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.
Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
51–60 of 406 posts
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#52As a business I would be very concerned that the cost/compensation for those few individuals with the qualification in Colorado will become very expensive as my competitors outbid each other to the sky (CO pop. 5.759mm US Census 2019). I remember the pre-dot com boom. IT was "rolling in money"...
As an employee, I am now concerned that I will be targeted because of the job I have. The criminal elements can now pretend to be "Robin Hood".
As an employee, how will this "race to the top" salary battle backfire? Will I be stuck in Colorado? Are there loopholes (and there always are) where CO companies can hire outsiders cheaper?
And, so on...
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'
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
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#54Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#55However 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.
Similarly with healthcare you don't know how much you will be charged upfront, so there is no competition on price.
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.
You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#56Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#57My sympathy is with the employers. Colorado did this to itself with such an anticompetitive law. Beyond this effect, it also encourages sending the work offshore altogether.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#58So 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_.
Competition is good, not bad.
Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
#59Earlier 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.
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
I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention.
And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists and similar types roaming the halls making things extremely traumatic for many people. That stuff is real and I feel for the people that get out through the ringer by these environments.
But a book? 6 years ago? In the context of a zombie apocalypse hypothetical? Get the fuck outa here.