California unions fight for extended remote work options

New data from the Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes shows growing tension between employer RTO mandates and employee resistance. Nick Turner of the University of Calgary and Jelena Žikić of York University say poor communication and inflexible policies risk damaging culture. https://hubs.la/Q03N0sTg0

Employers’ Duty to Reimburse Work-Related Expenses Under California Labor Code §2802, employers must indemnify employees for all “necessary expenditures or losses” incurred in direct consequence of performing their job duties or in obedience to the employer’s directions. The statute does not expressly define “necessary,” but courts interpret it to cover expenses that are required for the performance of job duties and reasonable in amount. Reimbursement generally depends on whether the expense is directly tied to work responsibilities, though application varies by circumstance. To learn more about this, check out our blog: https://lnkd.in/gEa42Qb8 Resource Article By Kevin Tung

Interesting if unsurprising new research... "According to research from BambooHR, a survey of more than 1,500 U.S. managers found a quarter of C-suite executives hoped for some voluntary turnover among workers after implementing a return-to-office (RTO) policy. Meanwhile, one in five HR professionals admitted their in-office policy was meant to make staff quit... "...Nearly 40% of all managers in the survey said they believe their organization did layoffs because not enough workers quit in response to their company’s RTO mandate."

The remote work fight isn’t over: Workers are willing to take a major pay cut, up to 25%, according to new Harvard study https://lnkd.in/gU84g_FJ #remote #work #RemoteWork #RW #news #trending

🌬️ Wellington’s Red Wind Warning: A Real-Time Test of Employment Law in Action 💼💨 With gusts predicting to reach up to 140km/h tomorrow, many Wellington workplaces are closing their offices and encouraging staff to work from home. For some, it’s a timely reminder of how flexible work arrangements intersect with New Zealand employment law. 📜 Legal Snapshot: Under Part 6AA of the Employment Relations Act 2000, employees have the right to request flexible working arrangements - including WFH - and employers must consider the request in good faith. WFH arrangements should be clearly documented, with expectations around availability, performance and communication. Employers remain responsible for health and safety under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, even when work is performed remotely. If the workplace is unsafe due to weather, employers may need to close temporarily or offer alternative duties or paid leave, depending on the employment agreement and operational needs. Employees who are unable to work remotely may still be entitled to wages if they are “ready, willing and able” to work but are prevented by external factors. 💡 Practical Tips: * Review your employment agreements: Do they include provisions for emergency closures or alternative work arrangements? * Communicate early and clearly: Transparency around expectations and entitlements helps avoid confusion and potential problems. * Consider paid special leave or annual leave if remote work isn’t viable and the workplace is closed. * If thinking about directing employees to take annual leave, remember the 14-day notice requirement under the Holidays Act 2003. * Good Faith still applies. Employers must act in good faith - that means engaging constructively with employees, exploring reasonable options and documenting decisions. Duncan Cotterill

Did you know 70% of remote workers feel underpaid compared to their in-office peers? As hybrid work models shift salary expectations, fair compensation is more crucial than ever. #RemoteWork #SalaryRaise

💼 Remote Work & The Law: A Hidden Minefield! 🚧 Caption: Working remotely from a different state than your company? You might be caught in a legal loophole you don't even know about! 🤯 The rise of remote work has blurred geographical lines, but employment laws are still very much tied to specific locations. This can create complex situations for both employees and employers. Here's a crucial point about Remote Work and Employment Law: The State Line Dilemma: Whose Laws Apply? If your company is based in California, but you work from your home in New York, which state's minimum wage, overtime, sick leave, and other employment protections apply to you? The Answer: In most cases, the laws of the state where the employee performs the work (e.g., New York in our example) will apply to that employee, regardless of where the company's headquarters are located. This is a massive compliance challenge for companies and a key point for remote employees to understand their rights! Are you a remote worker? Have you thought about this? Share your experience below! 👇 #EmploymentLaw #RemoteWork #HRCompliance #LaborLaw #WorkFromHome #LegalRights #RemoteWorkLife

Did you know that a recent survey indicates that many tech workers in 2025 are open to sacrificing portions of their salary for remote work? As companies recalibrate compensation strategies, understanding the remote work salary trade-off is essential for both employers and employees. How do you view this trend? Read more to explore insights. #RemoteWork #SalaryTradeOff #TechIndustry #WorkLifeBalance | Link: https://lnkd.in/d4dGDC4T

Working From Home: Right or Privilege? Australia is on the edge of a major shift in how we regulate flexibility. In February 2026, the Fair Work Commission will hear a landmark test case on whether a formal working-from-home clause should be written into the Clerks – Private Sector Award. Employer groups (led by Ai Group) want a clause that recognises WFH as a business arrangement — giving employers control over when and how it applies. Unions (specifically ACTU and ASU) argue the draft clause goes too far, saying it could cut penalty rates, overtime and rest breaks in exchange for remote work — a trade-off they call “a pay cut for flexibility.” It’s shaping up as one of the most significant industrial relations cases since (jump scare! 😨) covid. At the same time, Victoria is trying to go a step further by proposing to legislate a right to work from home (at least two days a week where reasonable). If passed, it would be the first law of its kind in Australia, and it’s already sparking debate about federal vs state powers, business autonomy, and fairness between roles that can and can’t be done remotely. And yet, despite all the politics, the data hasn’t moved much since 2020. Roughly one in three Australians still work from home most weeks. Hybrid is no longer a perk — it’s the new baseline. Which begs the question, does it need to be legislated? So as regulators, unions and employers wrestle over clauses, laws and control, we’re really asking one question: Should working from home be a regulated right, or remain an employer’s choice? My two cents 👛 I think employers should retain the ability to decide what balance works best — there are legitimate reasons to need in-office connection, collaboration and culture. Ultimately, it comes down to values alignment between employer and employee.

Victoria’s new WFH law sparks major debate. The Allan government has announced plans to introduce legislation granting workers the right to work from home at least two days per week a move aimed at empowering both public and private sector employees. While unions support the initiative, business groups argue it’s an overreach that could limit employer flexibility and autonomy. This raises important questions: ·    Should WFH be a legislated right? ·    How will this impact productivity, workplace culture and the economy? As the nature of work evolves, balancing employee flexibility with business needs will be key.