3 ms·
This 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 <elsewh
by hamandcheese 5y ago
This 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.