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?
I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?
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.
Love 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.
One of my co-workers did this but his asthma could not stand the humidity and he had to come back.
There is also an internal jobs portal where you can search whatever you want
Before we had 'spesific regulatory framework' companies enslaved people, exploited children, commercialised rape and commited serial murder to break up unions
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 :)
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.
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
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.
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.
IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).
1. Companies do weird divisions to keep under the limits
2. Companies are artificially restricted in their growth as they need to add employees but are unable to, for example if the cut of was 50 employees, adding the 49th employee is easy, adding the 50th employee is $$$$$ thus it will not happen, this would mean few companies grow to 50, rather you would see several 50+ employee companies merge as the cost burden for the new 100 employee company would spread over all 100 employees, vs the regulatory cost being hit with the single employee add
I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you
As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?
Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit their bottom lines.
Ever hear of the business lobby opposing union-busting laws on the basis that they create regulatory burden?
In a choice between maximizing efficiency for good actors, and curtailing behavior by bad actors, I tend to weight the latter.