Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> I also don't really blame the company.

You should. Or conversely, you can look at this as having dodged a bullet.

On paper, they were willing to commit to multiple years of a presumptively-six-figure salary to you (seriously: an employment agreement is a big financial deal, even if it's legally "at will" -- there's a lot of money on the table) but pulled out because of some fear of bureaucracy and (maybe) a tax increase? That tells me that the commitment they were thinking of putting on paper wasn't worth, heh, the paper.

That's not a loyal employer, basically. If they're willing to cut corners with the State of Florida they'll do it with their own employees too.

View on HN

No, this is backwards. The company didn’t want to cut corners, and full compliance with state laws is expensive. It’s a good sign that a company would carefully consider subjecting their legal and HR resources to this additional complexity. The additional tax burden is just a straightforward addition to per-employee overhead and there is a number of in-state employees above which that overhead is worth paying.

Cutting corners would be hiring an employee as a contractor in order to avoid dealing with the new state’s laws, or simply punting on acquiring any research or consultation, which would actually endanger the OP’s employment status. Perhaps you are used to companies operating this way, but it’s not a sign of a good employer.

I wonder when people say this sort of thing how much time they spend on tax compliance. I have a company in the UK and one in Australia, and man, it is a MINEFIELD. Very little of what one knows translates very well, as each country has its own quirks.

The USA is like that on STEROIDS. You can have 3 levels of income tax. that's insane! I can't image the costs of being complaint with that - not least of which is the cost of making an accidental mistake. I doubt many small businesses want to be experts in {INSERT STATE HERE}'s tax regulations and laws. Far easier to avoid the headache if at all possible.

And if you don't think that is the case, imagine instead of states it was countries. How much does a US company want to deal with Haitian laws?

Sure it's complicated. All I'm saying is that it's significantly less complicated and expensive than hiring a full time engineer. People don't think like this, but hiring a salaried person is a ~$1M transaction in typical cases. Would you be willing to go through that red tape for a sales contract that would net $1M in revenue? Of course you would. So refusing to do it for an employee is being pennywise and pound foolish, and says something deep about your level of respect for your employees.

But they had other prospective employees as well.

The choice wasn't "hire someone or don't hire someone", it was "hire someone that will complicate taxes and cause more expenses, or hire someone else of similar salary and skill that doesn't cause those issues".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com