
Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home - malthaus
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/court-decision_companies-must-pay-share-of-rent-for-employees-working-from-home/45781126
======
antr
Thought:

\- 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.

~~~
CaptainZapp
> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents,
> but who knows.

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.

~~~
Hokusai
> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from
> an arrangement

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?

~~~
dahfizz
There is a (not so fine) line between looking after yourself and being a
greedy jerk.

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.

~~~
Draiken
Maybe you have a very good and ethical employer, but my anecdotal evidence
tells me it's not the rule, it's the exception.

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.

~~~
jeffrallen
> 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?

An eye for an eye and all the world is eventually blind.

------
MrGilbert
Someone needs to take a closer look into this. It feels sketchy.

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.

~~~
xenonite
Well, what do you find sketchy about it?

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...](https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-der-
wohnungsmiete-uebernehmen-wenn-sie-ihre-mitarbeiter-ins-home-office-schicken-
ld.1557921)

c) the public court decision has also been linked:
[http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...](http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F23-04-2019-4A_533-2018&lang=de&type=show_document)

~~~
MrGilbert
a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is
based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it
applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where
I could imagine a judge would rule different.

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.

~~~
occamrazor
a) It refers to a court decision, and everybody knows that it cannot be
related to the current situation because court cases take (much) more than two
months.

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.

------
andrewljohnson
It’s advantageous for companies to pay for anything that can be construed as a
business expense for employees, since that means they can transfer money to
the employee tax free. Businesses in the US do this for health insurance, and
remote companies can do it for a few more expenses. It makes sense to pay for
whatever expenses the company can, as long as the administrative costs don’t
outweigh the tax advantage.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Some employers though won't even reimburse for improved internet service
during a pandemic lockdown. My guess is those who prefer butts in chairs would
rather expand offices to comply with distancing guidelines, even in high CoL
areas. Could be their are also more sufficient tax write-offs for office
buildings.

------
dleslie
Canada has a tax break for those that work from home:

[https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-
agency/services/tax/individ...](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-
agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-
return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-229-other-
employment-expenses/commission-employees/work-space-home-expenses.html)

~~~
mindvirus
The USA does too, but the trouble is it has to be exclusively used for working
from home- so you can't have a guest room you use as an office most of the
time, which is particularly tricky in cities. I wonder if that'll change in
the future with more WFH.

~~~
hugey010
I'm no tax lawyer or guru, but let's say usage is 25% bedroom and 75%
principal office; you can take 75% of the square footage of the room against
your total home square footage as the number for doing the deduction. Easiest
is to have a dedicated space, but I imagine this is going to be a new normal
now for tax filings.

------
m463
> The judges estimated a monthly compensation of CHF150 ($154) for the
> employee’s rent to be justified.

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% ?

~~~
ramblerman
Somewhere in between.

In Zurich 1500 would be a low rent, and 3000 would get you a 2 bedroom with
view and quite spacious +80m^2

~~~
cactus2093
Wow I had thought the cost of living was high in Switzerland but I guess when
you’re used to the Bay Area everything else seems cheap. In SF you’d pay like
$5000 for that 2bd unless you go out pretty to the more remote, harder to
commute from neighborhoods.

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.

~~~
ramblerman
Compared to SF, Zurich is 50% cheaper in rent, but pretty much more expensive
across the board for everything else.

From Numbeo: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Switzerland&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Zurich&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

~~~
hocuspocus
After taxes and rent, "everything else" is fairly insignificant in practice,
even though both cities are very expensive.

Also I would be careful about numbers from Numbeo, I certainly don't pay
$50/kg for beef.

~~~
vinay427
I moved from SF to Zurich, so just to add another data point to corroborate
this, you can live relatively cheaply here while I really couldn't in SF
because housing doesn't really have a cheap (and adequately safe) alternative.
Meanwhile, here the "everything else" is actually not very high if you limit
or more carefully plan eating out, buy groceries with some consideration of
cost (budget variants are often less than half the price of "standard" ones),
etc.

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.

------
jaimex2
Not sure how things work elsewhere but in Australia any expense used to
generate income is tax deductible. That includes energy bills, furniture and
room "wear" if you work from home.

Working from home not only saves businesses money it also increases your
salary take-home here.

------
vortico
Wouldn't this just decrease average work-from-home salary by exactly
CHF150/month?

~~~
Pfhreak
It's unlikely in bigger companies that have pay bands per job level. It's
probably cheaper to pay the additional token amount than figure out how to
adjust those pay bands down to cover only the people impacted.

~~~
vortico
It would be common for large companies to simply adjust pay bands down by
`150CHF * proportion of work-at-home employees` in order to keep the average
cost of an employee constant. Therefore, this court decision will make a
(small but nonzero) push for employees to choose to work at home.

------
codegeek
Everytime I see "must pay", it scares me. Yes I know that employees get
exploited etc but instead of making employers pay, why not let employees get a
tax deduction or even a credit ? As an employer, I can tell you that the
burden of employer paying for everything is not necessarily a good idea. It is
not about the money only but also about the added overhead/red tape. In US, I
am already sick of for example health insurance crap. I would gladly pay the
same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with
insurance companies and their bullshit.

~~~
ryneandal
Yes on the healthcare thing. Decouple insurance from employers completely.

~~~
djmobley
Employers should get the benefit of healthy employees, but not incur the cost?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Health insurance shouldn't depend on work or the size of your employer,
period. Not only should employers have healthy employees, but the applicants
should be too.

~~~
ryneandal
Separation of healthcare and employers also removes a huge barrier to
entrepreneurship.

The entire notion of employer-provided healthcare is one of the reasons the US
scores so low on economic freedom studies.

------
p4bl0
In France when you pay your income taxes, a part of your income is deducted as
work related spending. By default it's something like 10% I think (do not take
my word on this figure, I would check but I'm on a smartphone right now). But
you can opt-in for real-cost and if you do so, you have to declare and give
receipts for all of your work-related expanses to the tax administration, all
of which would be deducted from your taxable income. Those expanses can
include a part of your rent if you work from home.

~~~
Hamuko
A bit similar in Finland. Here every taxpayer gets a 750 euro tax deduction
for "wage earning expenses". So if you want to declare expenses related to
your job, you basically need to have over 750 euro of them in order to get
anything.

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.

------
wiradikusuma
Unless there's no physical office at all, and the employees are told to work
from home (the article mentioned this), I think it's a hard sell for employers
to pay their employee's share of rent.

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).

~~~
dheera
Paying their entire rent is a hard sell, but I would think it reasonable to
pay for an employee to have a setup at home that would be as good as they
would get at a modern office.

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?

~~~
sneak
The alternative is that they could just pay their devs 5x what devs would get
paid in Europe, which is where this article is about, which is already being
done.

Then the staff member can outfit their workspace as they see fit.

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
The cost of living is not being factored in here. Falafel wrap in Berlin is
2-3 EURO. In Switzerland it can be 10-12 eur...

------
forgingahead
This seems very distortionary to the market. So if you're a blue-collar
worker, your ability to pay for housing is "less" compared with a similarly-
aged white-collar worker just because the latter has his company subsidise his
rent.

~~~
em-bee
if you work from home you need extra space which you don't need otherwise. the
winners are those that are able to make use of that extra space outside of
work.

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

------
rwmj
When I ran a company in the UK and worked from home I claimed various
expenses: 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of
thing. And a proportion of the cost of electricity, rent etc which was
calculated based on the size of the room I used as an office compared to the
rest of the house (I don't remember the exact number but it might have been
10-15%). As far as I'm aware this is all completely legal and normal.

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.

~~~
GordonS
> 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing

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.

~~~
rwmj
So as it was explained to me (IANAL and it may even have changed since I ran
this company in the mid 2000s), if something was used > 50% of the time for
work then you could claim the whole thing, and in proportion if below. In any
case those computers were used only for work.

------
apexalpha
Our company pays everyone €75 after taxes extra if they make less than €50k
annually. It's for general expenses such as more coffee, electricity etc at
home.

------
dependenttypes
I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than
someone who does not?

~~~
buro9
That's not what this is.

This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they
ask of you.

~~~
dependenttypes
Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in
addition to the agreed wage?

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.

~~~
Pfhreak
Your plumber is not an employee. Your plumber should be paying for the tools
of their employees, yes.

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.

~~~
dependenttypes
I would argue that there should be no employees and only independent
contractors but this is going to be kind of offtopic for this thread.

------
ashtonkem
Makes some sense during the pandemic. Many workers pay a high cost per foot in
order to live within reasonable commute time to the office. In a suddenly
remote world these same workers are expected to set aside a large chunk of
their home specifically for working, at a pretty high per foot cost due to
geography.

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?

------
tilolebo
Interesting ruling, it kind of makes sense but I'm not sure that's the best
solution.

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...

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Yeah, the automotive industry is gonna get a nice bailout from our tax euros
this time as they'll justify it wilth all the potential unemployed people that
result from everyone not buying cars any more.

------
rbreve
In Finland people who work from home and bought anything needed to work, for
example a desk, chair, display or headphones, they get a tax refund.

~~~
RHSeeger
That used to be the case in the US, too. And the same was true of
rent/mortgage/heat/etc costs IF the room you used for an office was only used
for that purpose. Sadly, the tax laws changed recently and you no longer get
to claim them (unless self employed).

~~~
sanguy
Are you sure?

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....

~~~
RHSeeger
I'm not 100% positive, but I do use a tax accountant to do my taxes and, for
the last two years, he's been confident that home office expenses can no
longer be deducted (unless self employed). I have no reason not to trust him.

------
petercooper
I'd be quite happy to do that actually. At least there's a quid pro quo then
and it's a nice way to give employees money tax free for the long term.
Instead I gave all employees a £500 lockdown bonus to cover their extra
electricity, gas, etc. (the UK tax system only lets employees claim £6/week as
an expense for WFH which I think is a serious piss-take).

------
dheera
Although the US isn't this great that they give you an outright subsidy on
rent, I believe if you're in independent consultant you can tax writeoff part
of your rent if you have a part of your residence that is used exclusively for
business purposes. (Disclaimer: IANAL, IANACPA)

------
mindvirus
That's an interesting idea. I'd estimate the value of my home office space in
NYC is about $600/month post tax (120 sqft room, $5/sqft/month is average rent
here). I wonder how that compares to class A or B office space.

------
chadlavi
Good. Let's see this in the US, too. An entire room in my small NYC apartment
is now just dedicated to my employer's economic activity. I'm basically
loaning it to them for free right now.

------
atemerev
Here in Switzerland, we don’t have the precedent law. So, if this particular
decision was made in this particular case, it doesn’t mean that it is
automatically applied for everybody else.

So, the title is misleading.

------
shultays
I am not renting, can I ask for my company to pay my mortgage? Of if my
mortgage was over, could I "rent" my home to company for the hours I work?

The entitlement from these guys, just gross.

~~~
falcor84
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If they expect you to work from a
particular location, then it would make sense that they'd need to reimburse
you for your expenses regarding that place of work. It's actually something
that's been bothering for a while in regards to how some remote employers
would reimburse the expenses of a co-working space - it makes much more sense
to me that they would equally reimburse the costs of working from home.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Seems like a ploy to disincentivise work from home. There's little need to
maintain operations in Switzerland if a business becomes comfortable with off
site employees.

------
mehrdadn
I'm confused, what is the additional expense that employees are incurring by
being home? Don't they pay the same rent either way?

~~~
ceejayoz
Equipping and maintaining a home office? Space that can no longer be used for
other stuff, and costs of things like chairs and office supplies a company
would normally cover?

~~~
mehrdadn
Oh wait, is this "rent" in the sense of the company essentially renting part
of the worker's home? I read it as as paying the worker's share of the rent to
the landlord! If that's the case then that would make a lot more sense.

~~~
jeroenhd
This is rent as in paying a share of the worker's rent. But, as many working
from home will concur, most can't work from home well without dedicating part
of your living space to office work. That extra room or that part of the
living room that was previously free space is now practically reserved for the
company you work for.

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.

~~~
mehrdadn
I get the motivation and incentives, I just can't make sense of it as paying a
share of the worker's rent. It falls flat on its face from the start... e.g.
what if the worker is the homeowner and not paying any rent? What if the
worker is living with their parents/children/etc. who are the ones paying
rent? etc. Like fundamentally it seems bizarre that the employee's living
agreement with a 3rd party (or lack thereof) should be relevant...

~~~
jeroenhd
Regardless of the home situation of the worker, the worker needs to reserve
space from the home they paid for or are paying for. Many who don't pay rent
still pay mortgages. And even if the house is paid off, the company is still
basically claiming a working space that they can skimp out on.

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).

~~~
mehrdadn
But that's exactly what I'm saying then. The way to reason about this is that,
as an employee, you leasing (or subletting) a portion of your home to the
company, and hence they need to pay you rent for occupying your home. This is
very much _not_ paying _your_ share of any rent (which may not even exist);
it's paying their own share of a rental agreement they've effectively entered
into. It makes so much more sense that way than trying to reason it around the
_employee_ 's living agreement.

~~~
La1n
Instead of seeing it as leasing a portion of your home to your company looks
at it in the words the law uses, the company must provide you with what you
need for work. I am sure if they went to court and tried to have their fees
for a co-working space paid it would also need to be paid by the company.

------
jspaetzel
This is silly. It's just another contributing factor of total compensation and
cost of living.

------
ykevinator
Seems fair, I just wish they had some lead time to adjust

------
7leafer
Pffft, 'companies' (as in plural) are so un-post-truth! The One Company it
must be. And it well may be, because less and less companies will be able to
cope with the firehose of New Normals.

------
Ericson2314
This is silly, thing that matters unionization / workplace democracy. These
types of measures show a weak understanding of economics and power, and are
just moronic palliatives.

------
hokumguru
Isn’t that just the point of a salary anyway?

~~~
HenryBemis
My "salary" is for "for 8h per day (or 40h per week) I will be doing such and
such".

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 :)

------
pochamago
This seems likely to have unpredictable downstream effects on the Swiss
workforce as compared to other countries

------
tobyhinloopen
So tax-free salary? I’m in

------
aussieguy1234
wont this just push rents up?

~~~
gspr
> wont this just push rents up?

Perhaps, but that hardly seems to be something that should concern the courts?

------
buboard
what does this change? companies can still adjust the rest of the wage
accordingly

------
swissguy
gd

------
PHGamer
sounds like communism.

------
dannykwells
In the US of course, we deduct our home office from our taxes, meaning that
our fellow citizens, or debt, support working from home. Thos seems like a
saner solution.

~~~
madsbuch
I am sure this is also possible to do in Switzerland. At least in Denmark it
is.

However, a tax refund it less than a reimbursement.

~~~
fastball
Depends entirely on the situation which one is less.

------
JackPoach
One of many coronovirus unintended consequences. I wonder what else we'll be
rethinking.

~~~
mosselman
As MrGilbert pointed out, this case has got nothing to do with Corona.

------
lr4444lr
This makes no sense to me. Why not just give the employee a commensurate tax
deduction? Now the companies will be disincentivized from keeping to
quarantine when it isn't mandated, and from hiring back when it is. They're
going to deduct it from their profit anyway if it's an employee cost, so it's
going to come out of state tax revenues as it is.

------
archsurface
This sounds like the sort of property inflation scam I'd expect from the UK.
Hopefully the Swiss have thought it through carefully - they do usually seem
to.

