4 ms·

I think its really unfair to the rest of the team to have dead weight. I understand that it was in his best interest to ride it out as long as he can and try an

by bko 11y ago

I think its really unfair to the rest of the team to have dead weight. I understand that it was in his best interest to ride it out as long as he can and try and claim benefits and I can't say for certain what I would have done, but that behavior is really abusing the safety net. He should have tried and find a different role. > In my particular case (Switzerland), I lose three months of unemployment benefits (80% of salary x3) if I do, and there may be other reasons as well (in my case - work permit). This has nothing to do with responsibility: why should I sacrifice my personal interest and the interests of my family for the interest of the company, as a parting gift? I see no reason to do so. Was generous unemployment really designed for ex-Googlers who were burned out and forced the hand of management to fire them? IMO, it's pretty sleazy and hopefully sends a bad signal to future employers.

tajen 11y ago
You must be new to Europe. </sarcasm> I confirm that employment laws in France and in that country (Switzerland), if not other countries, are particularly prone for abuse, and the culture is to fully exert the employee's interest. If you quit a job, you may not be entitled for unemployment at all, whereas being dismissed gives you 2 years of 80% benefits. Most French startups are built on ACCRE: The unemployed asks for a lumpsum instead of monthly benefits at the condition that he creates a company. You can't get it if you quit your last job, so the game for entrepreneurs is to be as disrespectful as legally possible with an employer (e.g. liberally start working on the new company or poaching clients, as long as it's not forbidden), get fired, and create a startup. It makes the ACCRE the #2 source of funding for startups in France (after CIR, another public benefit, but that's a story for another day). Such schemes mean the startup is created months and months after the opening of the market opportunity; after months of being a bad employee; and out of public benefits. To my opinion it's inefficient on all 3 facets. But that's how the old continent runs.
- bko 11y ago
  I've heard that the system in Europe is very "friendly" to workers, but that seems absurd. To me its not even so much the inefficiency, but the general hostile relationship it creates between employee and employer. It probably contributes to the high level of youth unemployment in some European countries. Worse of all, such perverse incentives result in cultural shifts as to whats acceptable. To think that someone readily admits that he would be willing to sabotage his workplace due to a sense of entitlement of 2 years with 80% benefits is really appalling. This isn't some out of work layman, replaced by technology. This is a highly skilled knowledge worker making probably an income probably in the 95 percentile of his country. Just because you can exploit something doesn't make it okay.
crpatino 11y ago
I think the down-votes are unfair, but still... It is hard to tell without knowledge of Swiss Labor Law, but if it is anyhow similar to my own country's there most be different procedures for "sacking" and "letting go" people. You sack people that is either grossly incompetent, in open contempt of workplace discipline or breaking the law. The process is highly confrontational because the former employee will be left with no social security and a big black spot on their record. Government puts the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that this is a sacking case. You may let go anyone at any time whenever business interests are no longer aligned with keeping the employee around. You have to pay severance though, so employers do not like this option. The laws are the way they are because in the past employers would sack anyone on a wimp. Nowadays, some employers will get rid of people that are marginally undesirable (like underperformers, or pregnant/nursing women, or idealists who express concern for the boss's less than pristine practices) by putting the employee in a frustrating no-win situation and letting them quit on their own. == So, if Switzerland is anywhere like this, or if Russia is anywhere like this, you can anything but expect that being asked "why don't you just quit" will trigger flight-or-fight mode on an employee. At this point it hardly matters who's right and who's wrong. This is not how I would expect a competent manager to handle a delicate situation like this, though I can see how someone being overly candid could fall in this mess by accident.

by bko 11y ago

tajen 11y ago

You must be new to Europe. </sarcasm> I confirm that employment laws in France and in that country (Switzerland), if not other countries, are particularly prone for abuse, and the culture is to fully exert the employee's interest. If you quit a job, you may not be entitled for unemployment at all, whereas being dismissed gives you 2 years of 80% benefits. Most French startups are built on ACCRE: The unemployed asks for a lumpsum instead of monthly benefits at the condition that he creates a company. You can't get it if you quit your last job, so the game for entrepreneurs is to be as disrespectful as legally possible with an employer (e.g. liberally start working on the new company or poaching clients, as long as it's not forbidden), get fired, and create a startup. It makes the ACCRE the #2 source of funding for startups in France (after CIR, another public benefit, but that's a story for another day). Such schemes mean the startup is created months and months after the opening of the market opportunity; after months of being a bad employee; and out of public benefits. To my opinion it's inefficient on all 3 facets. But that's how the old continent runs.

bko 11y ago
I've heard that the system in Europe is very "friendly" to workers, but that seems absurd. To me its not even so much the inefficiency, but the general hostile relationship it creates between employee and employer. It probably contributes to the high level of youth unemployment in some European countries. Worse of all, such perverse incentives result in cultural shifts as to whats acceptable. To think that someone readily admits that he would be willing to sabotage his workplace due to a sense of entitlement of 2 years with 80% benefits is really appalling. This isn't some out of work layman, replaced by technology. This is a highly skilled knowledge worker making probably an income probably in the 95 percentile of his country. Just because you can exploit something doesn't make it okay.

crpatino 11y ago

I think the down-votes are unfair, but still... It is hard to tell without knowledge of Swiss Labor Law, but if it is anyhow similar to my own country's there most be different procedures for "sacking" and "letting go" people. You sack people that is either grossly incompetent, in open contempt of workplace discipline or breaking the law. The process is highly confrontational because the former employee will be left with no social security and a big black spot on their record. Government puts the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that this is a sacking case. You may let go anyone at any time whenever business interests are no longer aligned with keeping the employee around. You have to pay severance though, so employers do not like this option. The laws are the way they are because in the past employers would sack anyone on a wimp. Nowadays, some employers will get rid of people that are marginally undesirable (like underperformers, or pregnant/nursing women, or idealists who express concern for the boss's less than pristine practices) by putting the employee in a frustrating no-win situation and letting them quit on their own. == So, if Switzerland is anywhere like this, or if Russia is anywhere like this, you can anything but expect that being asked "why don't you just quit" will trigger flight-or-fight mode on an employee. At this point it hardly matters who's right and who's wrong. This is not how I would expect a competent manager to handle a delicate situation like this, though I can see how someone being overly candid could fall in this mess by accident.