61–70 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Europe a small market?
"European readers of American newspapers" is.
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?
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'
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 had to deal with before.
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'
Is 6 months enough? Can't spots get filled between that time?
There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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_.
It worked for CEOs. Their salaries were disclosed due to a new law, and their salaries skyrocketed. Competition is good, not bad.
My 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.
What competition is being hampered by this law?
So there has to be some downside for even this law.
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…
My 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.
What competition is being hampered by this law?
But, that's actually the reason companies hate this law: in "perfect competition" no long-term economic profit is possible. Long-term profits are the result of when a market disobeys the definition of "perfect competition," such as when there's information asymmetry, patents and trade secrets to protect innovation, or when barriers to entry are significant.
In this case, hiding salary ranges from employees provides the employer an obvious benefit in that they know how much is budgeted for the position, but a candidate doesn't get that information when giving their salary requirements. I recently had to play a round of "don't give a number" with a recruiter last week. Needless to say, that didn't go very far.