|
|
|
|
|
by AlotOfReading
1376 days ago
|
|
That still wouldn't absolve companies of the obligation to know where employees are working from. Employment laws and worker protections vary from one state and city to another. To give one example, I had a friend that was fired from his Arizona job in ~2015 when his boss found out he was gay. If that friend had been working from California instead, he would have had legal protections. |
|
First, the employee (not the company) is the willing participant with the state benefits and obligations.
If the employee was hired in AZ, and never changed his tax residency to say CA with employer, why would employee be able to claim protections given by CA? If employees are going to play the game, they should be OK with the consequences.
Second, company level agreements don't work this way. Why should tax nexus ? For examples a company is based in CA, so it states its legal venue is in CA for contract disputes. Company then moves to FL....The tax residency change does not give the company the right to to update its legal venue to FL for convenience with its contractual counterparties.
So then, why can states break basic contract rules, which we hold sacrosant at the company-person level ? And what regulation exists to entitle states to pursue companies that do this unwillingly ?
There are laws that state you must pay taxes, not discriminate, etc.
What are the laws that mandate companies to know where your remote employee is working at all times ?
Should a company need to know the rules of 50 different states at all times, to know if they must check employees working offsite ? And how is a company subject to a jurisdiction's rules that it does not know it is party to ?