2 ms·

> The question is, do you find it convenient that you can be fired for reasons which have nothing to do with your job? We can't separate this from being fireab

> The question is, do you find it convenient that you can be fired for reasons which have nothing to do with your job? We can't separate this from being fireable for being bad at your job, or for making others hate going into work because you're insufferable or a sexual harasser or just undesirable to work with. > How do you feel about not being paid because your boss wants to hire a poorly qualified relative instead? Perfectly fine. It's his money. If he wants to spend it unwisely, he's welcome to. And I'm not "not being paid." I'm "working for somebody else." > Or not being paid because you refuse to work on weekends? That's not the matter under discussion. You can already sue over not getting paid, or you can work somewhere else if they want the deal changed. > What essential freedoms are taken away from private Swedish companies or from employees in Swedish companies? The freedom to agree, "You'll pay me money to work for you and either of us can terminate this agreement at any time." The ability to freely partake in economic activity is essential. > How has this had detrimental effects on the Swedish economy or lifestyle? See the inability of immigrants to integrate into the Swedish economy and Swedish society.

eesmith 9y ago
It sounds like you also disagree with laws which are in place to prevent sexual harassment and prevent discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality, etc. After all, these laws also limit your freedoms in the sorts of economic activities that can be done at work. If that's the case, then I consider your views too idealistic and unsuitable. And I've read the EEOC guidelines. There are many precedents which show that being a sexual harasser is separable from being "just undesirable to work with". There's no bright and clear line, but if that's what you require than you demand the impossible. You also don't seem to understand why some people would rather be an employee, and not simply be a contractor. Many people want a longer-term, more stable position, the ability to influence work conditions, get respect, etc. and as jernfrost pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545 lack of these factors will cause resentment and disloyalty, and people will "tend to give less shit about their company because they know the company is never there to have their back". In order to judge "the inability of immigrants to integrate into the Swedish economy", what factors do you use to compare it to the US? Because I seem to recall a lot of integration problems in our own history. And hasn't Sweden taken in a lot more refugees recently than the US has? I heard many US politicians who didn't even want to try to integrate Syrian refugee orphans. I think that has to count in the negative column.

eesmith 9y ago

It sounds like you also disagree with laws which are in place to prevent sexual harassment and prevent discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality, etc. After all, these laws also limit your freedoms in the sorts of economic activities that can be done at work. If that's the case, then I consider your views too idealistic and unsuitable. And I've read the EEOC guidelines. There are many precedents which show that being a sexual harasser is separable from being "just undesirable to work with". There's no bright and clear line, but if that's what you require than you demand the impossible. You also don't seem to understand why some people would rather be an employee, and not simply be a contractor. Many people want a longer-term, more stable position, the ability to influence work conditions, get respect, etc. and as jernfrost pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545 lack of these factors will cause resentment and disloyalty, and people will "tend to give less shit about their company because they know the company is never there to have their back". In order to judge "the inability of immigrants to integrate into the Swedish economy", what factors do you use to compare it to the US? Because I seem to recall a lot of integration problems in our own history. And hasn't Sweden taken in a lot more refugees recently than the US has? I heard many US politicians who didn't even want to try to integrate Syrian refugee orphans. I think that has to count in the negative column.