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

421–430 of 474 posts

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

#421

Post by solatic »

gpvos wrote: post #239
solatic wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have accrued vacation, you "earned" your vacation and they can't take it away from you without compensation... If they fire you, they should even have to pay you your salary for those vacation days. This is indeed the law in Israel. What happens is that people are allowed to accrue a number of vacation days up to a limit, typically however many days of vacation you earn in a year, times two. Then the company…

Why would a company allow that, can't they put a limit on that themselves? All my employment contracts in the Netherlands had a clause about that.

Legacy mistakes from decades ago that cannot be fixed because the employment contracts are collective contracts signed with unions who refuse to introduce limits into new collective contracts.

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

#422

Post by badpun »

lazide wrote: post #410
badpun wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Been around forever (70’s or earlier), large multinational, more about business integration and sales than any headline tech. This fits Microsoft as well. Are they not in tech?

They definitely aren’t a FAANG.

How is Netflix special then? How’s it different from Disney, HBO, Sky, or dozens of other companies that also do paid video streaming?

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

#423

Post by withinboredom »

thayne wrote: post #418
withinboredom wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need much. Just a job willing to sponsor you, or be willing to start a business on an entrepreneurship visa.

And enough money to relocate across an ocean, if you can find a job willing to sponsor you, which is not at all assured. And starting a business requires initial capital.

If a job is willing to sponsor you, they are usually willing to pay the relocation expenses up front. Just like in the US if they want you to relocate across the country.

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

#424

Post by withinboredom »

userbinator wrote: post #408
fhd2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

beauty in sharing and distributing personal risks That's socialism. Look at what happened to the USSR and it's obvious that we don't want to go (further) down that path. The cost of living is too high in many places; but that's a symptom and not a cause.

Um. If you are talking about the US, you realize it has more "socialism" than most EU countries?

- Do you choose your water company?

- How about your power company?

- TV?

- Internet? and can it be different than your TV?

- Cell?

There are probably more that I have forgotten to mention. But, at least where I live, there is a choice for every one of those items. And hey, there's also no Comcast here.

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

#425

Post by withinboredom »

asadotzler wrote: post #390
mind-blight wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One caveat: at will employment doesn't allow a company to fire you for "any" reason. It allows you to be fired for "no" reason. So, if a company says "we're firing everyone wearing red shirts", then you can potentially contest that. If they fire you without a reason, then it's legal. If you can prove there was actually a reason, and that the reason was illegal, then you can sue them for wrongful termination

In this case "red shirts" isn't an illegal reason for firing because people in red shirts are not a covered class. You can fire for any reason except those related to covered classes so it's fine to fire with reasons. "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk because people who steal are not part of a protected class.

> "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk

Sure, it is a risk. You could be wrong and then they sue you. Now you have to prove it. Better to just say that you're firing them and that is all. If they don't know the reason, they can't effectively sue you.

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

#427

Post by gpvos »

chgs wrote: post #383
gpvos wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but why would there be paperwork mandated by law?

I don’t think anyone said they did

The question would then become why a company would impose such paperwork on itself; but someone else replied that it has to do with unions, which I guess could explain it although it's still weird.

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

#428

Post by maxehmookau »

rammer wrote: post #393
nucleardog wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pushing US companies that don’t follow local laws to not operate there? Something tells me they’d be okay with that.

If you can't fire employees who refuse to perform at the level required or show a commitment for that then it was very right to be fired. The staff member had a choice, agree to an increased level of commitment or decline, he obviously declined. If companies can't decide who stays on or not, then definitely they would be more hesitant to invest / movel locations to Ireland. This will take time and certainly one of th…

The staff member clearly did not have a fair choice. His terms of employment were unilaterally changed in a way deemed to be illegal in Ireland. "Be more hardcore" is not a sensible description of a working environment to anyone but the most hardened of Musk apologists.

The law stood up for the employee in this case, as it should.

Ireland's tax regime is notoriously kind to tech companies, so I doubt they'll go anywhere.

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

#429

Post by Schiendelman »

ghaff wrote: post #369
leetrout wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimum / mandatory PTO is the answer. https://namely.com/blog/minimum-pto-what-is-it-why-you-shoul...

I don't really disagree although you can't really keep people from working on their days off if they want to, at least in a remote/WFH situation.

You most certainly can. I work for a US company where when you're out on (paid, six month) parental leave, your system access is disabled.

They don't do that for normal PTO but it's certainly feasible.

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

#430

Post by Timon3 »

ekianjo wrote: post #420
consp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having short term contracts solved this a long time ago and is mostly a fallacy.

nope. you dont invest the same way in a 6 month contractor that you are not sure to renew down the road as you would for a full time employee. And this goes both ways. The contractor has not much incentive to perform well either.

> And this goes both ways. The contractor has not much incentive to perform well either.

Can you explain your thoughts here a bit further? The short term contract can be renewed or replaced with a full time contract. This should provide extra incentive to perform well compared to a full time employee (who doesn't have to worry about either), as long the as the company is a good employer.

Post reply on HN