21–30 of 253 posts
Trivializing makes it less of a scarlet letter if you do get laid off or fired. Probably a net benefit for most people in the long run not to risk the business cycle affecting their future employability.
Firing easily and hiring easily are two sides of the same coin. If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If companies can go down quickly, new companies can be formed in an instant. In Europe where firing is almost impossible, hiring is a very tedious process. Companies are big and look financially stable because the little ones cannot survive or dont enjoy the same monopoly / legal protections. If a c…
> if you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily And if you can find a job easily, you can credibly threaten to decamp for leverage. (Or, if your boss is a dick, just leave.) I'm American. My bias shows. But I think an easy-to-fire, easy-to-hire model is far superior to the incumbency-biased systems which make hiring and firing an Olympic sport. We lack a strong-enough social net underneath it all, necessary…
Does it? To an outsider, workers rights seem to be regressing.
If at-will employment wasn’t available, companies would react by only hiring when absolutely necessary, and there would be fewer available jobs.
Plus, even in the US, some companies offer pensions and are known for almost never laying off or firing people. So you do have the choice of stability if you’re willing to limit the companies you work for. Startups and publicly-traded companies are not the place for those who want a guaranteed job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been in Europe for a few years now and my experiance is significantly opposite of what the parent comment claims.
That doesn't really make logical sense to me. Can you elaborate? If hiring is an irreversible decision for a company, why wouldn't consideration be required prior to any hire?
Here in new Zealand it's next to impossible to fire someone. We only really do redundancies . If you were fired it must have been serious misconduct.
What happens when a company runs out of money? I'm seriously asking.
Firing easily and hiring easily are two sides of the same coin. If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If companies can go down quickly, new companies can be formed in an instant. In Europe where firing is almost impossible, hiring is a very tedious process. Companies are big and look financially stable because the little ones cannot survive or dont enjoy the same monopoly / legal protections. If a c…
My experience is quite different in regard to working in Europe. How exactly is hiring a very tedious process? Seemed quite fast and easy to me. And btw, it's not that hard to fire a wrong hire. You have few months to do so basically for any reason at all, and afterwards, you can still do it, if you have a good reason to do so.
GP made a huge generalization by saying "in europe" while talking about labour laws. It's like me saying "in asia, (something about the labour market)", there is no such thing.
Hiring/firing/Employee-rights are very different between Spain and Czechia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been in Europe for a few years now and my experiance is significantly opposite of what the parent comment claims.
That doesn't really make logical sense to me. Can you elaborate? If hiring is an irreversible decision for a company, why wouldn't consideration be required prior to any hire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been in Europe for a few years now and my experiance is significantly opposite of what the parent comment claims.
That doesn't really make logical sense to me. Can you elaborate? If hiring is an irreversible decision for a company, why wouldn't consideration be required prior to any hire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been in Europe for a few years now and my experiance is significantly opposite of what the parent comment claims.
That doesn't really make logical sense to me. Can you elaborate? If hiring is an irreversible decision for a company, why wouldn't consideration be required prior to any hire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been in Europe for a few years now and my experiance is significantly opposite of what the parent comment claims.
That doesn't really make logical sense to me. Can you elaborate? If hiring is an irreversible decision for a company, why wouldn't consideration be required prior to any hire?
Case study. In my country, most individuals do benefit from a severance on a permanent contract. Getting a permanent contract happens after working for a year if you're lucky or in a high demand job. In other cases, companies will use their power to stall as long as possible where beneficial. Temporary contracts do not have the same severance benefits, just wait the year and they are gone.
Severance itself varies case by case. Younger people with permanent contracts aren't getting multiple years in salaries for getting fired. Most older employees don't, either.
The entire premise also requires a largely immobile workforce. Workforce mobility in The Netherlands is actually pretty decent, with most younger people switching jobs every few years. This inevitably means these people have temporary contracts for a large part of their career, with much weaker severance packages. Top comment also discounts the obvious, trying to get individuals to quit themselves through e.g. legal bullying or bad benefits.