9 ms·

Strong laws that aim to protect labour seem to end up being contra-productive. I've seen it in Germany, for example, where it's pretty difficult to fire full-ti

Strong laws that aim to protect labour seem to end up being contra-productive. I've seen it in Germany, for example, where it's pretty difficult to fire full-time employees. Berlin startups therefore either force their workforce to be self-employed, or, routinely hire people with a 6-months probationary period just to fire them the week before.

yousry 10y ago
In Germany It is also called "Katzentisch" (cat table). This practice got famous during the privatization of state enterprises. It was later supplemented by unsuitable tasks. For example woman had to handle heavy packages without proper equipment.
icebraining 10y ago
Those situations certainly happen; whether it's contra-productive depends on the overall effects, not just whether some cases exists. That said, some of these are just a result of incompetence by the legislators and/or courts. It's been a few years, but I've seen organizations in my country trying that "self-employed" and the Labour Court straightened them pretty quickly when they tried to fire someone. If you have a boss, fixed place of work, working hours, etc, you won't fool anyone. The six-month probationary period is mostly fixed by not allowing it to be constantly renewed. Replacing all your workflow twice a year (even if gradually) is a heavy tax.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. But a viable alternative to labour protection is a strong welfare system. That's the classic Denmark vs Germany comparison. Taxes are high in Denmark, but it's easy to hire and fire somebody. Which hurts business more?
- aianus 10y ago
  > History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? (I think America has the weakest labour laws in the developed world).
  - Helmet 10y ago
    Well, there was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop And also this (which was, fundamentally, an economic institution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      You can't really use slavery or sweatshops as an argument one way or the other here. Sweatshops were by no means limited to the US. Nor was slavery, for that matter. The main differences is that US slavery was domestic (and mostly contained to the south)[0]. Whereas European imperial powers (England, France, Belgium, etc.) outsourced their slavery, practicing forced relocation of people within their colonies and engaging those colonists in forced labor with the threat of violence[1]. That continued well into the 20th century. [0] Though not as much as people like to think - the North was very happy to make money off of the slave trade, as long as they didn't permanently hold those slaves. [1] One can try to engage in the abstract argument of, "well, is it philosophically better to enslave people within each others' native lands, rather than to bring them all to the seat of the empire and enslave them there", but that's a hair that's not worth splitting, and a far cry from the original statement.
  - morsch 10y ago
    The sum of power or wealth is not a very sensible metric, unless you are a country and not a person. The per-capita median of power or wealth is a more sensible metric. A specific lower percentile may be even more sensible.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    America became the richest, most powerful country before any country had substantial labour protections.
    - ch4s3 10y ago
      > America became the richest, most powerful country More accurately, this happened because every other power was laid to waste by two successive world wars. You'd have been hard pressed to find a standing factory in Germany, Britain, or Russia in June of 1945.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Income tax is high in Denmark, but the total tax wedge is much lower than in Germany (36.6% in of labour costs in Denmark vs. 49.4% in Germany for a single worker of average salary) [1]. The total employee contributions are similar - in Denmark 35.8% (as percent of labour cost), vs. 33.3% in Germany [2]. The rest is borne by the employer - 0.8% in Denmark vs 16.2% in Germany. I don't know how this translates into differences in welfare spending (so it is possibly that Denmark spends more on welfare but that Germany just spends far more on other things - I haven't looked), or why the differences are so large, but of the OECD countries, Germany comes in only after Belgium (who always throne high above the rest on these lists) and Austria when it comes to the size of the tax wedge relative to total labour costs. Denmark meanwhile comes in near the OECD average, which was 35.9% in 2015. [1] http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2016_tax_wages-2016-en#page20 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxatio... [2] http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2016_tax_wages-2016-en#page21 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxatio...
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Labor protection is much more than protection against firing. A society needs a sane amount of labor protection. Too much and there won't be jobs (and the economy will suffer), too little and the people will have no power over their lives (and the economy will suffer). Worse still, that optimum point will change all the time as an economy matures. And I don't think anybody has any good procedure for measuring it.
- seppin 10y ago
  > Taxes are high in Denmark, but it's easy to hire and fire somebody. In Sweden it's not only hard to fire someone, but expensive as well.
lostboys67 10y ago
I have always heard this but never seen any real documented proof. Its certainly not hard to fire/layoff people in the UK
st3v3r 10y ago
"routinely hire people with a 6-months probationary period just to fire them the week before" That's not due to labor law. That's due to the boss being a complete asshole.
k__ 10y ago
The company that employs my girlfriend fires full-time employees all the time. so it can't be that hard .

yousry 10y ago

In Germany It is also called "Katzentisch" (cat table). This practice got famous during the privatization of state enterprises. It was later supplemented by unsuitable tasks. For example woman had to handle heavy packages without proper equipment.

icebraining 10y ago

Those situations certainly happen; whether it's contra-productive depends on the overall effects, not just whether some cases exists. That said, some of these are just a result of incompetence by the legislators and/or courts. It's been a few years, but I've seen organizations in my country trying that "self-employed" and the Labour Court straightened them pretty quickly when they tried to fire someone. If you have a boss, fixed place of work, working hours, etc, you won't fool anyone. The six-month probationary period is mostly fixed by not allowing it to be constantly renewed. Replacing all your workflow twice a year (even if gradually) is a heavy tax.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. But a viable alternative to labour protection is a strong welfare system. That's the classic Denmark vs Germany comparison. Taxes are high in Denmark, but it's easy to hire and fire somebody. Which hurts business more?

aianus 10y ago
> History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? (I think America has the weakest labour laws in the developed world).
- Helmet 10y ago
  Well, there was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop And also this (which was, fundamentally, an economic institution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    You can't really use slavery or sweatshops as an argument one way or the other here. Sweatshops were by no means limited to the US. Nor was slavery, for that matter. The main differences is that US slavery was domestic (and mostly contained to the south)[0]. Whereas European imperial powers (England, France, Belgium, etc.) outsourced their slavery, practicing forced relocation of people within their colonies and engaging those colonists in forced labor with the threat of violence[1]. That continued well into the 20th century. [0] Though not as much as people like to think - the North was very happy to make money off of the slave trade, as long as they didn't permanently hold those slaves. [1] One can try to engage in the abstract argument of, "well, is it philosophically better to enslave people within each others' native lands, rather than to bring them all to the seat of the empire and enslave them there", but that's a hair that's not worth splitting, and a far cry from the original statement.
- morsch 10y ago
  The sum of power or wealth is not a very sensible metric, unless you are a country and not a person. The per-capita median of power or wealth is a more sensible metric. A specific lower percentile may be even more sensible.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  America became the richest, most powerful country before any country had substantial labour protections.
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    > America became the richest, most powerful country More accurately, this happened because every other power was laid to waste by two successive world wars. You'd have been hard pressed to find a standing factory in Germany, Britain, or Russia in June of 1945.
vidarh 10y ago
Income tax is high in Denmark, but the total tax wedge is much lower than in Germany (36.6% in of labour costs in Denmark vs. 49.4% in Germany for a single worker of average salary) [1]. The total employee contributions are similar - in Denmark 35.8% (as percent of labour cost), vs. 33.3% in Germany [2]. The rest is borne by the employer - 0.8% in Denmark vs 16.2% in Germany. I don't know how this translates into differences in welfare spending (so it is possibly that Denmark spends more on welfare but that Germany just spends far more on other things - I haven't looked), or why the differences are so large, but of the OECD countries, Germany comes in only after Belgium (who always throne high above the rest on these lists) and Austria when it comes to the size of the tax wedge relative to total labour costs. Denmark meanwhile comes in near the OECD average, which was 35.9% in 2015. [1] http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2016_tax_wages-2016-en#page20 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxatio... [2] http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2016_tax_wages-2016-en#page21 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxatio...
marcosdumay 10y ago
Labor protection is much more than protection against firing. A society needs a sane amount of labor protection. Too much and there won't be jobs (and the economy will suffer), too little and the people will have no power over their lives (and the economy will suffer). Worse still, that optimum point will change all the time as an economy matures. And I don't think anybody has any good procedure for measuring it.
seppin 10y ago
> Taxes are high in Denmark, but it's easy to hire and fire somebody. In Sweden it's not only hard to fire someone, but expensive as well.

lostboys67 10y ago

I have always heard this but never seen any real documented proof. Its certainly not hard to fire/layoff people in the UK

st3v3r 10y ago

"routinely hire people with a 6-months probationary period just to fire them the week before" That's not due to labor law. That's due to the boss being a complete asshole.

k__ 10y ago

The company that employs my girlfriend fires full-time employees all the time. so it can't be that hard .