Many Companies Want Remote Workers—Except From Colorado

[Pedestrian]

By Chip Cutter
June 17, 2021 9:47 am ET

Big companies are hiring for remote positions that can be performed in any state across the U.S. except one: Colorado.

At issue is a new Colorado law that requires companies with even a few employees in the state to disclose the expected salary or pay range for each open role they advertise, including remote positions. The rule’s aim is to narrow gender wage gaps and provide greater pay transparency for employees. To avoid having to disclose that information, though, some employers seeking remote workers nationwide are saying that those living in Colorado need not apply.

Across the internet, an array of job listings state the work can’t be done in Colorado. At Johnson & Johnson, roles recently posted for a commercial finance senior manager and a senior manager in operations include this caveat: “Work location is flexible if approved by the Company except that position may not be performed remotely from Colorado.” At commercial real-estate giant CBRE Group Inc., an ad for a project management director notes in bold: “This position may be performed remotely anywhere within the United States except the State of Colorado.”

At pharmaceutical distributor McKesson Corp., postings for a sales specialist and a research quality manager include similar disclaimers. Job listings for a scientist, an account executive and a manager of international tax planning at rival Cardinal Health Inc. also note: “This is a remote, work from home position. This role is to be filled outside of the state of Colorado.”

Johnson & Johnson and CBRE declined to comment, and McKesson and Cardinal Health didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Businesses have argued, in part, that Colorado’s rules are overly burdensome administratively for employers. The Rocky Mountain Association of Recruiters, a trade group, sought an injunction against the pay transparency rules earlier this year. Last month, a federal judge denied that request, allowing the rules to stand . . . .

A number of states, including California, have enacted legislation in recent years that ban employers from asking for an applicant’s salary history or added requirements for employers to disclose pay ranges upon request. One difference in Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act—which went into effect in January—is its provision that employers publicly disclose compensation and benefits for each job posting in the state.

In the remote-work era where jobs can conceivably be done anywhere, that has led to some confusion, state officials say. Colorado has told employers they don’t need to disclose compensation for roles to be performed entirely outside of the state. Nor do the pay-disclosure requirements apply to remote jobs posted by a company that doesn’t have any Colorado employees. But if an employer does have a presence in Colorado, it would need to post salary information—even for a remote job—Mr. Moss said.

Many companies now do include pay information specific to Colorado on remote job postings. A listing for a software development engineer on a “work-from-anywhere” team at Amazon.com Inc., for instance, notes that the range for the position in Colorado is $116,400 to $160,000 a year, but overall compensation could vary.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-co...hp_featst_pos3

[twister244]

Here's a question though..... How would this be enforced?

If an employee goes and works remotely from Aspen for a month to skill while working then leaves, how will the state know?

For myself, the second I updated my address to reflect my Chicago location, I had to immediately change my taxes to Illinois. So maybe this is where the enforcement might come in, but again, how are they going to hold people accountable.

Given the tourist nature of Colorado, you are going to have a TON of people come into the state at various points in the year to work remotely from there.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by twister244

Here's a question though..... How would this be enforced?

If an employee goes and works remotely from Aspen for a month to skill while working then leaves, how will the state know?

For myself, the second I updated my address to reflect my Chicago location, I had to immediately change my taxes to Illinois. So maybe this is where the enforcement might come in, but again, how are they going to hold people accountable.

Given the tourist nature of Colorado, you are going to have a TON of people come into the state at various points in the year to work remotely from there.

That's not the same as being a resident of CO.

[10023]

It probably doesn’t need to be enforced and companies probably don’t actually care if a person is sitting in Colorado, at least some of the time. They have probably been advised that if they say the role is not to be performed from Colorado, they don’t have to comply with the salary disclosure law.

Separately… what a stupid law. Salary is part of the negotiation between employer and prospective employee, and you wouldn’t necessarily pay two different candidates the same thing for good reasons. Maybe if we are talking about entry level jobs where the role is very defined and every employee would be expected to perform in exactly the same way, but for mid-level or senior roles it doesn’t make sense.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by twister244

Here's a question though..... How would this be enforced?

If an employee goes and works remotely from Aspen for a month to skill while working then leaves, how will the state know?

For myself, the second I updated my address to reflect my Chicago location, I had to immediately change my taxes to Illinois. So maybe this is where the enforcement might come in, but again, how are they going to hold people accountable.

Given the tourist nature of Colorado, you are going to have a TON of people come into the state at various points in the year to work remotely from there.

Isn't only for job listing, not currently employed people? So it shouldn't affect some one who is already working for the company.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by 10023

It probably doesn’t need to be enforced and companies probably don’t actually care if a person is sitting in Colorado, at least some of the time. They have probably been advised that if they say the role is not to be performed from Colorado, they don’t have to comply with the salary disclosure law.

Separately… what a stupid law. Salary is part of the negotiation between employer and prospective employee, and you wouldn’t necessarily pay two different candidates the same thing for good reasons. Maybe if we are talking about entry level jobs where the role is very defined and every employee would be expected to perform in exactly the same way, but for mid-level or senior roles it doesn’t make sense.

I think it's fine if the rule is worded as a minimum salary that must be posted. Avoids someone with less experience or possible barriers from negotiating against themselves. These kind of things typically apply to mass job posting sites like indeed anyway. How often do you find a job posting there for over 150k? At the senior level your likely going through a more personalized experience with a headhunter and salary negotiations would be tailored to that.

[Shawn]

If you ever see an upper management job with a $150k+ salary band listed on Indeed or any of the other big guys, stay away. There are reasons such a position fell so far down the HR staffing waterfall so as to be posted on an above-the-line general job site. And those reasons aren't anything you want to be near, let alone be responsible for.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Shawn

If you ever see an upper management job with a $150k+ salary band listed on Indeed or any of the other big guys, stay away. There are reasons such a position fell so far down the HR staffing waterfall so as to be posted on an above-the-line general job site. And those reasons aren't anything you want to be near, let alone be responsible for.

What are the reasons? Just curious.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by LA21st

What are the reasons? Just curious.

The specifics would vary from company to company and role to role, but the overall point is that choice roles get offered up to insiders first (strong performers and/or connected people already in the company, or industry people connected to the company's leadership). Then they go to the private industry job boards (like JobVite) and placement firms like RobertWalters. If the role cannot be filled by these first two levels of the waterfall, then it's quite likely that the issue isn't a lack of qualified candidates but instead an issue with the role itself (i.e. it's not a good one). Why isn't it good? Could be a ton of different reasons: bad compensation, bad baggage and legacy stuff you'll be responsible for fixing, coworkers with known reputations, bad industry rep (ex. tobacco), bad future mark on your CV (ex. if you joined Facebook after 2018) . . . usually it's because the role's requirements far outstrip its compensation. But this isn't something that an outsider might realize, so it's always worth dropping the role onto Indeed just to see who bites.