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

191–200 of 238 posts

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#191

Post by KptMarchewa »

WalterBright wrote: post #75
jayd16 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. Therefore, employers include it as a way to increase total compensation at a lower cost. The origin of the practice was in WW2, when Roosevelt froze wages. To attract more and better employees, the companies threw in health insurance as a way around the restrictions.

>The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not.

It would be very easy to reverse, if literally anyone was willing to.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#192

Post by lumost »

alephnerd wrote: post #183
lumost wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80 hours is mostly a lie for folks experienced enough to have families. What becomes more common is 80+ hours of “I’m responsive whenever I’m asked.”

> mostly a lie for folks experienced enough to have families Surviving to that level is HARD. Most Junior Analysts in the IB and Consulting World flame out and exit the industry within 2-3 years.

Aye - it’s similar across most high end tech work. At the same time, most people in those positions have 5+ years of experience. Most studies show that such people maintain a lie about how much they are working.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#193

Post by Brian_K_White »

chimpanzee wrote: post #45
jandrewrogers wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While your comment may shed some light on the nuances, gp’s point shouldn’t be disregarded. Losing income and health insurance is in fact amongst the most practical of repercussions one can experience upon losing a job.

In what way is losing income from quitting different in at-will vs the article? Losing the income is a consequence, but it's the same consequence in both cases and so is not part of the conversation and silly to mention.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#195

Post by 123yawaworht456 »

2112syrinx wrote: post #194

The term "black", etimologicaly speaking, is racist and should not be used. Japanese culture seems also to be racist, so not a surprise. Instead of "black companies", kindly use "evil companies" instead.

let's rename Niger and Nigeria while we're at it. goddamn racists

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#196

Post by guerrilla »

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…

Not even close. Being from the US, I've worked both in Japan and Europe. Nothing holds a candle to how bad Japan is. It's unbelievable.

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#197

Post by BlueTemplar »

kirkules wrote: post #76
specproc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm thinking you misinterpreted the comment you responded to? I read it as saying that you don't necessarily have to have employment linked healthcare just because you have at-will employment. The "inexplicably" being a commentary on the wisdom/sanity/compassion of linking healthcare to employment, rather than a claim that the parent comment had made an inexplicable leap of logic

If you lose healthcare """insurance""" when you lose your job, you never had real insurance to start with.

(The system might work if some lag was introduced (a year of keeping that level of insurance??), but I'm not sure that this duration would not quickly get sapped by perverse incentives ?)

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#198

Post by [deleted] »

lesuorac wrote: post #180
rsynnott wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, one might be forgiven for doubting him on that; unless he's counting 'painfully stupid tweets' as 'work', the sheer volume of them would call the _possibility_ of this into question.

I think you wouldn't be forgiven if you don't cast doubt. The guy runs 6 independent companies (at least their stock is!). There aren't 6*80 hours in a week.

[deleted]

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#199

Post by BlueTemplar »

ponow wrote: post #141
vkou wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s super expensive COBRA costs you exactly how much you + your employer were paying for that insurance . It's expensive because your employer's share of insurance was a significant part of your compensation (And because US healthcare costs are pants-on-head insane.) I'll point out that it's generally quite expensive to, like, stop getting paid. Practically, post-ACA, health insurance in the US is about as tied…

Our regulations (including the medical guild) and legal structure (including crazy malpractice payouts for unintentional mistakes) forces everything to be more expensive than necessary. We are very far from a free market, even if we stopped with the untaxed benefits.

Aren't healthcare costs in line with the very high US income levels (with people spending a high fraction of their income in it, because they can afford to), and the main issue is inequality (including lack of real insurance)?

Re: How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

#200

Post by smugma »

Amezarak wrote: post #165
happymellon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the discussion wasn't about "generic at-will" employment. It started as "American at-will" employment. > > I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers It may seem like you can just walk away from a job but realistically most people can't.

"Most people" are not dependent on health insurance for their average needs, except in the long-term or unexpectedly. Then of course, being unemployed, you have the option of COBRA (you probably don't want that though), and if it does not make you immediately eligible for Medicaid in your state (40 of 50 have Medicaid expansion), it would make you eligible for the ACA subsidized plans. NB: more than one-third of empl…

My wife was once a day light on her birth control. Nine months later, she delivered a boy.

For most women of child bearing age, between birth control and annual visits, healthcare is pretty important.

Post reply on HN