My curent company shares an email about open promotional opportunities every 6 months. I am continously amazon how on hackernews expecting basic decensy from corporates is a 'terrible burden'
Excuse me. You're not expecting, quote, "basic decency." You are expecting compliance with a specific regulatory framework. One of these requires a soul, the other requires lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
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.
The is nothing profitable a corporate bureaucracy won't do out of 'basic decency'
Before we had 'spesific regulatory framework' companies enslaved people, exploited children, commercialised rape and commited serial murder to break up unions
I am having trouble reconciling your assertions, in which you seem to think HN should expect "basic decency" from corporations while simultaneously asserting that "'basic decency'" has never actually served as a meaningful barrier. It seems to me that the later statement rather undermines the original.
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 :)
6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet.
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.
We're talking about a spreadsheet that is posted to an intranet. If someone in Colorado wants to apply for a Thailand based job and is willing to relocate for the position, then why shouldn't they know about 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.
All over the world, this was in Kuala Lumpur I did some rereading up on the country and decided to pass, I would have had to cut my hair short for one.
One of my co-workers did this but his asthma could not stand the humidity and he had to come back.
I am amazed that people do not understand that difference between Voluntary Action and Mandatory / Regulatory Burden.
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
Don't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot.
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.
On of the consequences of those provisions is often either
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
Of course B primary motivator and I do not see that as a bad thing
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?
>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
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?
union "busting" laws generally speaking are about REMOVING regulations around who is required by law to negotiate with and/or join a union. So these laws by definition are not imposing any regulatory burden on anyone they are removing regulatory burdens
Though it does seem like the promotion opportunity is one that any sane company will want to have anyway. It takes some time to learn the companies internal systems, and promoting from within saves a lot of that time.
I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?