undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvineyardmike2y ago0 comments

> If that means fewer/smaller startups, small businesses? Ultimately, so be it.

People rush to claim that XYZ will hurt businesses, glossing over the fact that the alternative hurts employees.

It’d sure be better for small businesses if pay was optional and employment could be forced but that doesn’t sound like a very nice world. The government could also make no taxes, give out free money, and give every company free office space.

Just because it’d be good for small businesses doesn’t mean it’s actually good for society - which is the real metric to measure.

0 comments

atomicfiredoll2y 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.)

vineyardmikeOP2y ago

It 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.

lazide2y ago

The reality is no one cares about that, relative to their own wallets.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse