When offices closed and employees were told to work from home in March of 2020, there was no seismic shift in how the employment relationship was administered from a payroll, benefits, tax, reporting, and workers' compensation perspective. Why? Because most of those workers lived locally and just stopped commuting to the office every day. Although companies had to adapt their approach to employee engagement, collaboration, and performance management, they did not need to make significant structural changes to their day-to-day employment operations.
As time went on, however, and employers figured out that Work-From-Home actually worked for their business, they started hiring Remote Employees. THAT did cause a seismic shift. Hiring an employee who lives in another state and works remotely 100% of the time is vastly different than hiring a Tele-Worker, someone who lives locally but simply doesn’t need to commute into the office every day.
The considerations are extensive, but here is a list of just some of the things that need to be reviewed when you hire a Remote Worker as opposed to a Tele-Worker:
What Does This Mean To You?
Companies need to carefully contemplate whether they will embrace Remote Work in addition to Tele-Work because they are most definitely NOT the same. The state in which an employee (or prospective employee) lives is not a protected class. Therefore, employers can discriminate against employees based on where they live and make employment decisions accordingly. Some companies for example might refuse to hire employees who live in California due to the extensive compliance requirements.
What Action Steps Should You Take?
Connor & Gallagher OneSource has many specialists to help you address any or all of these compliance areas. Please reach out to me and I can put you in touch with the right person. We’re always here to help!
Sandra
Sandra Teague, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
President, OneSource Division
Connor & Gallagher OneSource (CGO)
Questions for Sandra? Email info@GoCGO.com
This blog is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as legal advice.