6 ms·
The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new positi
by privacylawthrow 5y ago
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 employee in CO that requires special treatment.
- refurb 5y agoWow. 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 5y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoMy 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'
- weird-eye-issue 5y agoIs 6 months enough? Can't spots get filled between that time?
- privacylawthrow 5y ago6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet. 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.
- inter_netuser 5y agoAmazing, they have to notify about jobs in Thailand to Colorado employees? Love it.
- rswail 5y agoWe're talking about a spreadsheet that is posted to an intranet. If someone in Colorado wants to apply for a Thailand based job and is willing to relocate for the position, then why shouldn't they know about it. Of course, Thai employers can still discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, religion and a bunch of other things that Colorado employers can't. And any company operating in Thailand has a local Thai company established, which would be the actual employer for the local employees. So the Colorado law would not apply.
- Mauricebranagh 5y agoWhy not? When I worked at BT they did - a nice one or two year posting abroad on full ride expat status looks good on the CV.
- inter_netuser 5y agoBT has operations in Thailand?
- Mauricebranagh 5y agoAll over the world, this was in Kuala Lumpur I did some rereading up on the country and decided to pass, I would have had to cut my hair short for one. One of my co-workers did this but his asthma could not stand the humidity and he had to come back.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoOur promotions happen every 6 months, so position appear and are filled on that cycle. There is also an internal jobs portal where you can search whatever you want
- fennecfoxen 5y agoExcuse me. You're not expecting, quote, "basic decency." You are expecting compliance with a specific regulatory framework. One of these requires a soul, the other requires lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
- lmm 5y agoSince companies lack souls, the only way to get them to behave with decency is lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThe is nothing profitable a corporate bureaucracy won't do out of 'basic decency' Before we had 'spesific regulatory framework' companies enslaved people, exploited children, commercialised rape and commited serial murder to break up unions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
- fennecfoxen 5y agoI am having trouble reconciling your assertions, in which you seem to think HN should expect "basic decency" from corporations while simultaneously asserting that "'basic decency'" has never actually served as a meaningful barrier. It seems to me that the later statement rather undermines the original. Maybe "basic decency" is a very bad phrase to describe things here, and we should just leave it out. It's probably useful as invective, and if one is already predisposed to sympathize with the point, can galvanize one to action, but it serves poorly as a tool to actually communicate. I propose that if we avoid it, we can talk meaningfully about how the company finds it more convenient to avoid business than comply with regulatory burdens without the distraction of moralizing the matter, and draw conclusions about whether the passage of the law was wise under these particular circumstances, or what circumstances or structure might have made it better, and the like. Perhaps your vintage-1921 blue-collar labor dispute is more of a distraction than a help, as well :)
- SkyBelow 5y agoBy that view, does anyone expect "basic decency"? For example, I could say that I expect "basic decency" to not kill each other. But I also support having a law making murder illegal. As part of that law, you have the possibility of people being jailed, possible for months are years, before we even get to a court case. They may be able to pay a large fee to get back to their daily life (while part of the money is sometimes returned, there are plenty exceptions to this). Then you get to the court case, where people are expected to spend days in courts and small fortunes on lawyers to prove they didn't murder someone. Lots and lots of lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping, not to mention the costs to an innocent individual wrongly accused. Good luck getting any payments to make up the debt you incurred. Yet as a society we accept that we have to do things the legal way because just the expectation alone does nothing to stop bad people. As such the concept of "basic decency" is completely gone from the modern world, so I think it is safe to give it a new definition which includes the enforcement of a legal framework.
- syshum 5y agoI 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
- ethbr0 5y agoGranted. 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.
- bluGill 5y agoDon't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot. Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it. This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but isn't.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoOnly 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.
- Finnucane 5y ago"This offer only valid in the former Confederate states, where they know how to treat labor."
- bluGill 5y agoThough it does seem like the promotion opportunity is one that any sane company will want to have anyway. It takes some time to learn the companies internal systems, and promoting from within saves a lot of that time.
- psychometry 5y agoApparently now it's a "burden" to do the ethical thing because one state requires it even though you should be doing it anyway.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- NCFZ 5y agoTrue, but the most of the examples people found are of companies that already have Colorado employees.
- refurb 5y agoRight, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.
- waheoo 5y ago...
- paulgb 5y agoHere's the act, it looks like it does have some additional requirements for companies with CO employees: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085 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.
- inter_netuser 5y agoThere are companies that automate a lot of this, specifically to support remote-first companies.
- rswail 5y agoThe same way they deal with the asinine US sales taxes or how international companies deal with hiring internationally. They'll outsource it to companies that look after it for them. This is the "resources" bit of "human resources". In the meantime, maybe the actual HR people could get back to being "people and culture" managers and stop thinking of staff as "resources".
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago>If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employee in CO that requires special treatment. Generalize even further. If the company doesn't already have employees in <different regulatory jurisdiction> then they won't incur the cost of compliance in <different regulatory jurisdiction> all else being equal. If CO had very cheap labor it would pencil out and they'd gladly jump through the hoops to comply. But CO doesn't have particularly cheap labor for the kinds of jobs in question. Heck, my company wanted to hire a specific expert in a specific field. They were willing to pay the moon but but still almost didn't do it because of the compliance headache from having international employees. They hired a 3rd party intermediary to hire this person.
- elliekelly 5y agoWho 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 of retail/labor-intensive positions where employees aren’t regularly using a computer. Certainly most companies hiring remote workers would be though.
- logosmonkey 5y agoYeah, I don't quite get the rub here. The corporations I've worked for always post jobs internally first and normally they email the entire org with open positions. In general I've found most corporations want to hire internally since it's cheaper overall.
- MattGaiser 5y agoI think it depends on the company. In a past organization a friend was HR at, there were branch office jobs and corporate jobs. Officially you could get promoted to the corporate office. Unofficially, don't bother as they optimized for different things for each hiring pool. So they tried to keep the corporate jobs only available to the corporate people as otherwise the branch people would get excited and then end up having their dreams dashed from repeatedly applying and having their resumes chucked while an external hire filled their job.
- ghaff 5y agoYeah, you especially don't want to proactively push out a bunch of job postings to people who have exactly zero chance of landing the position because the decision has already been made.
- MattGaiser 5y agoThat too. Plenty of job postings exist merely for compliance. So all you are doing is wasting a lot of time.
- grumple 5y agoAny 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.