81–90 of 406 posts
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…
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_.
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…
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…
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 win this. I bought a house recently and the documents the sellers had to fill out for the solicitors very clearly say there are are no known issues with this house, so if that's a lie then the sale can be rendered null and void.
>>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.
I've had a few mortgages so far and I'm yet to find a bank not willing to cover the cost of a full survey, as the bank also wants to know the house they are securing the loan against is actually worth the money.
Earlier 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?
Only as long as Colorado is the only state with this law. If California or New York adopts it, employers will probably just accept it nationwide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It shouldn't matter what his role is. Saying some off the cuff stuff a few years ago in an obscure book doesn't make a workplace unsafe. That is disingenuous. 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 an…
so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless in the “real world”.
i understand that it can feel like there’s a group of anonymous “woke thugs” wondering the internet trying to get people. if you feel that way it might be useful for you to try and empathize with why someone would feel that way.
Curious how wide the salary ranges can be. Are there ways companies can just provide a wide range and get away?
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…
In the US, real estate sellers have to disclose known problems, but they can claim they didn't know, and then you might have to fight it out in court. It's still in your interest to get an inspection before closing.
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.
I've been taught in school that perfect competition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition ) requires perfect information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information ), so I assume giving more information would increase competition. Could you share why this is anti-competitive?
Competition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of information. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition