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.
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.
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.
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".
We don't necessarily want to advertise all open positions to an internal selection process, particularly more senior managers.
The record keeping requirements in CO are concerning, particularly job description records. In particular, we don't yet have a full time HR person (there is a dedicated person, but that person has other job duties).
There's 49 other states.
edit: one more reason. We had a failing exec. Not enough to merit immediate firing, but failing enough that it was clear he or she was not going to last through the next round. We needed that person to continue doing a mildly-failing job while we found a replacement, due to lack of another person who could take on those responsibilities.
Not sure how you manage something like that with an internal hiring announcement.
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.
Plenty of job postings exist merely for compliance. So all you are doing is wasting a lot of time.
I would always rather take a qualified internal candidate rather than spend months to land someone outside. So, I do shop jobs internally now, but Even without reading the CO law, I’m pretty sure I’m not fully complying with it if I had an employee in CO.
Editing This was poor word choice in the morning; I should say I can clearly see how the size or scope of a company could complicate this. I just don't have any sympathy for them; you adapt your processes to match the desired state.
Please. No more emails.
>It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally.
One of the problems that happens (today) with this is that companies decide to hire someone external for a position essentially created for them. So they may create a job posting as a formality. But it's effectively a fake posting. No one else actually has a shot at an interview, much less getting the position.
Don't try this in Northern Ireland btw. I know of US mangers getting into some serious hot water over not advertising the job in Catholic and Protestant publications.
I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?
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.
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 :)
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
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.
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.