At my office job (in Illinois), we've recently been offered the option of working from home. Many people have jumped at the chance, and the company has reported a great success rate in those who are currently "WFH" (working from home). I was intrigued by the idea of doing it, but I also wasn't in any rush to try it necessarily (I'm content having a few co-workers keep me company everyday!)
Last month, my girlfriend found out her job is going to transfer her to the West Coast in August. This, I thought, was the perfect opportunity to put the WFH option into action. I presented the idea to my boss who said he'd have to run it by HR first. I even presented the idea to the head of our department (the same man, who in fact, initiated the WFH program), who was incredibly supportive, but also said it was ultimately HR's decision.
A few days later, my boss informed me that HR nixed the idea, saying that California, Washington and New York were all "off-limits" for the WFH program, stating it was a legal issue having to due with cost of living being higher in those places.
I'm not a lawyer, but something doesn't seem right to me here. I know for a fact we have employees working from home in other states like Ohio and Indiana. I've also heard of other businesses allowing this (an IL to CA transfer) without issue. And how are they to determine what my own personal cost of living would be out there? I'm trying not to take it personally, but my brain can't help but think their motive is "We're not letting you work remotely from California, because then everyone would want to work remotely from California."
Looking for any help, any clarification on this supposed "law" that they are using to justify their stance.