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

461–470 of 474 posts

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

#461

Post by ben_w »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #455
TeMPOraL wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I usually phrase the problem here is that the market strives to push average disposable income to zero. Average here means that there will be people with various degree of spending money surplus (the rich) and those not able to afford even the essentials (the poor). This is a stable(ish) state, even as people move up and down the wealth ladder. However, when suddenly a large chunk of population gets extra dis…

> However, when suddenly a large chunk of population gets extra disposable income - say a hypothetical UBI experiment (or not so hypothetical universal or near-universal social handouts), or as two-income household model gains popularity in a country, or (indirectly) some innovation creates a new, widely-applicable efficiency - then the market absolutely swoops in and eats all the average surplus. My argument is that…

> Real estate is an unusual case, because the really isn't anyone with a monopoly on real estate. The supply constraint comes directly from the government through zoning rules. We effectively have a cartel whose board of directors is the zoning board.

It happens basically everywhere, even when the rules are different. If I understand correctly, the primary limit in the UK is there's not enough builders, which is not to say the government isn't in the way as that's despite it also having constant planning issues with regard to the "green belt"; likewise in modern Germany, my understanding is not enough builders (and again yes the government could be better because bureaucracy is very slow, but they're not the limiting factor); likewise DDR (not even trying to be a free market) where the government was organising the construction work and trying to do it cheap and fast but there still wasn't enough.

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

#462

Post by Ukv »

fargle wrote: post #366
spacedcowboy wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was a conversation between equals, I think you might have a point, but the balance of power between employee and employer (especially when it’s a huge corporation) lies firmly on the side of the employer. An employee has needs that sometimes cannot go untended, s/he has rent/mortgage payments, s/he may have family to take care of, loan repayments, children at non-free school, etc etc. This is normal, and the…

all of that is fine, but my point and what i was responding to is that comparing the US system to "indentured servitude" is completely the opposite of a good analogy to what it is. you prefer "guarantees". that's fine. i prefer more freedom and i don't want or trust those guarantees. nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're s…

> i prefer more freedom

"Accept this employment contact change or be unable to afford treatment for your illness" is often not really a choice. It's "freedom" for those with money, oppression for those without.

> nothing keeps a company from going out of business and then it doesn't matter what the law says or what they owed you - piff - you're screwed right then and there. you can also be run over by a bus tomorrow through no fault of your own in spite of any number of laws to keep that from happening.

You seem to refute your own point. It's true you could get ran over by a bus - so why do we still have laws to prohibit bus drivers from knowingly running you over? Because we typically want to minimize the number of lives we "screw", even if we can't reduce it to zero.

Further, a company going out of business is still very much in the realm of something sufficient social safety nets can help with - lessening the blow to employees' lives while they search/train for a new job.

> i don't like that either. but realize we both already do live in that world.

We can and should try to improve it. There is no reason to be resigned to the idea that this is how things must always be, when this itself is a relatively recent state of affairs and already a notable improvement over, say, feudalism of the 10th century (in both freedom and quality of life).

> every benefit has a cost somewhere else

Humanity's progress isn't a zero-sum game - there are plenty of net positive changes we have made and can continue to make.

> and it's not simply evil vs. good as portrayed in the movies.

I found spacedcowboy's consideration of power dynamics a significantly more developed worldview than what you've demonstrated above.

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

#463

Post by HelloMcFly »

GJim wrote: post #402
HelloMcFly wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably, you think we should what? Take the to the streets? Standard of living of food security is still far too high generally for this to seem reasonable for most. Shall we lobby our representatives? This does happen at the state level, and accordingly many states have more pro-worker policies and laws. But change at the federal level is a substantially harder thing to bring.

> Presumably, you think we should what? Take the to the streets? Ummmmmm, Yes? It's how the people who got ALL the rights we take for grated today did. Especially our employment rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs

My point was that the situation hasn't reached anywhere near a boiling point for "taking to the streets" to seem wise to the amount of people it would require to bring real change.

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

#464

Post by Timon3 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #448
Timon3 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>The short term contract can be renewed or replaced with a full time contract. As someone in games, this is exactly the road to getting exploited. "If I work harder and really wow them with this feature, I could get full time work!" meanwhile, there were plans to not renew anyone at the end of the project and to lay off full time workers. But you get a convinient carrot to lure starry-eyed devs with Your "as long as…

Sure, that's my point. There is nothing inherent in short term contracts that makes employees less invested - that's your fault as a company.

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

#465

Post by barbazoo »

withinboredom wrote: post #454
barbazoo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve experienced unlimited PTO myself and have yet to see any kind of pressure. YMMV obviously but it’s not as universal as people say it is.

As have I. When I told my manager I wanted to use my unlimited paid time off to work half-days for the rest of the year ... the look I got was my answer. No.

Have you tried making reasonable requests though and were they denied as well?

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

#466

Post by johnnyanmac »

Timon3 wrote: post #464
johnnyanmac wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The short term contract can be renewed or replaced with a full time contract. As someone in games, this is exactly the road to getting exploited. "If I work harder and really wow them with this feature, I could get full time work!" meanwhile, there were plans to not renew anyone at the end of the project and to lay off full time workers. But you get a convinient carrot to lure starry-eyed devs with Your "as long as…

Sure, that's my point. There is nothing inherent in short term contracts that makes employees less invested - that's your fault as a company.

Burn too much good will and people will treat the contract as a contract. And not a hope to impress the boss for a ft role. Another short term exploitation that turns into long term cynicism.

I don't think that's happening in games or tech, but it's been widely observed that Gen Z is less invested in corporate than ever before (or from the boomer's POV: "nobody wants to work anymore").

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

#467

Post by Timon3 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #466
Timon3 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's my point. There is nothing inherent in short term contracts that makes employees less invested - that's your fault as a company.

Burn too much good will and people will treat the contract as a contract. And not a hope to impress the boss for a ft role. Another short term exploitation that turns into long term cynicism. I don't think that's happening in games or tech, but it's been widely observed that Gen Z is less invested in corporate than ever before (or from the boomer's POV: "nobody wants to work anymore").

Sadly, that's what happens when everything is treated as a resource in exchange for short-term gains. Employees, good will, any morals and ethics - all will be sacrificed on the altar of shareholder value.

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

#468

Post by valval »

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…

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure I suppose. I hate living in a socialist country and paying for other men’s families when I have my own one to feed.

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

#469

Post by pests »

jen20 wrote: post #417
pests wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So business-unfriendly the tax loophole used to be called the Irish double sandwich.

“Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich” is the name!

Ah right thanks, must be getting old.

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

#470

Post by valval »

ghnws wrote: post #295
netcan wrote: post #135

Fwiw... As a tendency, Irish labour courts tends to find in favour of employees... but also tend to award relatively small compensation. A headline making award is pretty rare. Judge must not be a Twitter fan.

More likely that the offense by twatter was more egregious than what the courts are used to.

Ah yes, an objective comment by a rational author.
Post reply on HN