Anyone who loses health insurance due to losing their employment (even if they voluntarily resign) is legally allowed to buy COBRA for 18 months. I think they are paying for it, otherwise this would be a fairly meaningless statement since the employer isn't involved with COBRA at all and that's less eligibility than any employee would have.
Many times employers will make statements like this for better PR (always leaving out that they were required to)
I didn't downvote the OP but I am picking up a tone of indignation that I don't quite understand. I find this pretty interesting. Here is my take on the situation: Let's say I own a widget factory and you are highly skilled at turning paper clips into widgets. We agree on a price for your time and I hire you to start making widgets. Things are going gangbusters, you produce a ton of widgets and I pay you for the time…
You own a factory. Your employees don't. There's a power imbalance in the employment relationship. Most people (who don't own things like factories) need a regular, predictable, stable income to survive, and finding new employment is not always easy. Therefore, people in most developed countries have agreed that by taking on an employee, it is contingent on the employer to provide some guarantee of stability. This is…
Nobody is stopping you from owning a factory. The workers are also free to leave anytime without any notice or responsibility to the employer. This is a flexible arrangement for both parties that focuses on individual freedom and responsibility.
It also helps make it easy for entrepreneurs to start companies and create jobs in the US and is a direct reason why we don't see the same innovation in regulation-heavy regions.
I think European dev market is a lot more complex than that; if you work in Zurich or London, do contracting, work for a major bank etc then the market is way different for you than if you do (say) PHP as an employee of a non-software company in Berlin. The baseline is decently middle class with a solid safety net but there's a lot more room at the top than you're making out IMHO. As always, to make cash as a "workin…
Zurich and London top out at $100k, any more and we're talking managerial responsibilities. Compared to SF or SEA they are only paying ~25% market rate. The safety net argument has no legs. Australia and Canada both have social benefits that far exceed the majority of EU nations, yet pre-pandemic there was no shortage of $150k+ dev roles.
I've employed developers in Zurich.
I promise you, the market for developers does not top out at anywhere near $100k.
That's closer to a starting salary (assuming a university degree).
I didn't downvote the OP but I am picking up a tone of indignation that I don't quite understand. I find this pretty interesting. Here is my take on the situation: Let's say I own a widget factory and you are highly skilled at turning paper clips into widgets. We agree on a price for your time and I hire you to start making widgets. Things are going gangbusters, you produce a ton of widgets and I pay you for the time…
You own a factory. Your employees don't. There's a power imbalance in the employment relationship. Most people (who don't own things like factories) need a regular, predictable, stable income to survive, and finding new employment is not always easy. Therefore, people in most developed countries have agreed that by taking on an employee, it is contingent on the employer to provide some guarantee of stability. This is…
In return for these employee benefits, the employees make less money, and are less likely to be hired, since every mis-hire is a potentially fatal error for the business. The laws of economics are not magic and the costs have to go somewhere.
I didn't downvote the OP but I am picking up a tone of indignation that I don't quite understand. I find this pretty interesting. Here is my take on the situation: Let's say I own a widget factory and you are highly skilled at turning paper clips into widgets. We agree on a price for your time and I hire you to start making widgets. Things are going gangbusters, you produce a ton of widgets and I pay you for the time…
You own a factory. Your employees don't. There's a power imbalance in the employment relationship. Most people (who don't own things like factories) need a regular, predictable, stable income to survive, and finding new employment is not always easy. Therefore, people in most developed countries have agreed that by taking on an employee, it is contingent on the employer to provide some guarantee of stability. This is…
I consider this a downside, it makes it harder to become factory owner.
You want to balance the power? Make it easier to be an employer, not hinder it.
I didn't downvote the OP but I am picking up a tone of indignation that I don't quite understand. I find this pretty interesting. Here is my take on the situation: Let's say I own a widget factory and you are highly skilled at turning paper clips into widgets. We agree on a price for your time and I hire you to start making widgets. Things are going gangbusters, you produce a ton of widgets and I pay you for the time…
You own a factory. Your employees don't. There's a power imbalance in the employment relationship. Most people (who don't own things like factories) need a regular, predictable, stable income to survive, and finding new employment is not always easy. Therefore, people in most developed countries have agreed that by taking on an employee, it is contingent on the employer to provide some guarantee of stability. This is…
> The USA is an aberration in this regard - even the workers seem to value the rights of the employers far above the rights of the employees.
No one has a right to payment if they do not provide services.
If Airbnb is willing to pay 14 weeks (3.25 months) of severance, they must believe this is going to go on significantly longer than that. Or they're using this as an opportunity to cut underperformers at the same time. Because if they believed things would start to recover by fall, wouldn't you just pay the people as normal and make a judgement call around then? You're spending the payroll money either way -- 14 week…
All indications are that we are going to experience a not-so-great depression. Not a recession, an honest-to-goodness depression. 2020 will be down YoY in terms economic output probably across the world, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's not only true for Q2-Q4, but if it also lingers into Q1. My guess is that we will feel like things are growing again this time next year. Some economists are hoping for a better…
Australia's gov't owned ABC news company has started spreading articles filled with either optimism or "why a depression wont be so bad". The people who know these kind of things can see the way the wind is blowing.
If it is the case it seems out of context to refer to this severance benefit as COBRA as it is my understanding this program has been specifically designed by Congress to force employers to offer the "opportunity" for the separated employees to get health insurance at full cost (without the employer subsidy). Since the Affordable Care Act, it seems to be cheaper to forego COBRA benefit and enroll in one of the offere…
Nobody is stopping aribnb from paying the full cost of Cobra, after the option is provided as is legally obligated.
It is certainly not cheaper to forgo free COBRA and buy insurance on the exchange.
How is it unavoidable? If the employee leaves on their choice, is severance paid?
I think they mean unavoidable from the company's point of view - they can't make you quit, so when they hire you, they have to assume if they ever need to lay you off, they'll need to afford your severance.
Yes — I was slightly incomplete in my description, but you are exactly correct about what I meant. Company liabilities include things you are obligated to pay under uncertain future circumstances, so accountants have to make sure that such liabilities can be handled if they ever arise.