.
We need this in Seattle, God damn it!
I'd wfh every day given the chance. Far more productive.
I hate having to work with remote people, it's a pain in the ass and they are never as effective as the people sitting next to you in the office. I am not in favor of encouraging more remote work.
Yikes. This hasn’t been my experience throughout 4 companies. Do you think it’s just your current company?
Not my experience. Our remote employee is the most productive and effective on our team, so much so that I occasionally wonder if she uses additional hired help (I’m sure she doesn’t just amazes me tho). We do work heavily with multiple regions, however, so it may be that seasoned remote workers are just better prepared for remote collaboration.
Why can’t we just let employers do their thing, and let employees do their thing. Why must everything be routed through some regulation.
If an employer didn’t want prospective employees to work from home, they’d be rejected at the interview stage. Similarly, at-will employment would let any employer get rid of wfh employees as they please.
You make a good point. I should modify certain tenets of my proposal. The employer should not ask the employee’s location or WFH preference.
What can you do about at-will employment contracts though? Seems incompatible with having wfh rights.
I like WFH option, but I won't vote in favor of the law. An employee and employer can negotiate terms when they are hired. There is no need to have a law. If your employer won't allow wfh, then change your job and find the one that supports wfh option. trust me there are many who allows wfh.
You must not know human nature very well. There aren’t those many remote jobs available, even though practically every job can be done remotely, with occasional in person interaction. Managers require in person employees just to satisfy their ego. In person collaboration is needed maybe once in two weeks or once a month. The greater problem is dealing with the loss of blue-collar workers from California and inability of second-tier tech workers to buy houses in the bay area unless they go all the way out to Walnut Creek or Pleasanton and commute two hours in traffic
The 'affordability crisis' is due to a lack of supply. Build a bunch of huge apartments just like any other functional city. It's so dumb to have a city with only single family or 2 story homes just because it looks pretty. I think other things should be mandated before wfh like paternity leave and more PTO, like other countries.
We should definitely have maternity leave and more PTO, but this is not the focus of the topic here. The fact is that the bay area is saturated, and it is driving out many blue-collar workers and also second-tier tech workers. What’s the point of earning a big paycheck if you can’t afford a house within a reasonable commute? Who wants to buy a crappy house out in Walnut Creek and commute two hours to the peninsula every day? It’s so inefficient. My law would help change that and ensure a greater quality of life for everyone
Recognize the problem, but I agree with @overmind on this. If workers are required to solve the problems this way, cities won't have any incentive to add housing proprtional to number of jobs, nor will employers pay appropriate to their location. It's like everyone would throw the balls over the fence all the time. Good discussion to have!