5 ms·

I've met quite a few grad student interns from Europe. Was very surprised when they told me. Quite an unintended consequence of a well-meaning policy.

• literallycancer 10y ago
  In some places it's actually illegal to intentionally skirt the labor laws by using temporary contractors for jobs that are not of temporary nature (seasonal agriculture workers ok, cashiers not ok), but yeah, it's not enforced that much.
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    And trying to enforce it won't really help. It'll just drive away even those temp jobs, if the employers cannot find legal ways to go around requirements. The fundamental problem is that employment law tries to treat the employer as a nasty exploiter, not as a provider of something good to those to whom it pays salary. The law often starts from confrontation and zero-sum game, not from having shared goals and interests.
    • Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      The biggest reason for this is that some employers are nasty exploiters. I'd like to make-believe that everyone treats each other well, but it just isn't so. The laws aren't designed to accuse everyone, but to protect future workers from suffering a similar fate. So you wind up getting laws designed so that employers need to be fair when firing, allowing folks time off after pregnancy (including men), allowing folks to stay home when they are sick, and making sure folks can try to correct their ways before getting fired. And contrary to your belief, enforcement of laws seems to happen here (norway). Temp agencies seem to be much more used than they were in the US.. and weirdly less predatory to the worker. It still sucks only having a temp job, but that's how a lot of folks get started working here.
      • maverick_iceman 10y ago
        Sure some (I'd grant even a majority) employers are nasty exploiters. But let the employees handle them. They are adults, they can make their own decisions. I don't see why the government has to play mommy.
        • Broken_Hippo 10y ago
          How do you expect they do that? Do you have example where it works out for the people being treated badly now? Would a lawsuit work if there aren't laws to protect you? What sort of decision is it when you have to stay home with your sick child while knowing you could lose your job or have your hours cut because of it? Is there recourse when an employer reports you were fired, even though you put in your notice? There aren't remedies for these folks in the states Now. If all people had that power, they'd be more likely to use it. Unfortunately, you have to have a bit of privilege to pull it off when there aren't laws to protect you (and sometimes when there are).
          • candiodari 10y ago
            You limit the supply of labor by having strong support for the jobless. And while I realize that this is controversial, but in order for this to work 2 other conditions are necessary: 1) limit immigration 2) throw the book at any employer caught employing illegal immigrants (because they're not doing it to help the illegal immigrants)
        • literallycancer 10y ago
          The employees handled them. They handled them by voting in a government that passed the labor regulation that forbids employers from firing people because they feel like it. Sans the (many) inefficiencies, the government is basically an expression of the collective will.
      • ptaipale 10y ago
        Of course some employers are nasty exploiters. However, treating all employers as nasty exploiters then means that more of them will have to act such. A better recourse would be to ensure the labour market works, so that the nasty exploiters lose employees and have to start behave themselves.
    • aanm1988 10y ago
      Employers need employees. They won't go out of business rather than just hiring some full time people, unless the numbers say they have to. > The fundamental problem is that employment law tries to treat the employer as a nasty exploiter Because they are, almost inevitably, if left unchecked.
      • gozur88 10y ago
        Employers do need employees, but anything that raises the cost of employing someone is going to result in more outsourcing and more automation.
        • ptaipale 10y ago
          Or simply deadweight loss: the work is not done, the business does not exist, the social welfare function is lost.
          • candiodari 10y ago
            Sure but what would this actually apply to ? I get that deliveroo and maybe uber would be out of business, but for instance supermarkets wouldn't be. Is slightly more convenience for the rich (if you use uber and deliveroo, that means you) worth allowing exploitation of the poor ? If so, how much ?
            • sokoloff 10y ago
              Way more people use Uber than just "the rich". Do only "the rich" use taxicabs? Uber is generally cheaper than a cab, so if middle class uses cabs (and overwhelmingly has smart phones), why wouldn't they also use Uber?
            • gozur88 10y ago
              Sometimes it's about bringing comfort and convenience to people who aren't rich. Rich people don't need Uber. Also, poor people generally would rather be "exploited" and employed than on the dole.
• chrisseaton 10y ago
  I don't quite get what you mean. Surely a temporary contract is ideal for a grad student intern, who doesn't have time to enter full-time employment?
  • candiodari 10y ago
    These are day-to-day contracts. I don't think you understand how temporary they are. As for flexibility of hours on interim contracts, it's nonexistent, because employers don't want to give that. They'll hire whoever just complies with their hours and usually not even allow for swaps. I've even been on the other side of this. Allowing hour swaps leads to first the impression of preferential treatment, then actual preferential treatment (because "he's doing it"), then fights, then a total disaster.
  • tostitos1979 10y ago
    The students were complaining that they saw very little permanent, full-time employment opportunities in their countries.