Should companies now start paying for home internet services?

[Exterous]

Where do you guys stand on companies paying for internet or higher speeds\caps with people working from home? I've heard a lot of grousing by people from different organizations about their employer not paying for their internet service now that they are working from home. Some legitimately do need better services, particularly when it comes to the anemic upload speeds. But in most cases we're talking <$50/month for improve service or caps and IMO this is the cost of 'getting to work'. Unless the company gave you a car\gas\bike this is just what you have to do to get to work. (And you're not spending as much time\$ on commuting which helps offset your cost). And a lot of the organizations have had to spend a crap ton of $ lately to get the tools\supplies\resources to adjust to 75-100% remote work and that building lease didn't magically disappear so cut them some slack. So as a general rule where do you guys fall on this?

 

[Platypus]

Mine did before all this started, but yes I think companies should at least contribute to it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Maybe not the entire bill but as with phones I believe companies should be paying some of it. Even a set amount like $25 or whatever.

 

[lxskllr]

They should pay something, especially if service had to be upgraded to work at home. Personally, I wouldn't be too bothered about it, cause being home would more than make up for the $50/month or whatever, but it's the right thing to do.

 

[TheVrolok]

Maybe not the entire bill but as with phones I believe companies should be paying some of it. Even a set amount like $25 or whatever.

This. I get a 30 a month cell phone stipend. Call it 50 for both phone and Internet.

 

[dphantom]

it's a reasonable question. Mandating work from home would seem to imply that companies/organizations pay for that amount of usage.

 

[sdifox]

Nope. I pay the same internet I paid before pandemic and I am glad I don't have to commute. That's three hours saved. Hell one week of commute will cost me more than one month of internet on train fare alone.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Mine did before all this started, but yes I think companies should at least contribute to it.

Same here - but mine pays mine specifically because it's a work-from-home job. There isn't even an office in my city.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nope. I pay the same internet I paid before pandemic and I am glad I don't have to commute. That's three hours saved. Hell one week of commute will cost me more than one month of internet on train fare alone.

My wife drives less that 3miles to work. Nearly zero savings.
That’s why I say a set amount. Doesn’t need to be the whole thing just some amount that makes sense. Plus she still heads in once or twice a week to sign stuff that requires ink signing.

 

[Brainonska511]

I was working remote before the pandemic, and got zip before and after for internet. I was already going to pay for an internet speed that I needed for normal use, and I save a crapton by not commuting in the first place.

Plus, my internet is maybe $50-60/mo for ~250/15 service with RCN. It's not the greatest upload, but it suffices for conference calls and file transfers (often, the slow step in file transfers is the company VPN)

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

My wife drives less that 3miles to work. Nearly zero savings.
That’s why I say a set amount. Doesn’t need to be the whole thing just some amount that makes sense. Plus she still heads in once or twice a week to sign stuff that requires ink signing.

To be honest, more than the internet thing I REALLY wish they would do it for cell-phones first.

I've just had companies that are like ... you want me to install apps that can potentially remotely wipe my phone, just so I can read emails on the go so that you hope I work more than 8 hours a day and do stuff like read work-email while I'm on the shitter? Same goes for when you want employees to "be on call" in case of an emergency to come into the office.


Internet at home is really a 100% benefit for us as the employees to not go into the office.
Cell-phones is 100% benefit for the company to entice us to continue working while on the go and during off-hours.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To be honest, more than the internet thing I REALLY wish they would do it for cell-phones first.

I've just had companies that are like ... you want me to install apps that can potentially remotely wipe my phone, just so I can read emails on the go so that you hope I work more than 8 hours a day and do stuff like read work-email while I'm on the shitter? Same goes for when you want employees to "be on call" in case of an emergency to come into the office.


Internet at home is really a 100% benefit for us as the employees to not go into the office.
Cell-phones is 100% benefit for the company to entice us to continue working while on the go and during off-hours.

Agreed major peeve of mine is when a company expects mobile email/messaging and expects prompt responses regardless of if you are on the clock and don’t compensate for it. I totally agree some set stipend for phone use should be required.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Agreed major peeve of mine is when a company expects mobile email/messaging and expects prompt responses regardless of if you are on the clock and don’t compensate for it. I totally agree some set stipend for phone use should be required.

Yeah when I was with accounting/consulting Big 4's they have that shit culture. Same with sending me emails at 4PM asking me to complete something by the end of day. Fuck you, fuck you.

My last few companies though - do provide me with a work smartphone. Personally I hate keeping 2 phones charged and would prefer that they just pay my bill and run it off my personal.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Yeah when I was with accounting/consulting Big 4's they have that shit culture. Same with sending me emails at 4PM asking me to complete something by the end of day. Fuck you, fuck you.

My last few companies though - do provide me with a work smartphone. Personally I hate keeping 2 phones charged and would prefer that they just pay my bill and run it off my personal.

This is why we need an end to exempted employees. You want someone available around the clock to work, fine, but you pay them a premium for it.

IT companies have no problems charging customers extra for after hours work. Those IT Companies themselves should not be able to exempt staffing from benefiting from after-hours.

As far as my phones, my current employer pays for my second phone, but they also give you the option for it to be off my personal phone. I don't do that though, because I always want my personal and work phone separate, especially since they usually require some sort of Device Management installed on the phone.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This is why we need an end to exempted employees. You want someone available around the clock to work, fine, but you pay them a premium for it.

IT companies have no problems charging customers extra for after hours work. Those IT Companies themselves should not be able to exempt staffing from benefiting from after-hours.

As far as my phones, my current employer pays for my second phone, but they also give you the option for it to be off my personal phone. I don't do that though, because I always want my personal and work phone separate, especially since they usually require some sort of Device Management installed on the phone.

I entirely agree.

I'm not as limited - I mean, I typically don't work more than 8 hour days - sometimes I have to do something like get up at 6AM or work till 7PM if we have an early/late call with someone in a different timezone (or country). But my manager also doesn't really give a shit if I subsequently take a nap during the day as long as I don't have shit to do and attend all meetings with clients.



But what I think is some of the WORST shit, is my wife who has "on-call" shift assignments. That is - she has to be available on-call to go in if there are any issues. You know what that means? That means no vacations. No going anywhere more than an hour away. If I can't freely do whatever the fuck I want on a day that I am not supposed to work... Then it's not free-time. At MINIMAL there should be pay for such a restriction.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Regarding the phone stuff there are perfectly fine solutions for IT that essentially puts the phone into two halves. One half personal and one half work. If a wipe is required they can wipe either half or both.
No need for this we may or may not wipe your personal shit.

 

[Ajay]

This is why we need an end to exempted employees. You want someone available around the clock to work, fine, but you pay them a premium for it.

IT companies have no problems charging customers extra for after hours work. Those IT Companies themselves should not be able to exempt staffing from benefiting from after-hours.

As far as my phones, my current employer pays for my second phone, but they also give you the option for it to be off my personal phone. I don't do that though, because I always want my personal and work phone separate, especially since they usually require some sort of Device Management installed on the phone.

Email is easy to forward, not sure about text. Personally, if I worked for a company that insisted I install, what is essentially, spyware on my phone, I'd be ranting about it.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

But what I think is some of the WORST shit, is my wife who has "on-call" shift assignments. That is - she has to be available on-call to go in if there are any issues. You know what that means? That means no vacations. No going anywhere more than an hour away. If I can't freely do whatever the fuck I want on a day that I am not supposed to work... Then it's not free-time. At MINIMAL there should be pay for such a restriction.

I spent about 5 years on-call in various roles and I'm happy to have moved on from it. As you mention, I had to shape entire portions of myself and wife's life around my work on-call schedule. And when I was on-call, it was just shitty. Getting off work, and then just feeling absolutely neurotic around if you're going to get a call (you will), did you miss a call, are you within half an hour of being able to respond and work. Then you'd get that call at 2 in the morning and you're just praying it's not a huge deal. That as much as someone calling you over trivial bullshit is annoying, it's not as bad as dealing with a 15 hour bridge.

I know a friend working at a different company is *the* on-call for a specific resource. He's got a much more reasonable 4 hour response time requirement, but at the same time he's literally never off. He has to be available every single day. As long as he doesn't "actually" have to work more than 7 days in a row, it's not illegal.

In America, that shit shouldn't be legal.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think they should at least contribute, especially in places that have caps. I have unlimited internet so I don't really care either way, but the minute it actually starts to cost me extra than what I would normally be paying, then yeah they should have to pay.

On the other hand the perk of not having to go in to the office makes it worth it either way I guess.

 

[Spacehead]

I don't have a job that fits these situations that you guys are in but i would say it wouldn't be unreasonable to have your employer pay for or at least chip in on internet upgrades if they are needed to do you job. If you don't need an upgrade to WFH then maybe haggle something out with them or not.

Phones... yeah, if they want you to install stuff specifically for work then you can get me a separate work phone. If you're ok with using you own phone for work then again, maybe haggle something out with them or not.

Not sure on the on-call stuff.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Email is easy to forward, not sure about text. Personally, if I worked for a company that insisted I install, what is essentially, spyware on my phone, I'd be ranting about it.

I agree. Our phones typically will have SSO tied apps such as Citrix Workspace, RSA Authenticator, Cisco Jabber, etc. That's why they want their spyware on the phone so they can disable / wipe it.

The employees are given a choice when they reach a position requiring such Apps. The company will allow them to transfer their service to the company's ownership, and will pay the bill on their personal phone (but you have to install the monitoring software). Or the company will subsidize a phone that remains under the company's control entirely with their monitoring software, and will pay the bill for it.

Some people choose the former because it wipes out their cell phone bill. I choose the latter because I'm just not interested in mixing my personal data with my work data. Same reason why here at home my work laptop sits on an entirely different Network from my general house / lab. I just am not interested in any possibility of the 2 mixing.

 

[dullard]

This probably does not apply to many people, but the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay for equipment and other expenses such as added internet costs IF the cost to the employee would put that employee under the minimum wage.

That said, even if it is not required by law, it is a pretty shyster move for an employer not to pay for added, required expenses to an employee. Paying for the added expenses is a small blip in the total expense to the employer* but could mean the world to the employee. While it is almost unnoticeable to most businesses, up to $600/year is massive to a near minimum wage employee that is probably barely getting by.

Heck the added productivity for most home workers should more than warrant the extra cost by the employer. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/articl...rk-experiment-that-made-staff-more-productive

New Survey Shows 47% Increase In Productivity: 3 Things You Must Do When Working From Home

Without using spyware or capturing keystrokes, a California-based company has tracked a 47% increase in worker productivity.

www.forbes.com

A 2-Year Stanford Study Shows the Astonishing Productivity Boost of Working From Home

The jury was out on the productivity effect of working from home. It has returned with a surprising verdict.

www.inc.com

* Suppose the added cost was the maximum the OP suggested: $50/month. Suppose the minimum wage law was not going to take effect, therefore the employee makes at least $7.55/hour (in order for that $50 to not put the employee under minimum wage, this number has to be higher than $7.25). Therefore, in the worst possible case, $50 extra for a $7.55/hour full time employee, the employer has to pay 3.9% more for labor. But the same employer can get lower internet service at work and offset even that small amount.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I spent about 5 years on-call in various roles and I'm happy to have moved on from it. As you mention, I had to shape entire portions of myself and wife's life around my work on-call schedule. And when I was on-call, it was just shitty. Getting off work, and then just feeling absolutely neurotic around if you're going to get a call (you will), did you miss a call, are you within half an hour of being able to respond and work. Then you'd get that call at 2 in the morning and you're just praying it's not a huge deal. That as much as someone calling you over trivial bullshit is annoying, it's not as bad as dealing with a 15 hour bridge.

I know a friend working at a different company is *the* on-call for a specific resource. He's got a much more reasonable 4 hour response time requirement, but at the same time he's literally never off. He has to be available every single day. As long as he doesn't "actually" have to work more than 7 days in a row, it's not illegal.

In America, that shit shouldn't be legal.

ATT guys loved it, however the majority were bargained for (Unionized) I cant remember the exact numbers but essentially they had a 3 day work week on call and received 5 days pay. On call time was comp’d in 4 hour(?) blocks first 16 hours were non paid basically included in the two free paid days and any extra were paid at a pay lift (1.25x I think) Sunday’s or holidays at an extra 1.5x both stacked. What happened regularly was someone getting more that 24 hours pay over a 24 hour period because of the minimum time billed thing. Some dude would get a dozen easy to fix things and walk away with 28 hours pay with overtime.
Managers used to bitch about it but I was like we bothered the dude a dozen times over the day, when did he get a chance to sleep or do anything else but perform dumb tasks?

 

[Viper GTS]

My wife works for a financial services company. The questions that have been coming up on town hall meetings are just absurd:

1) Will you buy me a chair/desk/whatever?
2) Will you pay for my internet?
3) Will you pay for my increased electricity usage since I'm home?

These are people with grown up jobs, who still have jobs in the middle of the worst recession in their lifetime. People who are no longer having to commute, replace professional clothing, etc and they are upset that they are spending more on electricity because they're home all day and can't set their AC back.

Just astounding stupidity.

At my own job the amount of people who are running decade old hardware, or who claim to have no PC at all is shocking. The day we all got kicked out of the office I went out and bought an extra 4K monitor to add to the two I already had floating around my house. It never once occurred to me that this should be a reimbursed expense, yet people won't even buy themselves a USB ethernet adapter to work around their shit wifi.

Viper GTS

 

[thecoolnessrune]

This probably does not apply to many people, but the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay for equipment and other expenses such as added internet costs IF the cost to the employee would put that employee under the minimum wage.

That said, even if it is not required by law, it is a pretty shyster move for an employer not to pay for added, required expenses to an employee. Paying for the added expenses is a small blip in the total expense to the employer* but could mean the world to the employee. While it is almost unnoticeable to most businesses, up to $600/year is massive to a near minimum wage employee that is probably barely getting by.

Heck the added productivity for most home workers should more than warrant the extra cost by the employer. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/articl...rk-experiment-that-made-staff-more-productive

New Survey Shows 47% Increase In Productivity: 3 Things You Must Do When Working From Home

Without using spyware or capturing keystrokes, a California-based company has tracked a 47% increase in worker productivity.

www.forbes.com

A 2-Year Stanford Study Shows the Astonishing Productivity Boost of Working From Home

The jury was out on the productivity effect of working from home. It has returned with a surprising verdict.

www.inc.com

* Suppose the added cost was the maximum the OP suggested: $50/month. Suppose the minimum wage law was not going to take effect, therefore the employee makes at least $7.55/hour (in order for that $50 to not put the employee under minimum wage, this number has to be higher than $7.25). Therefore, in the worst possible case, $50 extra for a $7.55/hour full time employee, the employer has to pay 3.9% more for labor. But the same employer can get lower internet service at work and offset even that small amount.

My company is saving millions on T&E expenses with all the closed conferences, and clients desires to do everything remotely as much as possible. Employees won't see a dime of that that though. If a company says you need "x" to be productive that you either didn't have before or have it suited to a different purpose, then the company should pay for it. I think internet is a bit of a stretch, since most workers have internet (I do know some that don't, however in my specific case, the company is letting them use their work provided cell phones and paying the data bill).

But we have bunches of empty offices now. Let the employees take the monitors / chairs home with them. If not, but you say they need one, then the company should pony up and buy it. I may do well in my position, but for every one of me, there's 10 employees who are essentially working poor. There's no reason those folks should have to go out and buy an office chair when they abandoned offices stuffed to the gills with them.