101–110 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am amazed that people do not understand that difference between Voluntary Action and Mandatory / Regulatory Burden. A Company could 100% already being doing everything to be in compliance with a regulation and still oppose the regulation, and take actions to ensure they are bound by that regulation
Granted. But which of the following happens more often? A) Companies oppose regulation because of filing and compliance costs, despite already doing the required behavior B) Companies oppose regulation because they don't want to have a requirement to do and maintain the behavior It feels like really we're talking about (B) as a primary motivator, and (A) is a smoke screen for PR palatability.
Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it.
This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the woke crowd gets their way. They got a guy fired from AAPL because they felt "unsafe" due to a book he wrote 6 years ago where he called some SF women useless in a zombie apocalypse. Feeling "threatened" or "violated" by not being able to apply to a job seems just as reasonable.
I'm sure how this is relevant to the discussion of possible discrimination on the basis of geographical location. either way, for others who want more context to what you are referring to - you're speaking about the rapid hiring then firing of Antonio García Martínez by Apple due to several excerpts from his book "Chaos Monkeys" that many employees took as racist and sexist. The most notable of which being: "Most wom…
Look at it another way. What if someone said "I am not a supporter of gay marriage", would it be OK to call that person homophobic and cancel that person? What about people who were supporters of that person at one time? Should they be canceled too?
So it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?! I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
This is quite common. Corporations know the long game and are willing to pay in the short term to get it. Another example is those grocery stores that closed last year after hazard pay was mandated at the height of the pandemic, citing unprofitability. Unprofitability! Of a grocery store, one of like three places where people were spending money in 2020!
You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life.
I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.
Here's the act, it looks like it does have some additional requirements for companies with CO employees: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085 If remote work sticks around (I think it will), it will be interesting to see how employers handle the additional burden of having employees in dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. I don't think it's insurmountable, but it's certainly something many companies have not h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My curent company shares an email about open promotional opportunities every 6 months. I am continously amazon how on hackernews expecting basic decensy from corporates is a 'terrible burden'
Excuse me. You're not expecting, quote, "basic decency." You are expecting compliance with a specific regulatory framework. One of these requires a soul, the other requires lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
For example, I could say that I expect "basic decency" to not kill each other. But I also support having a law making murder illegal. As part of that law, you have the possibility of people being jailed, possible for months are years, before we even get to a court case. They may be able to pay a large fee to get back to their daily life (while part of the money is sometimes returned, there are plenty exceptions to this). Then you get to the court case, where people are expected to spend days in courts and small fortunes on lawyers to prove they didn't murder someone. Lots and lots of lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping, not to mention the costs to an innocent individual wrongly accused. Good luck getting any payments to make up the debt you incurred.
Yet as a society we accept that we have to do things the legal way because just the expectation alone does nothing to stop bad people. As such the concept of "basic decency" is completely gone from the modern world, so I think it is safe to give it a new definition which includes the enforcement of a legal framework.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
Note that that's an issue on England (and presumably Wales too?). It's not the case in Scotland. Not sure about NI.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
>>With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem. I'm in the UK and that's absolutely not true. If you think the owner knew about the problem and purposefully omitted telling you, then you definitely have a court case and any law firm worth their salt will…