Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

coloradoexcluded.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#51

Post by pirate787 »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #45

I’d love to see a law that goes a step further and also mandates that everyone’s salary be public knowledge to everyone else within the same company. If this generates resentment, it means the company is poorly managed. The company would therefore either be compelled to fix their pay discrepancies (thereby allaying the resentment) or risk losing resentful employees to other companies. It would also be great if this c…

Such a law would seem unconstitutional. It is one thing to regulate commercial speech to the public -- as Colorado is doing -- but another altogether for the government to compel private speech about private individuals.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#52

Post by lotsofpulp »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #45

I’d love to see a law that goes a step further and also mandates that everyone’s salary be public knowledge to everyone else within the same company. If this generates resentment, it means the company is poorly managed. The company would therefore either be compelled to fix their pay discrepancies (thereby allaying the resentment) or risk losing resentful employees to other companies. It would also be great if this c…

In Norway, everyone's tax returns are public information.

https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/forms/search-the-tax-lists/

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#53

Post by whiddershins »

kdmccormick wrote: post #37
thehappypm wrote: post #29

The Colorado law to me strikes me as a pretty huge government overreach. I fully believe in minimum wage laws, and that feels like an appropriate regulation to me, but this just feels like it's almost attacking these companies, interfering with their hiring processes, and I fully see why companies would rather not bother hiring in what boils down to 1 mid-sized metro area than deal with the consequences.

Could you explain why minimum wage laws aren't overreach but this is?

I’ve come 180 on minimum wage.

How can anyone come between me and another adult trying to exchange services and money like this? It’s kind of insane if you think about it through that lens.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#54

Post by 10xerr »

This is simply a consequence of the law not being a federal law. If it was they would simply suck it up and post the damn salary range. However, since its only local to Colorado, then the easy route is to simply avoid hiring there.

BUt iF It wAz A fEdERal LAw tHey WoUlD lEAvE tHe US

To that I say, not a chance.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#56

Post by ricksunny »

stickfigure wrote: post #19

Seems like the law of unintended consequences at work?

Avoiding the so-called 'Law of unintended consequences' is used a lot to try and justify races-to-the-bottom. A jurisdiction could require better environmental safeguards, encouraging high-polluting employers to leave that jurisdiction for [$name-of-jurisdiction-with-more-lax-environmental-regulations]. That doesn't mean the environmental safeguards should never be promulgated.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#57

Post by soperj »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #20

This is a predictable consequence of a shortsighted legal requirement. How many people will be deprived of work opportunities because of this law? How many jobs will Colorado lose over the next decade or more until the legislature realizes what they've done?

How many people are deprived of work opportunities from minimum wage requirement? Races to the bottom suck.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#58

Post by Spartan-S63 »

thehappypm wrote: post #29

The Colorado law to me strikes me as a pretty huge government overreach. I fully believe in minimum wage laws, and that feels like an appropriate regulation to me, but this just feels like it's almost attacking these companies, interfering with their hiring processes, and I fully see why companies would rather not bother hiring in what boils down to 1 mid-sized metro area than deal with the consequences.

If nothing else, this is ensuring a fair, competitive marketplace. Requiring employers to share more of their information with prospective employees makes a more efficient market. This is a move preserving and encouraging competition. It only stands to make markets more efficient and I hope more states follow suit and make such a rule the de facto standard.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#59

Post by mike_d »

legerdemain wrote: post #23

It's very simple. It's to a company's benefit to miss twenty qualified applicants than to hire a single unqualified one. It's to a company's benefit to miss twenty qualified applicants than to reveal their salary range during negotiation to a single one. It's to a company's benefit to lose twenty qualified employees than to promote anyone from within. You can justify just about any industry practice by saying a drama…

> It's to a company's benefit to miss twenty qualified applicants than to hire a single unqualified one.

This isn't true outside of FAANG.

I've seen past employers hire 20 unqualified people to fill the role of 2-3 qualified people who left. Often paying more in aggregate, but getting a "better deal" on each employee. Heck, the manager now gets promoted to Sr. Director for having so many people under them.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#60

Post by HPsquared »

rsj_hn wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price transparency is a basic requirement of efficient markets.

The last thing anyone wants is efficient markets in labor. It would make unions illegal, for example, as the entire raison d'etre of unions is to use market power to raise prices in a coordinated manner. So let's not start pushing for "market efficiency" arguments because those will really come back to bite the proponents of this bill.

Now now, political platforms don't need to be logically consistent!
Post reply on HN