3 ms·
I am a Norwegian and I know people who have worked under American style easy firing laws. From what they have told it is not a very good model. It causes resent
by jernfrost 9y ago
I am a Norwegian and I know people who have worked under American style easy firing laws. From what they have told it is not a very good model. It causes resentment and disloyalty towards the company. People say they are much more loyal to a Norwegian company, because they feel it is loyalty both ways. In American companies, people tend to give less shit about their company because they know the company is never there to have their back.
I don't think it is without reason that when American companies fire people, they are not allowed to be around and get all their stuff in a box to not sabotage the company. Such practice is evidence of very weak mutual respect, trust and loyalty.
Ultimately that is a bad way of running an economy. You incur very high transaction costs in business when trust levels are low. I've seen this myself when American companies have been involved in buying Norwegian companies. American companies are completely overdoing it when it comes do due diligence, writing contracts and involving lawyers. This represents a huge unnecessary cost.
This experience is not unknown to others as well. You can read about Japanese experience with American work life. They are also used to a model with high degrees of loyalty. I read about a Japanese company trying to run the Japanese way in the US. They hired people for modest salary because they used lots of money on training to get very skilled employees. The problem was that this model was impossible in the US, because as soon as employees got the skills they switched to a higher paid company, which offered no training. The Japanese company did not understand how to build skills in the US. And rightly so. That is a big problem in the US. A huge part of the population have very low skilled jobs because it is very hard to raise the skill level of employees in the US, when you don't have a high chance of retaining those workers.
Of course there are pros and cons to both approaches. Norwegian and Japanese companies are more likely to keep unproductive workers as you say. But seen from a holistic view, for society as a whole that must be a better approach than producing lots of homeless people, or people living off welfare.
- WalterBright 9y ago> I don't think it is without reason that when American companies fire people, they are not allowed to be around and get all their stuff in a box to not sabotage the company. Unfortunately, all it takes is one bad actor to ruin it for everyone, and the company then goes "have security escort him out" from then on. > But seen from a holistic view, for society as a whole that must be a better approach than producing lots of homeless people, or people living off welfare. Easier firing of less productive people leading to homelessness / welfare would require it to be impossible to get another job. That seems a stretch. If the company accumulates enough unproductive people, it goes out of business and everyone gets dumped on the street.
- eesmith 9y ago"all it takes is one bad actor" How is it that Norwegian companies haven't yet had one bad actor? "If the company accumulates enough unproductive people" Norwegian companies can fire unproductive people. Just because it's easier to fire people in the US doesn't mean it's impossible to fire people in Scandinavia.