[triattr]

> The time tracking services and software I've worked with make their money by scaring employers re: regulatory compliance ("Subscribe to our service and we'll keep you legal w/ local HR laws...")

This sounds interesting. Can you link to any of these services or software?

What do you mean by "scaring employers re: regulatory compliance"? "Scaring" reads like you're implying some kind of manipulation, but "regulatory compliance" is something a company should already be in; what is there to fear?

What are "local HR laws"?

[blindluke]

I can provide answers to the last two questions, based on my limited experence.

> What are "local HR laws"?

I think this refers to the fact that regulatory compliance is different depending on where your business is located. Which brings me to my anecdotal experience with:

> What do you mean by "scaring employers re: regulatory compliance"? "Scaring" reads like you're implying some kind of manipulation, but "regulatory compliance" is something a company should already be in; what is there to fear?

A company I worked for was located in a country where it was the legal duty of the employer to keep track of the people on the office premises. Most companies used a time tracking system for this, the punch-in, punch-out kind. The thing is, the purpose of the regulation was to make sure that when evacuated, there is always a list of people that were in the building - so it could be referred to after the evacuation to see if everyone is accounted for. This law did not require keeping track of the time someone entered the premises, or the time someone left - the requirement could be satisfied with a simple paper list with checkboxes - one for when you enter, one for when you leave. And that's exactly what was done in this office. Every month or two, the company got an offer from a business trying to sell a time tracking appliance or service, and many, if not all of those offers were using manipulatory tactics - "If you're not using a time tracking system, you might be violating the law" was a common phrase. The manipulation here was that it was true that a system like that would satisfy the legal requirement, but the offers strongly implied that a having a system like that was necessary to satisfy the legal requirement. Which was not the case.

[triattr]

> "If you're not using a time tracking system, you might be violating the law" was a common phrase.

This seems a reasonable thing to say. If anything it's helpful by perhaps providing the employer with information about requirements they were ignorant of.

> but the offers strongly implied that a having a system like that was necessary to satisfy the legal requirement. Which was not the case.

But coupling it with this is a sleazy sales tactic.

One can nullify the affect though by having at least one person on your staff tasked with being knowledgeable of all of your industry's employment requirements and your company's current state of compliance with them.