It's a small expense for employers, and can be a real difference in costs for the employee. I don't think you're correct. If I spend 100% more on heating everyday because I work from home so need to heat 24/7, that's nothing to an employer (100-200$/m) but could be a significant deduction from a family's budget.
Meanwhile the employer would have otherwise heated up an office space and paid all bills there.
I've been remote for a decade now and it always struck me as odd, but I didn't care enough to push for it. But as the remote concept is being used by many employers to cut on office expenses, employees with no alternative should be compensated for the extra expense they incur. It's just common sense, like paying for your mileage when you drive for business.
This seems hard to work out (I guess I should read the bill first, but), for example if someone has a stay-at-home house or some roommates, kids, etc, does the company have to work out the incremental cost of heating the house for one additional person?
Does the company get some input as to what the thermostat should be set to?
If you are a renter with included utilities, do they pay the landlord instead?
If you are living in a van, do they pay for your oil changes and parking tickets? Ok, I guess this last one is kinda silly.
This is all somewhat settled law. It's the same rules as a home office deduction but with exceptions. They pay based on the square footage of your dedicated workspace compared to your home.
If you don't have a dedicated workspace, you can't take the home office deduction and your employer technically doesn't have to reimburse you anything (so this is more beneficial to wealthy people with dedicated home offices).
But why not then demand that your employer cover your [reasonable] commuting costs, and even pay you for [reasonable] time spent commuting? That would greatly exceed your WFH costs, no doubt.
It's trivial to add demands like this. Employers have more pull in the legislatures than employees, so be careful what you wish for.
I think California already requires employers to do that.
What I find surprising is that everybody thinks employers are going to jump all over these requirements and work their hardest to make sure they are 100% in compliance instead of mostly ignoring them and making only a token effort to be in compliance. "We offered to buy chairs for the workers, what more do you want?"
We’ll start being asked for utility bills during interviews and recruiters will screen for people with heat pumps. “Candidate must have updated insulation and new windows”
There's standard rules for car travel expenses, I don't see why not do the same for offices. People don't expense their Dodge Charger's gas bill, they expense standard reasonable fixed rate. Working from home isn't free, offloading all of the cost on employees seems like a use of employee resources without compensation. I'm not dying on that hill and it doesn't bother me at all to pay for it all myself, but it really strikes me as the same thing as use of personal car for business purpose == reimbursement. It's chomp change to me, but it's probably not for many people.
Who's going to background check every candidate's house on order to save up on like, $4000 a year for a very inefficient energy setup?
The worst reality is they will estimate and then cut that expense from your offer. Still, $5000 less for the kind of work offered remote isn't a deal breaker.
Meanwhile the employer would have otherwise heated up an office space and paid all bills there.
I've been remote for a decade now and it always struck me as odd, but I didn't care enough to push for it. But as the remote concept is being used by many employers to cut on office expenses, employees with no alternative should be compensated for the extra expense they incur. It's just common sense, like paying for your mileage when you drive for business.