
Court rules California employers must pay employee cell phone expenses - greenyoda
http://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2014/08/bring-your-own-device/
======
danbruc
Why does this even need a court decision? How would you defend the position,
that you force additional work-related expenses onto your employees but are
not required to compensate them?

~~~
x0x0
An employer making employees pay for a plan to use cell phone minutes in a
non-incidental way is amazing; I don't know how that can stem from any place
but fuck you, I've got mine. Though Amazon is claiming they shouldn't have to
pay employees for waiting in line for security checks, for up to a claimed 30
minutes [1].

edit: I recalled a situation at a previous employer for an ops person who had
significant work usage of his cell phone; our employer didn't want to pay for
it. I'm not sure how that got resolved. Though this employer had pictures of
naked women as part of the interview process so, you know, all class. (I
didn't get that for my screen, but others did.)

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-
che...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-checks-paid-
as-work-supreme-court-will-decide)

~~~
dalore
I've had colleagues refuse to give their phone number out unless management
say they will pay towards the cost of the phone. Also stops the out of hours
calls.

------
zaroth
Expense reimbursement is always tax-free for the employee and fully deductible
for the company, whereas any increase in compensation from $100k-$150k can
carry an effective tax rate over 50% due to progressive marginal rates and
phase-outs.

Particularly for these types of ambiguous use items, I would expect savvy
companies to be maximizing this benefit, not minimizing it.

~~~
Gotperl
The cost for an employer gets cheaper as an employee makes more money, not
more expensive. There are no increasing marginal rates for employer payroll
taxes- just the employee state/federal income taxes.

~~~
zaroth
It depends how you measure the cost to the employer. When you're talking about
increasing employee compensation in the $100k - $150k range, I look at the
total cost to end up with $1.00 in the employee's savings account. The point
is that increasing compensation is extremely inefficient in the $100k - $150k
range. That's why, for example, US engineers getting raises in that pay range
will often find it doesn't change much in their living situation. "I got a
$10k raise" but really take-home pay just increased $4500.

Often times paying out compensation in cash like this is _just too expensive_.
It's a weird concept that the cost of cash is a curve mostly dictated by tax
rates. When the IRS is taking 55% at certain points in the curve, you get much
bigger bang for the buck by offering other benefits, like maximizing expense
reimbursements. (phone, internet, qualified commuting expenses, food &
entertainment, etc.)

------
r00fus
"employers that require employees to use their personal devices to conduct
business as a condition of employment will need reimbursement plans or face
litigation risk."

So what does this mean? Likely not triggered by simply storing my mobile
number on the internal groupware contacts card.

However, if I'm in services or sales, and I travel a lot - I would now be in a
position where I need to be available - would that be considered "as a
condition of employment"?

Examples would make this a lot easier to navigate.

------
pm24601
I love California. This is the 300th reason why I will never leave the state.
It is so good about protecting workers ( when compared to the rest of the US.
)

~~~
robomartin
Interesting point of view. Employers beyond a given scale want to LEAVE
California because of just how ridiculous things can be here. And so, you like
CA because of your perceived (or real) benefits to employees when, in reality
the rules that keep piling up are making jobs leave the state and, in effect,
cost employees dearly. In other words, employees are not losing small amounts
or benefits here and there but rather their jobs and the ability to maintain a
standard of living as everything else in the state ads cost to doing business
here.

Remember that widely reported employment numbers count minimum wage jobs and
highly-paid jobs the same way. In other words one could say that CA is
gaining, not losing, jobs yet when you dig into the data you discover that
jobs that pay well are leaving and the ranks are being filled by people taking
pay and standard of living cuts.

It's interesting to come to the realization that the average Joe and Jane has
no clue as to what a business equation looks like, how businesses run and how
costs and legislation affect numbers.

You can't keep taking from people and businesses forever without consequences.
This isn't a politically charged statement, this is simple mathematics.
Eventually we succeed at killing off our own source of income when they decide
to pull-up anchor and move to more reasonable shores (sometimes literally).
Both businesses and people have choices.

~~~
pm24601
Humorous point of view.

You are welcome to move to a place that permits employees to be abused.

The hardest problem I have is hiring good people: Not taxes.

If a business wants to move to out of the largest economy in the U.S. -- well
then it is making an interesting choice that other businesses will take
advantage of.

Funny thing is that Rick Perry has been trying oh so hard to get businesses to
move to Texas... but if the best employees are in California then that means a
business is trading lower taxes for lower quality workers. That too is an
interesting choice.

~~~
robomartin
You are thinking locally. Nobody cares where Tesla or Toyota build their cars.
Having your business located "in the largest economy" isn't a factor for a
huge number of businesses.

Another way to put it is: You can build a massively successful business
anywhere in the country. There is no particular magic in California in this
regard. What is different here is that it cost more to simply exist in this
state. And there's far more to it than wages at play.

~~~
pm24601
But the costs of running a business are much more than taxes and regulations.

Here is the TL;DR:

Businesses want the benefit of low taxes (lower immediate expenses) with the
benefit of high taxes locations (government provide services that the business
would otherwise have to pay).

But low tax utopia fails if no one pays high taxes needed to provide the
services.

Longer explanation here:

[http://sworddance.com/blog/2014/10/23/california-is-
awesome-...](http://sworddance.com/blog/2014/10/23/california-is-awesome-for-
business-the-myth-of-the-importance-of-low-taxes/)

and here:

[http://sworddance.com/blog/2014/10/23/low-business-tax-
utopi...](http://sworddance.com/blog/2014/10/23/low-business-tax-utopia-myth/)

~~~
robomartin
It's not just taxes, it's everything. Doing business in California, depending
on what you do, can be very difficult. If you are a website designer none of
this is likely to make sense. If, on the other hand, you happen to own an
manufacturing facility as I do, yeah, you get it and I don't have to explain
it.

Quick example. There's something in the County of Los Angeles called "Business
Property Tax". It is officially considered a "privilege tax", meaning, you pay
for the privilege of doing business within and through the County of Los
Angeles. All of it is nonsense but the "through" part is particularly
sickening. Even if your business is in Arizona, if you DRIVE THROUGH LA to do
business you are, in theory, supposed to pay for this tax. Thankfully they
can't keep track of such things yet so they are not pissing all over this
country asking for money.

But wait, what is this "Business Property Tax"?

Is it a tax levied on the building you own or lease?

Nope. Not at all.

Do you own a desk? A computer? A printer? A trash can? A fax machine? Did you
change the carpets at the office you rent (Did you do any tenant improvement
work)? Do you have desk lamps? Chairs? Shelves?

Yes? OK, hand over the receipts to the County of Los Angeles, you have to pay
TAXES on your business property.

No bullshit. Here:

[http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-21/business/fi-20589_1_p...](http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-21/business/fi-20589_1_property-
tax)

and here:

[http://lacountypropertytax.com/portal/contactus/ppa.aspx](http://lacountypropertytax.com/portal/contactus/ppa.aspx)

Even if the computer you are using is yours --not owned by the business-- you
can technically be required to pay this tax on it because it is used by the
business and controlled by the business to a degree.

Utopia? Well, it's very real. And it is absolutely fucking unbelievable. It
isn't a lot of money, somewhere in the order of 1$ annually. But the concept
that the County of Los Angeles grabs a 1% tax FOREVER on that laptop you
bought for your business on an annual basis is, well, sorry, only raw sewage
dumped on this page could begin to describe what I think of taxes like this
one. It's theft, that's what it is.

Because the tax is small people have better things to do than to fight it.
And, because a lot of voters are predisposed or easily convinced to be anti-
business trying to get it repealed is likely to fail as smart politicians
would quickly weaves all kinds of lies about greedy business men wanting to
take food away from poor children. Theft.

And like that there are many other little needles California loves to stick
into you depending on the type of business you are in. A friend of mine leases
about four million dollars of manufacturing equipment.

This is why some of the comments I read on HN get me riled up at times. It is
easy to tell they mostly come from twenty-somethings who have not been exposed
to the real world enough to get a nice tan bordering on a burn and truly
understand things.

We need to aggressively cut down on taxation and remove nearly all incentives
for politicians to tax us. If we don't we end up with hundreds of little 1%
taxes that, collectively, only serve to pay for their pensions and wasteful
spending and do nothing, absolutely nothing, for society. Next time you get
gas anywhere pay attention to how much and how many taxes and fees you are
paying and then try to square that away with the condition and disrepair of
our roads and bridges.

~~~
pm24601
So move to Kansas.

They are doing exactly what you want.

Seriously. Move if it is so bad. Otherwise, realize that paying taxes is part
of the cost of doing business.

------
bsder
Why is this even an issue?

If I were running a company, I'd just give you a corporate phone that the
company completely pays for. This seems like a no-brainer.

BYOD (bring your own device) always seemed like a non-starter to me. Do you
_really_ want your employer to have _any_ access to your personal device? I
sure wouldn't.

~~~
gizmo686
BYOD does not mean the employer has access to the device, it means that the
device is used for all work related purposes that would require such a device.
In some jobs, that might require giving the employer some control, but that is
not nessasary.

The main benifits I see are: not having to carry two phones, and having more
freedom to choice what device you use.

~~~
darklajid
But you can have the cake and eat it too:

Company lets you decide what device you want, pays the bill and - allows you
to use it privately. I gave my mobile contract to my wife, only use my
'business' phone now. Private calls are explicitly allowed (most calls are
free anyway, in this contract). Some common sense is required: Calling a
dating line is probably stupid, talking to relatives in somewhere-over-the-sea
is out as well. The only 'real' limitation I have is that I should avoid
excessive texting (I .. write one sms a month, maybe, anyway. Nothing that
concerns me), due to the way the contract works.

So: \- device of my choosing \- only one device on me \- I call my friends and
family using said device

------
kissickas
Unrelated, but the ridiculous banner on that website takes up half of my
screen, and a good portion of it as I scroll down, the purpose of which is
beyond me. "We noticed you are in the United States"... no I'm not.

------
WalterBright
> Consider these factors when building a compliant reimbursement policy [...
> long and incomplete list ...]

Those regulations are micromanaging trivia. Is that really the proper role of
government? In addition to the cost of the phones, companies have to hire
additional people just to design, build and manage a "compliant reimbursement
policy."

~~~
ajross
The "role of government" phrasing makes this sound more anarcholibertarian
than I think you meant it, but it's really not that notable.

The use of "compliant" is a little misleading. This is a court ruling, not a
regulation. It just says that you have to pay for your employee's expenses,
which is sort of a "duh" thing to me. Companies have "compliant reimbursement
policies" for travel and purchasing and client schmoozing already, and this
need be no different or more complicated.

If employees have to pay for stuff you have to pay them back. That doesn't
sound like over-regulation to me.

