191–200 of 207 posts
It probably took a year+ to pass this law, and took companies all of 1 month to figure out easy workarounds like huge ranges or avoiding hiring.
GPDR was first proposed in 2012. It was adopted in 2016 with a 2 year gap to become valid in 2018. Then every website threw up an "Accept Cookies" popup in a week...
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.
Anything that brings clarity with no cost is not an overreach. I don't even apply for companies that do not list salaries. Why would I waste days of time going through an interview process only to be offered burger flipper wages? The only companies complaining about this are shady scum who are embarrassed by their salary offers.
I don’t see any value in mandating it.
Oh, neat. Hi everyone. I made this website a few months ago. If there are questions or suggestions, happy to answer them. The website was covered in the wallstreet journal and a few other places: https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-companies-want-remote-work... Definitely overkill for the website itself but I also built it as a learning opportunity so it's a react frontend with Tailwindcss, Golang + gRPC gateway, hoste…
Unsolicited opinion on the design: The mid grey text on the light grey background (e.g. as seen on the about) isn’t a great design decision imo. I know it’s really fashionable right now for some reason, and while it may meet sufficient contrast for accessibility guidelines (I didn’t check), I found it quite hard to read. That colour text signals to me the same thing the grey-on-grey Ts&Cs footer on most websites signals - ignore this text. Grey on grey is one of my personal pet peeves so maybe I’m reading into it too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum wages protect people from exploitation. This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Just let the employee and employer figure out wages!
> This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, Colorado's new law applies to salaried jobs in all income brackets. For someone who's poor and desperately job hunting, knowing whether a job's salary range is 20k-30k versus 25k-35k before having to go through a gauntlet of interviews sounds like it could make a big difference.
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.
Do you also feel that it is "overreach" for food to come with nutritional/calorie information?
I also think it's useful for consumers to know how many calories are in their food.
And for small restaurants, the overhead of computing calories is actually onerous. They are exempt.
With wages, the bar is that you must pay the minimum. Anything more I think is onerous and not the role of government to get involved in, and should not be applied.
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.
Increasing transparency makes markets much more efficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, Colorado's new law applies to salaried jobs in all income brackets. For someone who's poor and desperately job hunting, knowing whether a job's salary range is 20k-30k versus 25k-35k before having to go through a gauntlet of interviews sounds like it could make a big difference.
I don't believe that's up to the government. The government regulates the lowest allowable wage, anything above that should be between the employer and the employee.
But to be clear, you're just saying one of those is OK for the government to do and the other isn't. That's not an argument. Do you have some rationale behind that, like a philosophy or a reference to some constitutional clause? Or is that just how you feel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing transparency makes markets much more efficient.
Regulation rarely leads to more efficient markets. If you believe in markets, then if pay transparency was beneficial, companies would already be doing it. The market clearly does not favor it. And forcing it already has negative consequences -- see the article for companies that are refusing to play ball in Colorado.
Companies are the ones gaining from the market failure. Why would they want to empower employees to better know their worth? Obviously companies don't want to support legislation that hurts their bottom line, even if it makes markets more efficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe that's up to the government. The government regulates the lowest allowable wage, anything above that should be between the employer and the employee.
What is and isn't government overreach is a contentious topic, and I can't say your personal opinion is invalid. But to be clear, you're just saying one of those is OK for the government to do and the other isn't . That's not an argument. Do you have some rationale behind that, like a philosophy or a reference to some constitutional clause? Or is that just how you feel?