4 ms·
Why does it bother you more that Colorado is fighting for their citizens' right to work more than businesses excluding an entire state from being able to apply?
by xmprt 5y ago
Why does it bother you more that Colorado is fighting for their citizens' right to work more than businesses excluding an entire state from being able to apply?
- hamandcheese 5y agoThis particular law is fine. What I find concerning is the notion of <state where I don’t reside> enforcing its laws in such a way that I, a resident of <elsewhere> am affected.
- systemsignal 5y agoThat’s an unavoidable effect of remote work. It blurs the boundaries between states/countries
- Jensson 5y agoAnd is also why full global remote will not happen. Governments will make sure that hiring people in their countries/states will remain annoying.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoI'm not so sure. I could see the typical response being a compromise where the governments tolerate the unenforcability of their laws' against remote parties so long as the remote employer still pays local taxes. This would be to prevent a "just pay me in cryptocurrency" alternative from becoming popular.
- tdy_err 5y agoEPTR is Colorado law affecting employers whose employees (>= 1) live in Colorado.
- zerr 5y agoWhat matters is where you do business.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoWell the point is rather that a company is really trying not to do business in Colorado.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe law being discussed here only applies if the company employs someone on Colorado. So it would be hard to make the case that the company is trying not to do business in Colorado.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoWelcome to the lives of non US citizens.
- stickfigure 5y agoThe idea of one state legislating the behavior of people in other states is weird and disturbing. I don't know where you live, but I'm pretty sure I don't want Texas imposing law here.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoIt already happens in certain cases like divorce and child-support. See Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- stickfigure 5y agoSure but presumably one of these people is already a Colorado citizen. I don't look forward to Texas enforcing anti-abortion laws in other states. You think that's far fetched? How about facilities across the border providing abortions to Texas residents? Or if someone advertises abortion services online, that triggers laws that criminalize advertising services to Texas residents? Unless the US Supreme Court puts a stop to it, these laws are absolutely coming.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoI think you mean residency. Divorce requires one to be a resident, but not necessarily a citizen, in order to file. However spousal maintenance (i.e. alimony), child support and modifications thereof can be enforced across state lines (and even international lines) even if neither parties are residents of the state which had jurisdiction over the original order. But getting back to the subject at hand, the Texas law, if it survives legal muster, would likely only affect Texas residents who seek abortions within or across state lines as well as non-residents who seek an abortion in Texas. The legality of out-of-state facilities themselves would be left to the courts and legislatures of the states where those facilities operate, regardless of how close they are to the Texas state line. Advertising limitations are a 1st amendment issue, and could easily be challenged in a federal court. Commercial speech is protected speech. If other states like Georgia or Tennessee follow, similar circumstances and limitations would apply. I don't agree with the law, in fact I find it repulsive, but I think your claim of "different state, no jurisdiction" being a firm rule of American jurisprudence lacks substance. There have been plenty of legal rulings disproving that philosophy where a so-called compelling government interest is involved. Take car crashes. If a resident of state A crashes in state B, the at-fault party can be sued in state A if the has court relevant subject-matter jurisdiction (which most civil and criminal courts do) over the case and personal juridiction over the plaintiff (which every state court does over its residents).
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agoBecause in our federal system, if you don't like the laws of one state, you are free to get up and move to a different state that has laws more to your liking. If I have a company based in, say, Arizona, and I put up a posting for remote workers, why should I be forced to abide by the laws of a different state if I'm willing to forgo the talent pool in that state? I agree with the parent, I'm very curious what standing Colorado has to sue.
- Spivak 5y agoI guess let's take an extreme case. Say Arizona allows businesses to hire children and Colorado doesn't. Can a business in Arizona hire a child who lives in Colorado?
- topkai22 5y agoThat's far less extreme than you think- different states have different rules about if/when/where/how much under 18 year olds can work. I was able to get a job working as lifeguard for the school district at 15 in my home state. In others states that would have been illegal until I was 16.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoHopefully not. We pay taxes so that the government will uphold the law. If there's a law designed to protect Colorado's children, it should be enforceable whether or not the threat to those children is also in Colorado. If that's not the case, then the law probably deserves a rethink.
- only_as_i_fall 5y agoIf you're other comment is accurate about it only being allowed if they employ workers in Colorado I think that's a fairly reasonable compromise. You can get around the law if you entirely pull out of the state but otherwise you must play ball. Regardless, I think the increase in remote work is going to lead to a lot of cases like this where we'll see some things become defacto national requirements because it will be cheaper to come up with one policy that is legal everywhere than 10 policies that are legal in different subsets of the country.