Engineer sues Amazon for not covering work-from-home internet, electricity bills Amazon's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit, brought by one of its senior software engineers, asking it to reimburse workers for internet and electricity costs racked up while working from home in the pandemic, has been rejected by a California judge. David George Williams sued his employer for refusing to foot his monthly home …
Is Amazon required to pay for commuting costs for office workers? Clothing costs? Unlikely.
Are those higher or lower than the $50/month requested for home internet and electricity?
Paying for home internet and electricity seems a fair trade for the wasted time and resources spent commuting and dressing up to be in a communal office.
Hi Mr Bezos.
I thought i was good at posting controversial opinions here, but i take my hat off to you, defending THAT company
Also, the percentage doesn't matter unless he is charged by the *byte... if so, then the 'only 10% of this was work related' has merit. I do pay thusly. The 500Gb allowance per month is less than 25% of the bill, so even if it was 99% pornhub, amazon would be on the hook for 3/4 of the bill.
I disagree.
If he had the broadband agreement prior to working from home, and was already using it, then his costs have not been increased by Amazon and they have nothing to pay.
If he had to increase his data cap because of additional work data, then Amazon are liable for at most the increase in the cap, potentially less.
Also, who on earth has a data cap on their broadband these days?
This was what I had to do, and though it would've been nice if my employer reimbursed me for it, the $40 or $50 increase in ISP costs and increase in electric/heating costs was probably about a wash with my fuel savings, not even taking into account my time. Getting 2-2.5 hours/day of my life back AND saving the fuel costs more than made up for my increased spend on internet/power/gas service.
My previous 200Mbps plan would've been fine, except it's Comcast so uploads were limited to something like 10Mbps. To get to 25Mbps upload speeds, I had to upgrade to their 1Gbps plan for $100/month.
This is not just about Internet costs, it is about the additional power usage moving from the office to working from home.
Any benefit from not commuting is supplementary. Crucially, not everyone had expensive commutes. It is this last point that really winds me up. My commuting costs were negligible as I cycled to work. When we moved to WFH as a result of the pandemic, we just sucked it up and in the UK took the tax relief. Now skip forward and the organisation I worked for decreed that all support staff would now be WFH. In their new WFH policy it explicitly stated that WFH reduced everyone's commuting costs and we would all be better off. There was nothing to contribute to any additional costs as a result of WFH. They then disposed of some buildings to reduce costs.
My commute was the same. 20 minute train journey, trains frequent (every 15 mins) and never packed and ticket was just £5 return.
Some days I'd vary it with a beer or meal after work in town too. I definitely now feel mentally worse off WFH, not to mention financially. Dreading winter when I have to have the heating on all day.
So how much electricity will you get for not spending that £5 each day?
How does that compare to the power used by a laptop - hint, my charger says it is 65 watts, and I can run it to charge, then unplug and run it for three or four hours with no problems, and often run it for longer before plugging it in again.
How does that compare to what the router uses - can't see a number on it unfortunately.
What does that meal in town cost, compared to cooking at home?
Bezos? stupid but, I'll grant you, funny.
I work from home. I used to work in an office, and even with my ssh, rdp, https, voice calls, meets meetings, teams meetings and downloaded pdf documents, that didn't push us over our download limit. Additionally, even if I had to pay for additional usage, it would still be less than I was paying for transportation to and from the office.
Amazon should also subpoena his personal email to find out how many times he said he liked working from because not having to commute made it all worthwhile.
"Hopefully Amazon will subpoena his ISP bills and traffic reports and find that 99% of the traffic into/out of his network was Youtube, or Pornhub."
I don't know how it works on your home planet, but here on Earth our ISPs don't send an itemized bill containing all the sites we visited this month...
Commuting is not part of actual work. If they had to use their car to visit clients, then yes, CA law requires reimbursement.
What about use of their domicile as office space? That also should be reimbursed. This is especially pertinent to employers who have decided they like not having to pay for office space and all that goes with it.
Amazon is simply displaying the increased trend over the last 50+ years to compensate employees less and redistribute wealth upward to the maximum extent they can get away with. Fuck them.
"What about use of their domicile as office space?"
Please do not assume your own national situation as default.
In my local situation this can be answered legally and financially with a yes, as are other costs connected with the execution of ones profession/ assignments as described in the article. As has happened before here on El Reg, there are more sides to a coin, and we do not all live in the country that invented Uber...
Amazon didn't order the stay-at-home, that was the government. But, equally, Amazon could have put staff on furlough, extended leave, paid leave, whatever... it was Amazon's decision to require working during the stay-at-home.
Whether people forced to stay at home saved anything on commuting expenses is irrelevant. If the employer doesn't reimburse commuting costs (and what employer does??), then as far as the employer is concerned, it's completely the employee's responsibility. Ergo any savings made by the employee are also not the employer's concern.
The one thing that is a reasonable exemption is that Amazon should be on the hook only for proportional use. Eg using 10% of your apartment space during working days only, Amazon should pay 1/10 of 5/7 of rent. Using broadband for half your waking working day, Amazon should pay 1/2 of 5/7 of subscription etc. The $50-$100 / mth mentioned does not seem unreasonable.
If the employer doesn't reimburse commuting costs (and what employer does??), then as far as the employer is concerned, it's completely the employee's responsibility
Or you could look at it as, the employer sets the pay for a particular job at a level that a potential employee considers sufficient, including expenses incurred in travel to & from the place of employment. It may not be directly reimbursed, but if the pay isn't sufficient then the commute isn't affordable.
By being allowed to work from home - even some of the time - the employee effectively gets a pay rise (dependent of course on the cost of commuting etc.)
Now, instead of physically commuting, the cost of "getting to work" involves electronic "commuting". I seriously doubt that most workers would be worse off under such circumstances unless they happen to live within walking distance of the office, which I gather is highly unusual in the US.
I mostly agree, but I must quibble with your 5/7ths baseline. We all know that Amazon tries to extract maximum work for minimum expenditure, and I somehow doubt that they are holding their employees to a 40-hour (5-day) work week. That 71% (5/7ths) should probably be 85%, and may well be (on a case-by-case basis) 100%.
Travelling as day-to-day commuting. At least in my case.
I could (and still can) claim 27¢ per km travelled for home-work. In the days that I worked at the office, this amounted to a fairly tidy €30 per day before tax, which was pretty much all profit if I decided to cycle in on my ebike.
And I agree on the can of worms thing. Working from home is a win-win; if companies have to start paying people to stay at home (as opposed to just saving a bunch on office space) then they'll start weighing the odds, and may well end up mandating that employees come back to the office - in which case everybody loses. The company, the employee and the environment.
€30 / 0.27c = a 110km (70 mile) round trip. Well done, even on an e-bike :-)
On the other hand, here in the UK, "travel to and from work" is very, very rarely reimbursed, though "travel as part of the job" is (though some care workers have had to fight for this (see first FAQ item)). A job is worth a certain amount (in general) and if you choose to live further away than a colleague, unless you have some extremely in-demand skills, few companies could justify subsidising your personal lifestyle choices.
I commute about 90 miles a day. It works for me (just about) because when I got this job it would have been very difficult to move: the children were all settled in good schools and moving closer to my place of work would have moved my wife significantly further from hers. We also like the village we live in, and appreciate being close to elderly relatives and fairly good transport links.
A colleague who is my "twin" at work gets exactly the same pay, but has a daily commute of under 20 miles. That's his choice. At current prices it's costing me about two grand a year to commute, he pays well under £500. I don't expect my employer to make up the difference!
M.
Maybe taxed, but also compensated.
I don't understand why this was downvoted here, because this is indeed true (Dutch HMRC info in Dutch). Looks like there is a bit of Dutch wishful thinking going on here claiming a simple no. From my (limited) time in NL, I do know that all cloggers were always hunting for a company car, and then were pissed off if their government saw that as income and taxed them on it. And thus, many do all kinds of creative book keeping to show that they just used it professionally.
Then again, it is the only country I know where HMRC sends you an already completely filled out tax declaration, with all amounts, including income, property valuations, savings, other capital of you and your partner have, asking you to just sign it and move on. "Resistance is futile" apparently. Relieved it doesn't apply to me any more, but do feel for my (former) Dutch colleagues who decided to work outside NL, and seem to be tracked and hounded by Dutch HMRC continiously.
It's happened to me in the UK. My employer struck a deal with the local bus company to give staff free travel between the city centre and the out-of-town business park. Some people who lived on the other side of the city incurred the expense of getting to the first bus stop but in my case I just walked.
Travelling as day-to-day commuting or travelling from base (home or office as appropriate) to some other work site?
Yes. Day to day commutes are compensated. As is a percentage of internet expenses. Usually the company either provides equipment for home office or contributes financially.
If these rights are embedded in legislation, there is no can of worms to open.
"Day to day commutes are compensated...If these rights are embedded in legislation, there is no can of worms to open."
In what legislation? This would certainly not be the case in the UK (if commuting costs to a regular place of work were covered it would be taxable*) and as far as I know not in the US. If this were to lead to WFH to be withdrawn by employers there might be people looking out for this guy and wielding attitude adjustment tools.
* Another can of worms for freelancers.
"If this were to lead to WFH to be withdrawn by employers there might be people looking out for this guy and wielding attitude adjustment tools."
Agreed. I consider it a perk of my job to work from home on my own PC I provide, my own internet connection I pay for etc. All because it works out much better than sitting in traffic to visit a building to do the same thing I can do in the comfort of my own home. WFH isnt for everyone I am well aware but for some it truly is a perk.
>This guy is opening a can of worms.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Judge is happy to give the go-ahead. Also, with some companies wanting to reduce pay to those working from home, this case does suggest the cost/benefits aren't so simple.
If the case was being heard in the UK, I suspect the final judgement will balance the additional home costs against the commuting costs and make a judgement that means companies might not have to pay WfH employees home office expenses, they will have to take these additional costs (*) into consideration in determining any WfH arrangement, so that the WfH employee isn't financially disadvantaged.
(*) Which may include someone having to resize their accommodation to allow for a suitable WfH space.
In large parts of Europe, workers are compensated for traveling expenses
Clarify "travelling expenses" ?
In the UK, it is accepted that expenses paid to an employee to travel between work locations is not taxable. But if an employer makes any contribution to "commuting" costs then that is taxable. Commuting is travel between your normal residence and your normal place of work. There are some special rules for where there isn't a regular place of work - such as care workers who go directly from home to a client's home, then to other clients' homes, and finally back home.
But back to the original story, it's unfortunate for the employer in this case. I know I've saved a lot in time and money by not commuting for the last couple of years, and a colleague who travelled further reckoned he was saving £200/mo in diesel (and that was before the cost rocketed). For me, I pay for my internet regardless (it's unmetered so doesn't matter how much or little I use it) so there's no extra cost there, and the extra costs from lecky and heating are well less than I'd be paying for petrol so I'm happy that I'm not losing anything. And my employer said from the outset that they wouldn't be providing any allowances for WFH except in special cases which would be considered on a case by case basis (and I've not actually heard of any claims being made). They did provide a desk, chair, and some other kit needed - and I'm fortunate in having enough space to setup a "permanent" home office in the spare bedroom, it's only an issue when we have guests.
In the UK the idea of paying for people to travel to work is never going to happen because of the environmental cost of transport, long commutes are rightly discouraged. There are help to buy loan schemes for Bicycles, but that’s it.
There was even some talk of taxing people who drive to work if the employer provides free parking on site.
Even then the 45p (first 10k miles and 25p for anything over that) are 'guidelines' and not the law. My employer pays a flat rate of 16p per mile - they provide us with a 'car allowance' and claim that covers the rest. But they're completely wrong on this but accept that as they would have to pay out more to employees. (Have spoken to several accountants about this subject (pence per mile vs Car allowance))
I'm fortunately enough though that my home is classed as my office, so the moment I step out of the house to drive anywhere for work it is paid for (be it to one of our offices or client's).
So each year I do a self assessment - I'm not higher rate tax payer - but to get tax relief on the difference in mileafe paid to claim relief on £6 per week working from home. It's not much but it helps.
My company did the same. The only out of pocket for me was I had a table made to use as an office desk, 600USD, made of a very nice walnut and sized to be comfortable for my 6ft 4in frame. It's far more comfortable than the crap desk I was stuck with in the office. I don't mind paying the extra juice and my internet connection cost the same before and after, but I really like saving the now hindreds of dollars in fuel costs as well as the 8 hours a week in commuting costs. Of, and forgot, had to pay for parking as well - parking in my driveway costs nothing. I could even do away with my work vehicle if I wanted, were it not a pickup truck that I also use to work on my land. 20 acres in the sticks, love it.
"going in debt for 100k to get an education."
The government got into the business of guaranteeing student loans and that tossed a really big spanner into the works. When I went to school, it took me a bit longer, but I didn't have or need loans. I looked not to long ago into what it would cost to get a masters in nuclear physics at a good uni and it was close to $200k. I'm too old to ever see any return on that investment. What I'd like to find is how much it would have cost had I just kept on after getting my engineering degrees instead of diving into a manufacturing career.
For me my internet has no cap. I am however probably paying over the odds as I'm paying for a guaranteed connection.
I've solar panels so over the year my costs balance out. The amount I get paid for unused power is 4p per kWh.
I'm saving at least 300 on car insurance a year as I'm traveling less.
Petrol savings are 250 to 300 a month.
Then there is also the corresponding saving on less car maintenance. So one less major service a year plus tyres replaced way less frequently.
I've bought equipment that I use for work but I'd probably have bought it for myself in any case. This way I get to keep it and use it on my own projects.
Another thing to consider is that if you're working for 8 hours a day and you spend another two commuting, your effective hourly rate is reduced in proportion because you're getting paid for ten hours of your time rather than 8, unless your commute is such that you consider it useful time. I figure near-zero commute costs plus 90 minutes extra me time per day makes up for any additional expenses at home. However, I'm lucky enough to have the space and the equipment for working from home (my home workshop has pretty much the same facilities as I have at work), not everyone is in that position.
It is, and I'm not complaining one bit for having to spend 20 bucks a month more for electricity to work at home. Going into the office means an extra 8 hours of week commuing making my 10 hour workday into a 12 hour workday at 10 hours pay, 32 gallons of fuel per week, and having to maintain office-suitable attire. My internet costs are the same either way. Yes, I really want to whine about spending 20 bucks a month when it's saving me hundreds each month. And that's just the financial savings, it doesn't cover the more valuable benefits of not having to put up with my co-workers constantly whinging on about their personal lJerry Springer-esque lives.
Similar here.
Specifically:
It is considered a work related incident from the point of leaving your home to go to work, to the point of returning home from work(if you go shopping after work you are still considered as work related).
And yes - we have the lowest cost travel to/from work covered(usually monthly bus/train pass) as well as a certain amount for lunch/day.
Also some organisiations had a 1-2eur/day reimbursement for use of own resources during the whole WFH stuff.
So it's perfectly possible.
In my country of work, I am covered for having sex with strangers on business trips
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49662134
A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip.A Paris court ruled that his death was an industrial accident and that the family was entitled to compensation.
In a rare stroke of coincidence I recently just completed my firm's online workplace health and safety course.
And this exact situation was covered in the course.
Firstly, it was stated that if you're injured doing work related things at home then you are covered by the firms insurance, so the example given was, your router has started playing up, you start heading downstairs to turn the router on and off again, but fall going down the stairs. You are covered by the corporate insurance. If on the other hand you fall going down the stairs to collect mail from the mailman, then you're not covered.
Of course everyone is relying on a bit of honesty, as to why you were going down the stairs, but basically, if what you're doing is somewhat related to work, you're covered.
But anyway this is in Germany, so YMMV.
"Plaintiff's claims fail because the law does not require Amazon to reimburse expenses that were caused by government actions,"
Furthermore Amazon has determined that they were paying him wages caused by government anti-slavery actions, and thus Amazon did not need to pay him at all, and will be seeking refund of his wages. Oh, and a kidney from his first born.
This lawsuit is all fun until the company tells everybody working from home to work their overtime hours at the office in future; there is no more WFH due to the issues it raised. It only takes a few individuals to ruin something like this for everyone. I compare this with traffic circles and infernal speed bumps that litter the streets where I live: a few induhviduals could not subscribe to acceptable social behaviour and now everybody suffers.
(P.S. I'm not defending the Evil Empire — I actively avoid shopping from them)
Generally I agree. The guy is a thoughtless idiot. During the pandemic I saved 2 years worth of season tickets which easily made up for the extra electricity and stuff. And my broadband is flat rate, so no extra expense there. Result: Me quids in.
Not so good with part home/part work, as an annual season ticket is slightly cheaper than a years worth of 3 days a week return tickets from where I live, but there are other things than money.
Except apparently for that guy.
On reading this I was pondering how much extra 'leccy/gas/etc I was burning though during the entire WFH thing. And possibly thought he had a point. But your reply reminded me that I wasn't paying for a season ticket and also that generally lunch at home is much cheaper than lunch in the City. So I guess that might even out a bit.
Though like you I now go into the office 2/3 times a week and any sort of season ticket is only really worth if if you're doing ~5 days. Oh and then there's lunch...
"any sort of season ticket is only really worth if if you're doing ~5 days"
With all sorts of electronic ticking systems around these days, it can't be beyond the wit or ability of the transport networks to sell bulk journeys instead of blanket season tickets. Why buy a year of unlimited use on a specific journey when they could just as easily sell you 100 or 200 journeys? With hybrid WFH, there's a market for this. Same should apply to toll roads/bridges/tunnels and low emission charging zones.
If it would be cheaper for the customer it's likely less profitable for the seller.
They want to sell you a season ticket that costs you very-small% less than you would pay individual tickets.
The ideal system is to sell you season tickets that cost MORE but then only allow season ticket holders on commuter services.
It's a bit annoying at the moment with in-office 2-3 days/week. Paying per day for tickets/parking is 'almost' as expensive as the season ticket/monthly parking.
Heh. I lost big time.
I had just converted from season tickets to weekly passes (season tickets do not have a "senior" rate, while weekly passes are 50% off for over 65). Because of the tax-free witholding system at work, I was stuck with about $800 in the account, which could ONLY be used for transit tickets...which I no longer needed as I was full time wfh.
The solution turned out to be buying 8 stored value transit cards and donating them to a women's shelter. At least someone got some use out of the inaccessible cash!
Too much hassle to sell them -- no one else was commuting, either!
As it was, I was restricted:
- could only withdraw $300 per month
- could only buy the cards in person at the train station
- could only put $100 on any one card.
Took me 3 months to empty the account! The shelter was very appreciative, once they had been convinced I wasn't a scammer! I did all the interaction by email, and the only thing I asked them for was "an" address I could mail them to.
Oh dear God yes. At one place I worked the tea/coffee machines were free (that was actually an appropriate price based on quality) but in a random discussion someone mentioned this could be classed as a benefit in kind and taxed.
One of the team then decided to contact HMRC to check on this and was shocked when we suggested he was a pillock. Fortunately HMRC never took it any further so he lived to be a plonker on other days.
"Oh dear God yes. At one place I worked the tea/coffee machines were free (that was actually an appropriate price based on quality) but in a random discussion someone mentioned this could be classed as a benefit in kind and taxed."
My old company (big, blue, IT) did exactly this in the early 00's. Sent a memo round saying that free tea/coffee was a BIK, and we could either all have a fixed amount deducted from our salaries to compensate, or they could start charging. They went down the salary route for a while (€10/month before tax IIRC) until there was a backlash, then they started charging instead.
The coffee was shite either way.
My company has gone the route of buying coffee machines for the big offices, but the people in the offices are required to provide the coffee, milk, sugar, etc. IT's quite a good system, I think.
We had a beautiful Jura machine, that did the milk and everything automatically, in our office and yet my colleagues would buy the cheapest powered shite they could find from Lidl or Aldi to put in it! Why on Earth would you have a good coffee machine and put coffee flavoured dirt into it?
I could never understand my colleagues on that topic. It just meant I didnt drink the stuff, nor pay for it and I would go walkies a couple of times a day to a friends office where they actually had good coffee.
I swear people are crazy!
I ran a few projects for a corporate caterer. Their business model was based on taking control of the internal canteens charging a reasonable rate and using their bulk purchasing ability to actually generate the profits.
In many cases they were so much more efficient that the incumbent that they could even pay the employer for the privilege of operating the canteens. They did pay a decent wage to staff but were incredibly efficient round procurement payment and budget management. Buying "off contract" was a sackable offence as falling below minimum procurement agreement levels resulted in hie costs to them
My company's head office has bean-to-cup machines that offer the basic coffee combinations (including milk variants) and I have no idea what quality beans go into it. I just drink buckets of the stuff because it's good.
They're catering grade machines though, not dissimilar to the ones you find in the restaurants that do breakfast for Premier Inns.
So although provision of proper coffee for free is incredibly rare in modern UK, I'm jealous you had a Jura machine. I have their cheapest model at home and it's just better than most company's top models, and the only reason I haven't upgraded to one of Jura's newer and more premium options is that they built this thing so well it just keeps working.
Easy recommendation. Well worth the investment.
I do like my coffee, but £765 for their cheapest one is bit outside what I'd be prepared to pay, no matter how good it is. But for those who buy their branded cardboard cup of coffee on the way to work could be saving money within a couple years, including the cost of the insulated, lidded travel mug :-)
My company did that too. Machines were made in Canada, and have a cellular connection for software update. They are capable of charging for the coffee (which was disabled) and are quite clever inside (I sneaked a peek when they were open for service), but do require frequent maintenance! The admin person spent a good amount of time refilling the beans and the powdered milk. I searched the web and found the manual for the machine we had (which includes a default password, natch). I'm not sure how to find its IP address on the cell network, or I would have logged on and changed the splash screen video :-)
The coffee is very good, but the "milk" is powdered, as is the cocoa. I opted to use milk (also supplied) from the fridge.
And...for those whose company is too cheap to offer free coffee, I have a suggestion. Form a coffee club, with a nominal monthly membership fee. As much coffee from the communal pot as you wish (and with enough members, you could get a pretty nice bean-to-cup machine) and the supplies are really quite reasonable.
Him Indoors' employer does this. HI is currently quietly campaigning for an upgrade to the coffee quality that goes into the machine. 18 months WFH with our Jura filled with organic Yirgacheffe two rooms away from the study has left him much less tolerant of coloured dishwasher than he used to be.
Some years back, we used to get £10 per month towards having a home internet connection when it wasn't assumed that the vast majority would have one anyway. But eventually, market penetration reached the point where it was assumed most people would have it anyway and it became a taxable benefit and the company stopped the payments.
AFAIK, our company has no process in place for checking on private use of company mobile phones. To this day, I've never owned my own mobile phone. On the other hand, I'm not a dick about using it. Most of my personal calls are to my wife to let her know roughly when I'll be home since the job involves highly variable home arrival times and occasional nights away. I'd class those as work related calls.
To this day, I've never owned my own mobile phone.
I've never taken the company up on their kind offer of a phone, I only use my own. That way no-one can tell me not to turn it off or ignore it when I decide that work is done for the day. My bosses have always been fine with that approach.
My 'work from home' contract explicitly states that I have to provide the working environment - including things like a desk, a chair and a broadband connection.
I also don't have to commute, and get paid 44p/mile if I ever do drive to the office (and could choose to do that journey every week if I wanted). So on the whole it's all incredibly sane and entirely fair.
My previous company's rules also seemed fair. People who were majority WFH had a budget for equipment. Full-time WFH also had a monthly payment toward their heating/electricity costs, and even occasional WFH could submit expenses claims to have internet fees reimbursed, for example those who chose to do late evening/early morning meetings with people in other timezones. In all cases the company did insist that I provide proof that I had suitable home insurance, which they would not pay for
I never actually asked for internet to be reimbursed, partly because I would have paid it anyway for my personal use, and partly because my wife also used it for WFH and sometimes worked for a competing company. It seemed unfair on both counts to expect my company to pay.
If they're not the company's problem, then logically they're not company facilities. Therefore they can't be used for company work, as they would be benefiting from using private property without prior agreement.
Well this could catch a cold. So, if the guy had his office a cycle ride away then he may be on a winner, but if he has to pay for his vehicle, a train etc he is possibly on a loser. Why OK if he rode a bike to work his central heating goes off, his lighting goes off, his computer goes off (and is not using space) and he also is not using his furniture and so on, BUT should he catch a train to work the courts will have to asses his extra costs and then take his savings by not catching the train. He could then be told to repay the company that money as he is making a profit on his costs. His company pay him taking into consideration his expenses, so if he has not got them, he must pay the company back any differences. Cuts both ways!
While on Universal Credit during the lockdown period I was working part time as a science tutor. After being advised by others I claimed for power, internet etc costs to defray some of the 63.3% marginal tax (at that time) rate on my earnings. All my claims were accepted (because they were reasonable). All tutorials were online then.
In the UK, there are rules about running a business from home too. I have no real idea about them but ISTR there being some rules regarding proportions of business rates (taxes) on the property used. That may only apply if your running a business from home rather than working for an employer. Maybe someone who knows can comment?
Very small companies can end up paying no business rates. The company I work for has 4 employees and does not pay business rates.
However if you claim more than the 26 a month for WFH by claiming you use x% of your home for working you might find on the sale of your house HMRC is looking for a cut of the profit.
Sometimes it better not to be too greedy.
We have no idea of this guys situation as to whether WFH cost him, or saved him money overall, and if it is money he couldn't afford to spend, so just because it saved some is not a reason for him not to pursue. So little unfair stating things like "idiot" without the facts.
in principle though i think the argument has some merit, the US GOVT said stay at home. AMZN said carry on working, if there were expenses to bear surely then AMZN should help towards them. I know different mentality in the US than here in Europe regarding these type of situations, i.e. fear of being laid off etc if head rises above the parapet but come on, not everything is about "our individual" situation.
I have to agree, IF someone upgraded their internet because of working from home, Amazon should foot the bill. I have serious doubts it comes out to $50 or $100 per class member, I would not be surprised to find the vast majority spent $0 extra on their internet service, and little to no extra on power. But on the other hand, Amazon's reply "no because it was a government mandate" is complete nonsense, and it's easy enough for a judge to go through the merits of the case, decide what is owed and to whom.
Never thought I would defend Amazon, but seems like the company and employee deserve each other.It was only going to be a matter of time in the US though and sadly this sort of crap will be over here with us pretty soon.
I know dozens of people here in the UK that were told to work from home, given a laptop & mobile to do so and still manage to whine about the fact that they don't get paid extra. Some of them were saving a 2 hr out & back commute per day, so 10 hours unpaid free time a week extra as well as the saving of fuel and wear & tear on their cars. Set against this maybe a few hundred £ in heat and electricity over a year.
One couple I know were saving about £2500 in fuel, based on 50 mpg per car and commuting in different directions, not to mention the wear and tear savings of 12,500 miles per car x 2. Also a virtual 'pay rise' of £35K between them due to the time previously spent commuting if they used their hourly rate. Still they whine that it cost an extra few hundred a year in bills.
These are just as parasitic as amazon and their actions will result in some big solicitors making a killing and everyone else having losing out. When the inevitable happens here and they are all back to normal they will see what they have lost.
Pricks, the lot of them.
I hate this engineer so much for filing this lawsuit.
The amount of electricity used to WFH is miniscule. And broadband usage is almost always unlimited - he/she would have broadband at home in any case.
This just gives employers more ammunition to force people to work in the office full time. We are desperately trying to educate our employers on the benefits of WFH while this idiot is going to move them the other way.
If they have to work from home, then they can claim their home office expenses on tax as a deduction, at least in Australia. Here you can also claim per-hour based on some formula, or do it the hard way and work out power, % of your residence, internet, etc etc.
The savings in fuel and time for me are immense, I love working from home. Save 2 hours in the car, and a 130km round trip, car needs servicing less often, less fuel, etc.
Dunno why they are chasing Amazon, just claim it on tax.
In the US, if you work from home and have a designated work space, you can deduct its cost from your taxes. I take a deduction for my home office based on the area it takes up (one room) and the percentage of usage that is work related (100% since I'm self employed). My office is about 12% of the house, so 12% of the power bill is deductible. Yeah, it doesn't make complete sense, but we're talking about a government agency.
I could rent an accommodation office in one of those work share buildings and deduct all of that cost if the home office deduction ever goes away. I'd almost never use that office and continue working from home anyway. If I ever get audited, they'll see I'm not claiming all the space I use for business. Past a certain percentage and it is another trigger for a tax audit so I stay comfortably below.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
