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

31–40 of 406 posts

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

#31

Post by refurb »

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…

Wow. I could see companies excluding CO just due to the regulatory burden alone, even if they agree with the spirit of the law.

I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?

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

#32

Post by NCFZ »

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…

True, but the most of the examples people found are of companies that already have Colorado employees.

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

#33

Post by panzagl »

swashboon wrote: post #7
auslegung wrote: post #2

What is the likelihood someone in Colorado sues for discrimination? I think 100% at some point in the next 5 years.

Is being a Coloradoan a protected class?

About half the state thinks so. The rest thinks being former Texans or Californians makes them a protected class.

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

#34

Post by hasmolo »

bob33212 wrote: post #24
eplanit wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's legal to discriminate based on geographic location.

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.

this feels a little disingenuous. the dude is a public facing exec that said shitty stuff about women, working at a company that heavily signals it won’t be like that. it seems like a lower level employee with the same views wouldn’t write a book including them or be liable for those views.

context is important

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #31
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…

Wow. I could see companies excluding CO just due to the regulatory burden alone, even if they agree with the spirit of the law. I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by MattGaiser »

frankbreetz wrote: post #11
fennecfoxen wrote: post #5

Reminds me of the outrage™ when US newspapers blocked connections from Europe over the GDPR. Regulations have consequences. Not all those consequences are the consequences you want. Sometimes exiting a small market looks like a better option than compliance. Sometimes HN downvotes posts for challenging a political crusade by pointing out what it did to those who promoted it. ;)

Is Europe a small market?

Yes, if you are a local US newspaper.

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

#37

Post by refurb »

NCFZ wrote: post #32
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…

True, but the most of the examples people found are of companies that already have Colorado employees.

Right, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.

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

#38

Post by ClumsyPilot »

refurb wrote: post #31
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…

Wow. I could see companies excluding CO just due to the regulatory burden alone, even if they agree with the spirit of the law. I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?

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'

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

#39

Post by rsj_hn »

auslegung wrote: post #2

What is the likelihood someone in Colorado sues for discrimination? I think 100% at some point in the next 5 years.

You mean, sue an employer in another state who doesn't want to be subject to Colorado laws? Good luck with that. When CA passed AB5, lots of employers refused to hire people in CA because they didn't want to be subject to AB 5. This is how it works, employers choose whether the hassle of dealing with the state's regulations is worth the benefit of hiring employees in that state.

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

#40

Post by woeirua »

eplanit wrote: post #23
zachrose wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What competition is being hampered by this law?

Coloradoans looking for remote work will now be competing in a smaller pool (with each other), and for fewer positions, than if the whole country were open to them. If other states start this then more will go to India and China.

LOL. What? If other states do this, then employers will just have to comply. The only problem right now is that CO is kind of by itself.

If a company is going to outsource they were going to do it anyways.

Post reply on HN