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

Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 406 posts

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#151

Post by [deleted] »

gambiting wrote: post #84
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

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…

[deleted]

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#153

Post by cool_dude85 »

syshum wrote: post #120
ethbr0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course B primary motivator and I do not see that as a bad thing I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?

>I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you

Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit their bottom lines.

Ever hear of the business lobby opposing union-busting laws on the basis that they create regulatory burden?

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#154

Post by kolbe »

pessimizer wrote: post #121
kolbe wrote: post #106

Reminder: people respond to (dis)incentives. 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…

The way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.

I can’t even argue with someone who thinks so highly of some half-baked piece of local legislation that they’re comparing it to the 13th Amendment. Lol.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#155

Post by grumple »

privacylawthrow wrote: post #19

The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement." If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employe…

Any company over 1 billion in market cap probably already does this. Every company I've worked for has (mid sized to fortune 10). HR has to justify their existence by actually doing work.

It's also in the company's interest to provide advancement opportunities internally, otherwise your employees just leave. In this case the regulations are in line with the incentives.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#156

Post by tyrust »

commandlinefan wrote: post #47
eecc wrote: post #29

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

> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.

The existence of levels.fyi doesn't appear to have hurt Total Comp thus far.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#157

Post by the_lonely_road »

My favorite comment on that Reddit post is one where the guy says his company is on Digital Ocean and this news about how the company engages in antiworker practices is enough to push him into migrating to AWS.

I have no dog or pony in the show on either side but if I was writing a fiction story I wouldn't be able to include something like that because no one would believe that decision making...of that caliber...actually exists out in the wild.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#158

Post by sokoloff »

elliekelly wrote: post #93
privacylawthrow wrote: post #19

The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement." If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employe…

Who says the CO remote employee requires special treatment? That would be a terrible leadership decision. The easy and obvious approach would be to treat all employees under the CO standard. It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally. Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally. I have a hard time believing most companies aren’t already doing this with the exception maybe o…

We have something like 15,000 employees and 20 some odd brand companies that operate largely independently. There is no reasonable way for us to wrangle every single opening into a single process to comply with a CO law (times all the other jurisdictions who’d like to put their own thumbprint on it).

I would always rather take a qualified internal candidate rather than spend months to land someone outside. So, I do shop jobs internally now, but Even without reading the CO law, I’m pretty sure I’m not fully complying with it if I had an employee in CO.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#159

Post by ClumsyPilot »

sandworm101 wrote: post #125
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

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…

>> The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. The market is free, it just isn't a healthy market. Those are different concepts. Participants in a totally free market are free to use their size/power/leverage as they wish. A free market is one where the little guy, the job applicant, will be hammered by the big guy. A 'healthy' market is one that is regulated in such a way that the little guy h…

Exactly - if you are free to manipulate the market, then it decends into Mafia game.

If you call that 'free market', then its like communism - a concept that never works in the real world

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#160

Post by ghaff »

elliekelly wrote: post #93
privacylawthrow wrote: post #19

The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement." If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employe…

Who says the CO remote employee requires special treatment? That would be a terrible leadership decision. The easy and obvious approach would be to treat all employees under the CO standard. It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally. Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally. I have a hard time believing most companies aren’t already doing this with the exception maybe o…

>Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally.

Please. No more emails.

>It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally.

One of the problems that happens (today) with this is that companies decide to hire someone external for a position essentially created for them. So they may create a job posting as a formality. But it's effectively a fake posting. No one else actually has a shot at an interview, much less getting the position.

Post reply on HN