141–150 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can fire people pretty easily in Europe. There’s rules around layoffs but they are also common. All the companies I’ve worked for have hired and fired relatively freely.
Again, different countries, different laws. It is objectively NOT easy to fire people in Germany, for example.
Ultimately, there is an expectation that the employee make themselves a financial safety net considering their job security.
6months expenses is a rough guide.
Yes that's a lot of money, yes it'll be hard to accumulate, yes you will have to top up with inflation.
I find it shocking that people I know have worked in well paying jobs for 5+ years and have less than a couple months of expenses and no investments. Often a minimal pension.
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…
This is just so wrong on so many levels. > If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? > In Europe where firing is almost impossible It is called "job security" - if you hired somebody, you "promised" them to pay a wage. If they are not needed anymore, you need to keep on promise and pay a wage. For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary…
I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company.
My plan was always to use where I worked as a stepping stone for my next job. I spent my first two years saving money and building my resume. I have spent most of my career “with my running shoes on”. Meaning I’m always prepared for a layoff or to leave when the pay/bullshit ratio is going in the wrong direction.
My employer owes me nothing besides to pay me for the hours I worked. When that arrangement isn’t working for either of us, we both have agency and the ability to terminate that arrangement.
> Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring?
I lived through both the 2000 crash and 2008-2011. The 2000 crash wasn’t bad if you had both skills and was working in many major cities in the US as just a regular old enterprise developer working for profitable non tech companies.
2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.
Certain comments seem to argue for labor liberalism while at the same time retaining preferential treatment for these larger companies. You cannot have it both ways. Either create a truly capitalistic society that allows defaults, free movement of people and capital, create an even playing field for workers or by default lose some of the human capital flexibility that is necessitated by the current corrupt and broken system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do these permanent and temporary contracts stipulate? Presumably they are quite different than the standard US employment contracts that basically just confirm at-will employment, etc.
In NL, you generally start with a fixed term of a year. After the year, the contract ends. Depending on relationships, supply/demand, field of expertise etc., the employer will either offer another fixed term or a permanent contract. Permanent contract means the employer does not have the exit condition of "wait it out" to get rid of an employee. Additionally, permanent contracts tend to have bigger benefits attached…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's usually a considerable probation period where the firing rules are much more relaxed. Germany is typically 6 months, for example.
Doesnt that make my point ? You can easily be fired in a probation period :-) and right before the probation ends is when the employer wonders if they should keep you (really hire you for good)
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…
France has good job security rules, from what I've heard. The UK, not so much.
Once you've completed two years, you are entitled to a consultation process if the company wants to make redundancies. Those positions cannot be filled for six months after a redundancy. HR departments can reword and change descriptions though so if they really wanted to fill the position, they could, but from what I've seen they mostly change it after six months anyway.
If you're unlucky and have just started a position, you can be dropped easily, no consultation, but the rules of redundancy above remain.
However, having spent some time on the other end, doing interviews, hiring is a lot more expensive than firing. One month of consultation vs delays to projects, training of new starters, retention of employees and talent are far more valuable than an easy firing process. Never doubt the value of your experience to a company, any employer who does ignore that value isn't worth working for as they're delusional and likely to fail soon.
Yes, hiring is a very tedious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We shouldn't compare big SV companies with the rest of the world though. Of course companies that are in high demand have a lot of people applying at their job and have harder / longer interview processes
So, in that case, getting hired is hard, but getting fired is just as easy as for less in-demand companies? And also, in an economic downturn, the companies are free to fire people, but getting a new job will become considerably more difficult. So I'm afraid I don't really see the "easy to get fired/easy to get hired" symmetry that you talked about in your first post...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 New Zealand it is fairly easy to start a company (in the sense that the required paperwork isn’t too difficult). It’s easy to hire people, but firing is hard. Why would ease firing mean ease hiring? Why would companies failing easily mean start ups are simple? It’s not so much that…
If it's easy to fire you won't have to be as thorough when hiring because if the new employee doesn't fit - just waste him/her. If it's difficult to fire the company will put potential employees through hell before deciding. I don't think there's any country where the actual process of hiring someone is a legal nightmare