First, the employee (not the company) is the willing participant with the state benefits and obligations.
If the employee was hired in AZ, and never changed his tax residency to say CA with employer, why would employee be able to claim protections given by CA? If employees are going to play the game, they should be OK with the consequences.
Second, company level agreements don't work this way. Why should tax nexus ?
For examples a company is based in CA, so it states its legal venue is in CA for contract disputes. Company then moves to FL....The tax residency change does not give the company the right to to update its legal venue to FL for convenience with its contractual counterparties.
So then, why can states break basic contract rules, which we hold sacrosant at the company-person level ? And what regulation exists to entitle states to pursue companies that do this unwillingly ?
There are laws that state you must pay taxes, not discriminate, etc.
What are the laws that mandate companies to know where your remote employee is working at all times ?
Should a company need to know the rules of 50 different states at all times, to know if they must check employees working offsite ? And how is a company subject to a jurisdiction's rules that it does not know it is party to ?
You're misunderstanding things. There's no law that companies have to know where their employees are working from. It's simply a consequence of the fact that governments have sovereign power to regulate things within their borders, including employment. Companies that pay to have work performed within state X generally [1] have to follow those regulations. If an employee moves to another jurisdiction and the employment agreement is not compatible with applicable local laws, then there are two main options: The relationship can be terminated or it can be brought into compliance.
If a company has employees in all 50 states, then yeah they need to have compatible employment practices with all of them (plus the respective cities those employees work from, for extra fun). In practice this doesn't come up much because most employment regulations are minor and most governments have similar rules.
[1] there are a million qualifications to this, speak to a lawyer if you want details about your particular case
First, the employee (not the company) is the willing participant with the state benefits and obligations.
If the employee was hired in AZ, and never changed his tax residency to say CA with employer, why would employee be able to claim protections given by CA? If employees are going to play the game, they should be OK with the consequences.
Second, company level agreements don't work this way. Why should tax nexus ? For examples a company is based in CA, so it states its legal venue is in CA for contract disputes. Company then moves to FL....The tax residency change does not give the company the right to to update its legal venue to FL for convenience with its contractual counterparties.
So then, why can states break basic contract rules, which we hold sacrosant at the company-person level ? And what regulation exists to entitle states to pursue companies that do this unwillingly ?
There are laws that state you must pay taxes, not discriminate, etc.
What are the laws that mandate companies to know where your remote employee is working at all times ?
Should a company need to know the rules of 50 different states at all times, to know if they must check employees working offsite ? And how is a company subject to a jurisdiction's rules that it does not know it is party to ?