Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 474 posts

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#321

Post by bardak »

brightball wrote: post #309
withinboredom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to. There are also very few places providing leave (outside of white-collar positions). For example, my wife was given two weeks off from her job after having my son. The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having…

Something to keep in mind on the maternity leave front… Most short term disability insurance actually covers maternity leave for about 6 weeks. It’s really easy for employers to make sure this is part of their benefits package these days.

While that might seem generous in the US that is not universal and still woefully minimal. All fathers in Canada are entitled to a minimum of 5 weeks of leave let alone the maximum of 18 months leave mothers

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#322

Post by kcarter80 »

chii wrote: post #312
WrongAssumption wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited vacation was actually pioneered in the U.S., and spread from there. Most famously popularized by Netflix in its early days, but popular in law firms before that. https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_r...

It's not actually unlimited. In fact, by not providing a fixed amount, and calling it unlimited, it lets managers put peer pressure onto people into taking less vacations than if they'd made a fixed amount!

It is unlimited if the employee is talented and good at advocating for themselves.

It isn't if they are meek or mid.

In general: it's good to let your employer know that you value your time. If you don't suck, they'll respect you more, not less.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#323

Post by kwhitefoot »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #169
refurb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked in Europe I had to give 3 months notice. If I left before that I had to pay the company the equivalent salary . So let’s say I leave after 1 month of giving notice. I now owe the employer 2 months salary.

N=1, here. Where i am it's 2 weeks and has to be declared online (so the employee can't withdraw it, without the boss agreeing to keep them on). 2 weeks in der EU is common, 1 month rarer...3 is a lot and leads me to believe there's a lot of € at stake in this case.

Three months notice is usual for long term employees in both Norway and the UK in my experience. The employee can of course give notice without any reason but the employer generally has also to demonstrate cause, they can't fire you just because they feel like it.

For employees that have not been working for the firm very long the notice period will be shorter on both sides. What the exact rules are I'm not sure.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#324

Post by marpstar »

chii wrote: post #312
WrongAssumption wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited vacation was actually pioneered in the U.S., and spread from there. Most famously popularized by Netflix in its early days, but popular in law firms before that. https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_r...

It's not actually unlimited. In fact, by not providing a fixed amount, and calling it unlimited, it lets managers put peer pressure onto people into taking less vacations than if they'd made a fixed amount!

To add to that: it also can't be "banked" (and thereby paid out after departure). Companies give free PTO because real "paid time off" has to be tracked as a liability on their books; if you haven't "earned" anything and they don't "credit" you, you aren't "owed" you anything when you leave/are terminated.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#325

Post by thayne »

thor-rodrigues wrote: post #2

I am glad to hear that workers rights are being enforced in Europe. As an employee in Germany, it sounds deranged to receive an email saying I have one day to completely change my work contract, or be fired from my job.

In the US, you usually don't have a work contract. In many states the employer can fire you for any reason except for being a member of a protected class. Or change the terms of working there.

In such states, employees can also leave for any reason, but the asymmetry of the power dynamic means the "at will" laws are generally more beneficial to the employer.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#326

Post by luckylion »

fhd2 wrote: post #73
userbinator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic principle is --- you work, you get paid. If you're not working, you're not getting paid. Anything additional is a bonus at the discretion of the employer.

That's where I suppose the US and EU truly differ. The US generally goes for the "the market will solve it" approach. If you're a bad employer, nobody wants to work there, the company goes down and the competition wins. It's a beautiful theory IMHO. The EU approach is sort of the same, but to add regulation on top to steer the market towards specific goals, like having a strong middle class. If, for example, a compan…

A company having a monopoly on the labor market wouldn't be called a company, that's a collectivist state.

A company having a monopoly in the regular market doesn't really matter for employment: if you're terrible to your employees, it's not your customers you have to fear, it's the employees. They will leave and no new ones will join and you won't be doing any business if you don't have any employees to actually do the work you'll get paid for.

> I guess you could see it as patronising, but there is beauty in sharing and distributing personal risks.

But that's quite literally what insurance is made for. The only difference is that insurance adds some amount of accountability.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#327

Post by klyrs »

hyperman1 wrote: post #18

If this is allowed, the concept of a contract is meaningless, as all terms change whenever one party feels like it. So Musk feels to be above contract law. The whole basis for law based commerce goes out of the window. Musk's world view is incredibly dangerous for a law based country. This means €550k is a way to low number as punishment. It might be enough as restitution for the employee, but an additional, much str…

> Musk's world view is incredibly dangerous for a law based country.

Murdoch, Musk, Thiel, Trump et al are doing their level best to convert the US into a banana republic.

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#328

Post by fargle »

fsloth wrote: post #4

Would this be legal in any jurisdiction (click-or-be-fired)? I am not familiar with US labour laws, are employees actually at the level of indentured servants considering terms of employment (which I would expect to be a contract between TWO parties)?

> are employees actually at the level of indentured servants (which I would expect to be a contract between TWO parties)

no, it's actually the polar opposite of that. either party is free to end the relationship at any time. there is essentially what is a long term contract (may not be called a contract), but one which either of the two parties can terminate. it's halfway between being a european style employee and being a truly independent contractor. an indentured servant is certainly not free at all to end a bad relationship or to seek a better job or more pay - totally the opposite thing.

and i don't think there's anything wrong with it. in fact, i personally strongly want to move more toward becoming a true independent contractor someday, but the culture of engineering strongly favors employees for what i prefer to do. i'd rather pay my own taxes and handle my own retirement and medical insurance and other "benefits", many of which do not benefit me at all.

when you say "click-or-be-fired" it seems shocking. rephrase it into "agree to our new terms going forward, or we will not renew". i have zero problem with that if that was the situation that was originally agreed to.

now, i don't know what those new terms are or whether they were fair, and that might have been a problem. but simply the at-will employment system isn't wrong on it's own. but in our jurisdiction, not ireland (which is how X appears to have got itself in trouble).

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#329

Post by addicted »

withinboredom wrote: post #14
fsloth wrote: post #4

Would this be legal in any jurisdiction (click-or-be-fired)? I am not familiar with US labour laws, are employees actually at the level of indentured servants considering terms of employment (which I would expect to be a contract between TWO parties)?

In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to. There are also very few places providing leave (outside of white-collar positions). For example, my wife was given two weeks off from her job after having my son. The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having…

> In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to.

This is not entirely correct.

They can fire you for any reason as long as it’s not because of a protected reason.

There are certain protected reasons at the federal level and many states add additional ones at the state level.

So, for example, they can fire you for wearing a red shirt, but they cannot fire you for being too old (well, too old is defined as above 40…if you’re 35 they can legally fire you for being too old if they want).

Re: X ordered to pay €550k to Irish employee fired after yes-or-resign ultimatum

#330

Post by chgs »

gpvos wrote: post #232
sethammons wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have "unlimited" vacation here in the states. If you go over three weeks, they still require special paperwork, but they allow it if you are tenured enough. What unlimited means is "as long as your manager is decent, you will maybe get your days off" vs accrued vacation where you may be forced to take vacation to not lose it.

Assuming it is paid vacation, why is the special paperwork required? Governments over here require minimum amounts of vacation out of health concerns, but I can't imagine how giving away more or even infinite vacation days would concern them as long as the employer is happy with it.

I could see each stint being off for more than 3 weeks would require something from the manager to confirm enough handover has happened. Waiting too 3 weeks is normal each time, but if you’re a project manager and vanish for 5 weeks at a critical part of the project then someone needs to know.
Post reply on HN