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

How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

tofugu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 238 posts

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#61

Post by tdeck »

Iulioh wrote: post #59
jandrewrogers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains go both ways and have real downsides. Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused, I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers. No…

I think your opinion is influenced by probability being a well off professional in a field where you can easily find another job, maybe phisical location is not even that important. Just an hypothesis. I prefer the "chains on both sides" approach for the society.

It's a false dichotomy anyway. There's no law of nature that says an employee being able to quit at a moment's notice means the company should be allowed to, for example, fire someone with no cause on the spot.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#62

Post by rawgabbit »

k_sze wrote: post #16

Please add [2014]. It's an interesting read, but temporal context is important. The world has been through a lot. Even if we talk only about Japan, there has been - COVID - Tokyo 2020 Olympics - 3 prime ministers leaving their posts - Shinzo Abe getting shot

Done.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#64

Post by lmm »

hackit2 wrote: post #50
chasontherobot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of these things is completely true. 1. While it is technically true a company could sue a worker for quitting, the amount of damages they'd have to show is far beyond anything they'd be able to do outside of an upper management position. As far as I know, you could not sue someone for doing a half assed job. 2. I'm not even sure how you are using the word "illegal" here. AFAIK there is no provisions in crimin…

> a half assed job A judge would automatically throw out the case if this was the argument for suing an employee. The reasoning being, if you continued to pay the employee during the term of their employment, and you knew that the employee was not performing based on some KPI or some yard stick, you would issue warning to the employee to improve their performance, or you would fire the employee on the spot. Continuin…

> The reasoning being, if you continued to pay the employee during the term of their employment, and you knew that the employee was not performing based on some KPI or some yard stick, you would issue warning to the employee to improve their performance, or you would fire the employee on the spot. Continuing keep an underperforming employee is giving tactic consent that their work is reasonably acceptable because if it wasn't, you would start disciplinary action or cease their employment.

We're talking about an employee on a fixed term contract, so there's not really any scope for disciplinary action of the "performance improvement plan" type. And the argument would be that they were hired because of a time-sensitive job (hence the need for this kind of irregular employee) and so just not paying them for work doesn't make the company whole, they needed someone to do that work at that specific point in time and if not then they have damages that are much larger than the salary they would've paid.

Of course by the time you get to court you can poke several holes in this argument. But under Japanese law it's a valid argument on its face, so it's something the employer can use to threaten.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#65

Post by jmspring »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #11
infotainment wrote: post #2

> "I can't quit the job. If I say I'm going to quit, I'll be threatened that I will have to pay damages for quitting." Interestingly, this is actually possible under Japanese law/legal precedent. If an employee, for example, decides to put in notice and then half-ass their job until their departure date, a company could actually sue the employee and win. Other Japan-labor-law fun fact: if you are a contract worker, i…

The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains go both ways and have real downsides. Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused, I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers. No…

I’d say in the US there is a unique situation because health care is tied to employment, or it’s insanely expensive. When the job market is not great, you see increased costs and more exploitation of those employed.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#66

Post by jandrewrogers »

Iulioh wrote: post #59
jandrewrogers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains go both ways and have real downsides. Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused, I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers. No…

I think your opinion is influenced by probability being a well off professional in a field where you can easily find another job, maybe phisical location is not even that important. Just an hypothesis. I prefer the "chains on both sides" approach for the society.

Some of my dearest friends are on the lower end of working class and don’t make a lot of money. They worry about many things but finding another job is not among them. We talk about it. I am financially well off now but I’ve also lived decades of abject poverty, I am not unfamiliar with what that entails.

At every point in time, finding a job wasn’t an issue. It might have not been a great job, but it was a job that paid the bills until a better job came along. Being able to bootstrap to a better job is something the US does really well.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#67

Post by ujikoluk »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #56
mc3301 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually know many people (not through social media) that did this? I live here, and I know a few but they mostly fall into one of two camps. 1) Moving into and maintaining the house/land/community relationships is a labor of love, which involves a lot of work or 2) They don't last long once they realize the physical labor, the mental load of the language/culture/isolation. I'm in the process of buying a house…

I Airbnbed in the place of one guy who did it. And I know one more. The rest are on social media like you said. I think if a bunch of people just go into town and do it together it will be less isolating.

I don't think building an island is the answer. It will make it even difficult to integrate into the culture. And if you don't want to integrate into the culture, why are you there in the first place?

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#68

Post by specproc »

jayd16 wrote: post #24
croes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t call losing your source of income and maybe your health insurance no practical repercussions. I don’t know in which countries you worked but I didn’t have any problems getting out of a contract.

Inexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.

I can spell it out, if it helps. In a country with exorbitant healthcare costs, it means that leaving your job means that you (and often your family) don't get healthcare.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#69

Post by baron816 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #32
croes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t call losing your source of income and maybe your health insurance no practical repercussions. I don’t know in which countries you worked but I didn’t have any problems getting out of a contract.

America has very low unemployment and median household incomes are among the highest in the world. You get to continue your existing health insurance 18 months after you quit if you wish, you just have to pay for it. Most people can and if you can’t then the government pays for it. While getting terminated is disruptive, it isn’t the end of the world for the typical American. The relative ease with which most people…

The other part is that companies are much more willing to hire people if they know they can get rid of them if either that person ends up sucking or business starts to fall off.

I believe it’s the case that in some places, bureaucrats can basically just say “no” if you decide to lay people off. Why would you want to hire people in the first place if there were a risk of that happening, especially if you have the option to hire people in a different country?

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#70

Post by teaearlgraycold »

specproc wrote: post #68
jayd16 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.

I can spell it out, if it helps. In a country with exorbitant healthcare costs, it means that leaving your job means that you (and often your family) don't get healthcare.

COBRA?
Post reply on HN