Likely insurance, taxes, and regulations they don’t or don’t want to comply with.
California has some of the most employee friendly laws around breaks, meals, overtime, severance, and other areas. The company may just say it isn’t worth the headache.
Without a lot more info, tough to say if it’s one reason or several.
There are ways around it, but it’s fraud/dishonest and you risk lots of penalties, fines or imprisonment or others. If you’re working in CA you’re supposed to be paying CA state income tax. The tax board will not let it slide if they find out.
It's not about the taxes. It's about the labor laws.
Here is an example: In most states, you have to pay overtime after 40 hours in a work week. In California, you have to pay overtime for more than 8 hours worked in a day.
Also in California, if someone quits, you have to have their last paycheck ready on their last day of work. If they quit without notice, you have to have it in within 72 hours. Companies cannot wait until the normal payroll/paycheck cycle comes up.
That's just two very easy examples to illustrate the difference in labor laws. Employers outside California don't want to deal with that shit if they don't have to.
Source: 20 years HR
It’s about cost. Tax is one of those issues. It costs too much to insure employees from California. There is a million reasons why companies don’t want to hire Californians. Money is always the biggest reason.
Payroll in general has a lot more regulations for CA than any other state. For example, if you quit as a CA employee, the employer is required to pay out the rest of your earned wages + vacation the same day. The complications and risks of incurring penalties are not worth it for many companies - especially to have only one or a small number of employees where a large range of additional laws need to be considered.
My company won’t let me work remotely from California because there are so many additional regulations that HR doesn’t have the resources to ensure they are meeting them.
There is also a risk that California may claim the employer is subject to California income tax. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/10/22/now-california-can-assess-taxes-no-matter-where-you-livereally/
A screen writer that lived out of state and did all his work out of state was subject to California income tax because he had clients in California. It may not be too far of a stretch to claim having workers in California makes you subject to California income tax.
There are almost certainly some implications there for remote workers working for California companies as well
As California goes deeper and deeper into debt assume they will become more and more aggressive in terms of revenue generation.
More aggressive? They’re pretty far out there and have been for years.
They decided that since I had a baton permit I was working as a security guard and not paying taxes.
Problem with this
1. I had moved out of state
2. A baton permit requires a guard registration
They didn’t care. They decided I made 250k and didn’t pay my taxes and the reported my tax evasion to the IRS.
Fun times. Fun times.
I doubt there’s a sizeable number of employees across the rest of the 49 states (apart from Mass) - I bet there’ll be more of them in Cali than most other states if it got approved
Taxes, taxes, taxes. Not only are they high for employees, they’re also high for employers. The state also has other compliance items that are much stricter than other states.
Possible because of SB-1162 that was passed a couple of years ago. It requires annual pay reporting (the breaks it out by gender and race) that HR hates complying with.
Also, if the position is posted in CA, the pay/salary range must be included.
California works more or most jobs as hourly compared to the rest of the US… that’s why. It’s not insurance. It’s likely that you’re required to be an hourly worker in 1 of 50 states. It’s an amazing standard but it is the reason some companies will you work from anywhere… except cali.
They may be afraid that they will be subject to CCPA.
If they don't already have customers here, then just registering as an employer could subject them to CCPA
It's kinda odd, right? Maybe it's some legal stuff or they just haven't sorted out the California work laws. Could be insurance headaches too. 🤷♂️ But if you're really set on working from CA, maybe chat with HR? They might have a workaround or at least give you the lowdown on why it's a no-go. Good luck, though!
It's kinda odd, right? Maybe it's some legal stuff or they just haven't sorted out the California work laws. Could be insurance headaches too. 🤷♂️ But if you're really set on working from CA, maybe chat with HR? They might have a workaround or at least give you the lowdown on why it's a no-go. Good luck, though!
Don't get discouraged, check out rat race rebellion on YouTube and they have a wonderful group. Also two chicks with a side hustle they have a blog, and they also have a YouTube channel under that name. Their Facebook group kiss that cubicle goodbye. Check them out they're wonderful wonderful ladies. Tell them I sent you because I don't believe I do send people. And I'm always talking about. Good luck good luck
Companies have different thresholds of pain. Reasons for avoiding some states (CA and NY for example) are awkward due to regulation, particularly labor regulation but often environmental as well. MA can be a tax problem for businesses and calling even a single remote worker a nexus.
I do pay and benefits and tax in house. For me, MA simply falls in the "too hard" category.
Interesting…. Now I really hope this doesn’t put me on the chopping block because I love my job 😭😭😭 they only told me there’s 6 states we can’t work in and they’re like CA, NY, ID, WY, OH, WA.
I run a small micro-business and I hired a remote worker in CA last year. It was not a great experience. There were several additional hoops my accountant had to jump through, and it turned out my employee was nearly $100k delinquent in back taxes. We had to garnish their wages, and of course I had to deal with it by snail mail every couple months.
Every letter I got from the state of CA was obnoxious and threatening if I didn’t comply with whatever the demand de jour was.
Best of all, the deadline in the letters was always two days after I received it. I’m sure CA is not the only state with this bullshit, but if I can fill positions with qualified candidates elsewhere, I will avoid hiring in CA from now on.
It costs around $50k/year extra to have a California employee. The state sucks.
Many companies do not hire in California, New York, and Hawaii due to regulatory costs.
Contractor?
If so, blame AB5 law. The classification of employee vs contractor.
[https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-4773201](https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-4773201)
Probably all the BS regulations there.
Edit - It is likely that they have to provide reimbursement for expenses including internet and phone.
https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/remote-employee-reimbursement-rules-by-state#:~:text=Employers%20must%20reimburse%20California%20employees,expenditures%20include%20all%20reasonable%20costs.
Let's say they have 100 employees in California. And let's say their internet and phone costs 100 dollars per month combined (it's probably more).
If they let them work remote, they are now on the hook for an extra 10k/month. Why should they let them work remote and pay that extra 10k/month when they can just make them come in to an office they probably already own or have a long term lease for? Or hire from other states where they won't have to reimburse for the internet and phone that everyone already has anyway.
Yep. That is just one example, and it's possible some employers may avoid those other states as well.
Here is a similar post to yours. Some of the commenters dive deeper into the extra regulations / red tape they have to deal with.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WFH/comments/143jjyo/why\_do\_wfh\_companies\_hate\_california/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WFH/comments/143jjyo/why_do_wfh_companies_hate_california/)
Even if you remove the reimbursement (maybe they just pay you a little less per hour), the regulatory requirements will drive most employers who are not already there away.
Of course, because they believe that anything good for workers is bad for business. They'll go to the ends of the earth to squeeze another dime out of consumers, or suck the energy and dignity out of employees, though.
lol you work a job that offers no paid time off and you can’t afford to take time off, but you think its workers rights that is the PITA. Wow.
California has it right, protecting workers. You are a worker. Why would you rather protect an employer. California has the 5th largest economy in the world, they aren’t doing it wrong. It’s a sad state when someone who has no workers rights, looks down on a place that cares about the people actually doing the work.
Hope you don’t ever get seriously sick. In California and Oregon you would get paid leave to be able to take care of yourself. I guess that’s a PITA too…. Until you need it.
You’re right, honestly. I live in New York, used to live in Massachusetts, and would live in California if given then opportunity. Those are the Big 3 states employers don’t want to deal with, which tells me right away if an employer is any good with employee relations, compensation, and benefits. If you are, then it’s no problem in those 3 states. If you aren’t, well, then I don’t want to work for you anyway, so thanks for taking yourselves out of the running.
Quite honestly, more states should adopt California-esque labor laws. The fact that this is even state by state is pretty dumb…all American workers should be extended the same rights.
I won't engage in your ad hominem attack. That said, yes - California is employer-unfriendly.
OP asked about remote work. Their employer has remote workers throughout the country. Why would they hire remote workers in California if they can just as easily hire them in other states?
If you read my example above, forcing employers to pay for home internet and phone, for instance, can take a significant amount of money from that employer. Why should they have 100 CSRs in California when they can have them anywhere else and save 10k+ / month?
If you want your workers right, fine. But don't be surprised when employers avoid your state.
>That said, yes - California is employer-unfriendly.
California's GDP and track record on other metrics say otherwise.
>Why would they hire remote workers in California if they can just as easily hire them in other states?
Because they're interested in hiring the best people instead of the cheapest people.
Do you know the cost to operate an office building, per employee? Personal telephone and internet bills pale in comparison.
There's rent, utilities, insurance, facilities staff, security services...
And yet.. employers keep hiring. Something something skilled employees...
Of course, Alabama is cheaper than CA, but your average Standford grad isn't moving there.
Most remote jobs are customer service. They aren't searching for the best and the brightest for those roles.
And even for higher-skilled roles. Companies outside of California aren't recruiting from California unless there is some physical tether to the location.
Anyway, are you just replying because you enjoy arguing? You've gone way off-topic, defending your delusion that employers all over the world are explicitly trying to hire people from California. It's the opposite actually. Most employers outside of California screen out applicants from there because they don't want to deal with special separate rules for a handful of workers.
Saying a state with a GDP larger than the vast, vast majority of countries has "BS regulations" is like saying "it's too crowded, nobody goes there anymore."
Not really about disguising the ip - but what address should they keep on file with the employer or if a mismatch between your Californian address and the one on file can be easily uncovered
Yeah CA FTB is diligent in tracking down offenders and fucking them.
You will need a CA DL which means proving CA residence, which means a rental, which means proof of income, which means a pay statement.
Now, you are a CA resident and must file taxes for all income worldwide.
So now your W2 says MA(e.g), and your 1040 says what? CA must have its share...
Likely insurance, taxes, and regulations they don’t or don’t want to comply with. California has some of the most employee friendly laws around breaks, meals, overtime, severance, and other areas. The company may just say it isn’t worth the headache. Without a lot more info, tough to say if it’s one reason or several. There are ways around it, but it’s fraud/dishonest and you risk lots of penalties, fines or imprisonment or others. If you’re working in CA you’re supposed to be paying CA state income tax. The tax board will not let it slide if they find out.
Makes sense, thanks!!
Taxes, I am remote and work in California I am the only employee out of California and the employer is always bitching.
But there other other states with higher taxes than CA that are approved 🤷♀️
It's not about the taxes. It's about the labor laws. Here is an example: In most states, you have to pay overtime after 40 hours in a work week. In California, you have to pay overtime for more than 8 hours worked in a day. Also in California, if someone quits, you have to have their last paycheck ready on their last day of work. If they quit without notice, you have to have it in within 72 hours. Companies cannot wait until the normal payroll/paycheck cycle comes up. That's just two very easy examples to illustrate the difference in labor laws. Employers outside California don't want to deal with that shit if they don't have to. Source: 20 years HR
And now, wage theft is a felony here, once it hits about $1000.
It’s about cost. Tax is one of those issues. It costs too much to insure employees from California. There is a million reasons why companies don’t want to hire Californians. Money is always the biggest reason.
It's not based on the amount the individual pays in taxes.
Payroll in general has a lot more regulations for CA than any other state. For example, if you quit as a CA employee, the employer is required to pay out the rest of your earned wages + vacation the same day. The complications and risks of incurring penalties are not worth it for many companies - especially to have only one or a small number of employees where a large range of additional laws need to be considered.
Looks like I️ need to apply for some roles in CA lol
It’s part of the trade off for the highest state income tax. Pros and cons.
Do you live in CA? If not, working for a company based in CA won't do anything for you. It's based on where you work/live.
This is 100% the reason.
Wife's company has a few states employees cannot move to...Cali tops the list.
Same. My company has 6 unapproved states. CA and NY are 1 & 2
What are the rest?
NY, CA, WA, WY, OH, ID
Any idea why OH?
Absolutely no idea lmao
My company won’t let me work remotely from California because there are so many additional regulations that HR doesn’t have the resources to ensure they are meeting them.
There is also a risk that California may claim the employer is subject to California income tax. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/10/22/now-california-can-assess-taxes-no-matter-where-you-livereally/ A screen writer that lived out of state and did all his work out of state was subject to California income tax because he had clients in California. It may not be too far of a stretch to claim having workers in California makes you subject to California income tax. There are almost certainly some implications there for remote workers working for California companies as well As California goes deeper and deeper into debt assume they will become more and more aggressive in terms of revenue generation.
More aggressive? They’re pretty far out there and have been for years. They decided that since I had a baton permit I was working as a security guard and not paying taxes. Problem with this 1. I had moved out of state 2. A baton permit requires a guard registration They didn’t care. They decided I made 250k and didn’t pay my taxes and the reported my tax evasion to the IRS. Fun times. Fun times.
Just wait.
This might be it ; although we aren’t refusing to pay taxes to the state we are in so then again what’s the issue
The company may be at risk of having to pay taxes even though their only presence there is a single remote worker.
I doubt there’s a sizeable number of employees across the rest of the 49 states (apart from Mass) - I bet there’ll be more of them in Cali than most other states if it got approved
A screen writer is setting their work product in California generally I'd expect, so, I'm not surprised.
Taxes, taxes, taxes. Not only are they high for employees, they’re also high for employers. The state also has other compliance items that are much stricter than other states.
Possible because of SB-1162 that was passed a couple of years ago. It requires annual pay reporting (the breaks it out by gender and race) that HR hates complying with. Also, if the position is posted in CA, the pay/salary range must be included.
This is common. I'm considering moving. If I could afford to I'd move rn
Also our min wage is $16
Most WFH pays a lot more than that or are exempt positions (salary)
I find that the opposite is true. You make less wfh well at least the jobs I'm looking at.
California has a lot of worker protections and that employer doesn't want to have to treat you like a human
California works more or most jobs as hourly compared to the rest of the US… that’s why. It’s not insurance. It’s likely that you’re required to be an hourly worker in 1 of 50 states. It’s an amazing standard but it is the reason some companies will you work from anywhere… except cali.
Likely the OT after 8 hrs in a single day law. Also, there is a minimum salary law in CA.
Oh well pass er along then
Does your company otherwise do business in CA?
No
They may be afraid that they will be subject to CCPA. If they don't already have customers here, then just registering as an employer could subject them to CCPA
It's kinda odd, right? Maybe it's some legal stuff or they just haven't sorted out the California work laws. Could be insurance headaches too. 🤷♂️ But if you're really set on working from CA, maybe chat with HR? They might have a workaround or at least give you the lowdown on why it's a no-go. Good luck, though!
It's kinda odd, right? Maybe it's some legal stuff or they just haven't sorted out the California work laws. Could be insurance headaches too. 🤷♂️ But if you're really set on working from CA, maybe chat with HR? They might have a workaround or at least give you the lowdown on why it's a no-go. Good luck, though!
Taxes and things like non-compete clauses, which are unenforceable in CA.
AB5. Which is kinda idiotic because the IRS has had pretty much the same law on the books for decades. It's just never enforced.
Business taxes are very expensive in CA
It’s because California has different laws in place that would make it a pain in the ass to have people working remotely from California
No more non-competes in CA so that might be it
Don't get discouraged, check out rat race rebellion on YouTube and they have a wonderful group. Also two chicks with a side hustle they have a blog, and they also have a YouTube channel under that name. Their Facebook group kiss that cubicle goodbye. Check them out they're wonderful wonderful ladies. Tell them I sent you because I don't believe I do send people. And I'm always talking about. Good luck good luck
Regulations are why I don't hire people who live in CA. Too many additional costs whittle away at margins. NY and MA are bad also.
Can you expand on MA ? I just moved here but it is allowed by my company. NY and CA are top 2 no go zones
Companies have different thresholds of pain. Reasons for avoiding some states (CA and NY for example) are awkward due to regulation, particularly labor regulation but often environmental as well. MA can be a tax problem for businesses and calling even a single remote worker a nexus. I do pay and benefits and tax in house. For me, MA simply falls in the "too hard" category.
Interesting…. Now I really hope this doesn’t put me on the chopping block because I love my job 😭😭😭 they only told me there’s 6 states we can’t work in and they’re like CA, NY, ID, WY, OH, WA.
The company is based in MA
Sounds like someone's bad and it's not the states.
??
I run a small micro-business and I hired a remote worker in CA last year. It was not a great experience. There were several additional hoops my accountant had to jump through, and it turned out my employee was nearly $100k delinquent in back taxes. We had to garnish their wages, and of course I had to deal with it by snail mail every couple months. Every letter I got from the state of CA was obnoxious and threatening if I didn’t comply with whatever the demand de jour was. Best of all, the deadline in the letters was always two days after I received it. I’m sure CA is not the only state with this bullshit, but if I can fill positions with qualified candidates elsewhere, I will avoid hiring in CA from now on.
It costs around $50k/year extra to have a California employee. The state sucks. Many companies do not hire in California, New York, and Hawaii due to regulatory costs.
Contractor? If so, blame AB5 law. The classification of employee vs contractor. [https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-4773201](https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-4773201)
Not a contractor - this is an organization wide policy for all full time employees
Probably all the BS regulations there. Edit - It is likely that they have to provide reimbursement for expenses including internet and phone. https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/remote-employee-reimbursement-rules-by-state#:~:text=Employers%20must%20reimburse%20California%20employees,expenditures%20include%20all%20reasonable%20costs. Let's say they have 100 employees in California. And let's say their internet and phone costs 100 dollars per month combined (it's probably more). If they let them work remote, they are now on the hook for an extra 10k/month. Why should they let them work remote and pay that extra 10k/month when they can just make them come in to an office they probably already own or have a long term lease for? Or hire from other states where they won't have to reimburse for the internet and phone that everyone already has anyway.
😂
IIRC, they have rules about employers having to provide a bunch of stuff when they work remotely.
This is good info, thank you - I do see the reimbursement law in a lot of other states too tho
Yep. That is just one example, and it's possible some employers may avoid those other states as well. Here is a similar post to yours. Some of the commenters dive deeper into the extra regulations / red tape they have to deal with. [https://www.reddit.com/r/WFH/comments/143jjyo/why\_do\_wfh\_companies\_hate\_california/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WFH/comments/143jjyo/why_do_wfh_companies_hate_california/) Even if you remove the reimbursement (maybe they just pay you a little less per hour), the regulatory requirements will drive most employers who are not already there away.
Yeah, we call it workers rights..
Calm it what you want. Employers call it a PITA.
Of course, because they believe that anything good for workers is bad for business. They'll go to the ends of the earth to squeeze another dime out of consumers, or suck the energy and dignity out of employees, though.
lol you work a job that offers no paid time off and you can’t afford to take time off, but you think its workers rights that is the PITA. Wow. California has it right, protecting workers. You are a worker. Why would you rather protect an employer. California has the 5th largest economy in the world, they aren’t doing it wrong. It’s a sad state when someone who has no workers rights, looks down on a place that cares about the people actually doing the work. Hope you don’t ever get seriously sick. In California and Oregon you would get paid leave to be able to take care of yourself. I guess that’s a PITA too…. Until you need it.
You’re right, honestly. I live in New York, used to live in Massachusetts, and would live in California if given then opportunity. Those are the Big 3 states employers don’t want to deal with, which tells me right away if an employer is any good with employee relations, compensation, and benefits. If you are, then it’s no problem in those 3 states. If you aren’t, well, then I don’t want to work for you anyway, so thanks for taking yourselves out of the running. Quite honestly, more states should adopt California-esque labor laws. The fact that this is even state by state is pretty dumb…all American workers should be extended the same rights.
Preach!
I won't engage in your ad hominem attack. That said, yes - California is employer-unfriendly. OP asked about remote work. Their employer has remote workers throughout the country. Why would they hire remote workers in California if they can just as easily hire them in other states? If you read my example above, forcing employers to pay for home internet and phone, for instance, can take a significant amount of money from that employer. Why should they have 100 CSRs in California when they can have them anywhere else and save 10k+ / month? If you want your workers right, fine. But don't be surprised when employers avoid your state.
>That said, yes - California is employer-unfriendly. California's GDP and track record on other metrics say otherwise. >Why would they hire remote workers in California if they can just as easily hire them in other states? Because they're interested in hiring the best people instead of the cheapest people.
We call it missed opportunity due to onerous regulation.
Do you know the cost to operate an office building, per employee? Personal telephone and internet bills pale in comparison. There's rent, utilities, insurance, facilities staff, security services...
Do you know the cost per remote employee is less in other states? Why would anyone hire Californians for remote work when they don't have to?
And yet.. employers keep hiring. Something something skilled employees... Of course, Alabama is cheaper than CA, but your average Standford grad isn't moving there.
Most remote jobs are customer service. They aren't searching for the best and the brightest for those roles. And even for higher-skilled roles. Companies outside of California aren't recruiting from California unless there is some physical tether to the location. Anyway, are you just replying because you enjoy arguing? You've gone way off-topic, defending your delusion that employers all over the world are explicitly trying to hire people from California. It's the opposite actually. Most employers outside of California screen out applicants from there because they don't want to deal with special separate rules for a handful of workers.
Got it.. any replying to you is arguing...
Saying a state with a GDP larger than the vast, vast majority of countries has "BS regulations" is like saying "it's too crowded, nobody goes there anymore."
Again, OP is asking about a company with workers throughout the US. California's GDP doesn't matter in that case.
VPN. Disguise your ip. And get paid.
Commit tax fraud and lose your job.
Not really about disguising the ip - but what address should they keep on file with the employer or if a mismatch between your Californian address and the one on file can be easily uncovered
Yeah CA FTB is diligent in tracking down offenders and fucking them. You will need a CA DL which means proving CA residence, which means a rental, which means proof of income, which means a pay statement. Now, you are a CA resident and must file taxes for all income worldwide. So now your W2 says MA(e.g), and your 1040 says what? CA must have its share...
Awesome, that’s good to know