I get what you’re saying, I just see it a bit differently.
With a majority remote workforce, the company’s physical plant expenses should be reduced, effectively shifting the cost of utilities to the employee. All things being equal reduced expenses mean increased profits. This increase in profits generally does not go back to the employees, so even though their personal assets are effectively serving as a rent-free physical plant for the company, there’s no consideration of that in the company’s bottom line. Depreciable expenses plummet for them, and on and on.
I don’t like marrying it to salary and definitely prefer a reimbursement model, though that has a few new burdens for the employee, but that’s acceptable.
This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week.
Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?
As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
Health insurance is a benefit, paying for equipment necessary to do the job isn't.
I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
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.
Should I be forced by the courts to pay for the tools of my plumber in addition to the agreed wage?
But the plumber is not your employee. He is somebody else's employee, and that somebody should be paying for his work van and tools (that somebody could be himself, if he's independent).
Anyways, it's all a bit of a moot point. Labor is a market and the prices are what they are. Most employees will earn X. If an employer has to pay for WFH (or transit), the employee will just earn Y+expenses, where the sum equals X.
In a perfect world, there would be few or zero entanglements between my wages and expenses/benefits. And I could negotiate freely on just my wages (not wages, expenses, benefits, etc).
I'm looking to move to a new place this summer. Since it looks like I will be working from home for a significat amount of time, I am now looking for something with one more bedroom that I would have before to use as an office.
Talking to many friends and people at my job, I am definitly not the only one, so work from home has a cost for employees.
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.
This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.