7 ms·

Sweden allows every employee to take six months off and start their own business

80 points by mikro2nd 8y ago

Proven 8y ago
"Sweden" allows who to star own business? Their own employees (government employees)? I guess not. So the proper title would be "Sweden government lowers employment by forcing additional labor cost on employers". That is nothing but a hidden tax. The government could tax employers and fund (or give tax breaks to) startups, to the same negative economic effect. If the startup is so lame to not be able to afford paying its employees, why the heck should its employees be funded by their previous employer?
vezycash 8y ago
This will reduce the fear of, "I've got mouths to feed. What if it doesn't work out?"
- mherrmann 8y ago
  How? The sabbatical is unpaid.
  - dazc 8y ago
    Yes, indeed, although, I guess, the knowledge that you can go back and pick-up from where you left off is sufficient security for some?
  - numbsafari 8y ago
    Because you are guaranteed to return to your existing job. Sure, you’ll need to use savings for those six months, but you know you can go back. That’s not nothing.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      I’m curious how they enforce the policy of allowing you to keep your job after you’ve left for six months. What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? This doesn’t seem like a good long term solution. A better one would be several weeks off, then half time work for several more months. It allows you to keep you head in the game, make money, and take care of your kid.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        I would guess it would work the same way as it already does when the position you had is no longer needed/replaced by automation. I'm not sure what the situation in Sweden is like, but I'd wager to guess that that would at least have to come with a severance package (assuming I'm using that term correctly here - not a native speaker). You can't just fire people that are not on unpaid leave either.
      - lucozade 8y ago
        > Would they be forced to rehire you The employees aren't unhired, they are on leave. And yes, the employer is required to return you to your old position, or a very similar one. > What if the position ... is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Then they return you to a similar position and/or run less efficiently than they may have done otherwise. I don't see this as particularly different from similar issues you get with parental or education leave arrangements. There are sometimes edge cases that complicate things a bit but any reasonably sizeable organisation can usually deal with them without too much bother.
      - alkonaut 8y ago
        > What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? The person is still employed so still has the same protections as if they never left. It's very hard to fire someone in Sweden so that is important.
      - rightbyte 8y ago
    - ourmandave 8y ago
      What's the flip side if you succeed and don't want to go back to your old job? Do you have to give X days notice?
      - jacobush 8y ago
        Yes, since you are still hired, just on leave.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
roenxi 8y ago
The stand-out detail is 6 months unpaid leave. Sounds like a pretty reasonable idea; if an employer can't cope with that they probably have a resiliency issue with their staffing numbers anyway. The upside of a lucky startup is clearly much greater than the potential drain on the economy, and the incentives don't seem unsound.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  This just plays into the hands of big businesses at the expense of small ones. What if the company is 25 people and 6 decide to take the leave at the same time? No way they could handle that.
  - lawik 8y ago
    I would say this is fairly uncommon and unlikely to hit any given business. But sure, it puts some strain on businesses. It also seems to work fine. We have companies of many different sizes. I haven't heard a lot of complains about it.
  - Dahoon 8y ago
    Parental leave is paid. If they can't survive 6 months unpaid leave from a worker, then they got a problem. The system with paid leave works fine in all of Scandinavia so how could unpaid leave not.
    - Waterluvian 8y ago
      Paid by the employer or by the government? In Canada I get leave but I get paid by the Employment Insurance program (tax). Interestingly it caps off meaning lower income people might get 100% of their salary while I'd get like 30%.
    - metaphor 8y ago
      It takes ~9-1/2 months to have a baby; that's a huge planning and coordination window. What would that minimum window look like to my hypothetical employer if I decided on a whim to start a business tomorrow?
programLyrique 8y ago
There is the same kind of unpaid leave in France to create a company, but it's for one year (and possible to extend it for one more year): https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2382 https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2382 (in French)
plogik 8y ago
Swede here. I had no idea this existed. I know it is allowed to take a leave for studying but not for starting a company. So i learned something! Anyway, i don't think this is such a big risk here in Sweden because very few take the opportunity for doing stuff like that. Running your company i generally frowned upon in many areas still here. Disclaimer: could not read the article, doesn't allow adblocker.
- vezycash 8y ago
  Disable javascript and try again.
- Ma8ee 8y ago
  I don't know which part of Sweden you live in, but in Stockholm it's definitely not frowned upon running your own businesss.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  > Running your company i generally frowned upon in many areas still here So who runs the companies that everybody works for now?
frano 8y ago
This was posted before in a different form, but I think the discussion became a bit one sided and went off on a tangent. So there is a few point I would like to make about this practice in Sweden: 1. As the article states this is an old practice. There used to be an even better scheme around 10 years ago when you could get unemployment for a year by having someone unemployed replace you. 2. The primary benefit, since is not paid, is that you can keep you employment i.e. you can't be fired. But for every year this is less of a given as more and more people have temporary employment, work as contractors, at smaller firms where different rules apply or are granted lesser rights under the law. 3. In Sweden you are required to be loyal to your employer. Which means you aren't allowed to start a competing business while being employed or for some time after and retain your rights. Which also means you can't for this scheme either. This makes the whole thing useless for most people in technology. 4. Living costs, and centralization of society, are off the charts in Sweden. You will be bleeding money fast unless you are already rich. So I think there is very little real benefit to this. Edit: Pretty lame to mark this story as a dupe though, now this comment is pretty much meaningless since the primary motivation was discussing the issue. I guess the "middlebrow dismissal" would have been a better idea.
merricksb 8y ago
Discussed a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103557
travisoneill1 8y ago
I have to assume that there is also a policy to prevent firing them as soon as they get back from leave, or else the whole thing is useless. I also have to assume that a replacement hired has the same rights as the employee who took leave. So there could be successive waves of sabbaticals. This policy would instantly destroy Silicon Valley. I can picture companies with more employees on leave to start startups than actual working employees of the company!
mac_was 8y ago
Does it protect the current employer from employees ‚borrowing’ ideas and leads?

80 points by mikro2nd 8y ago

"Sweden" allows who to star own business? Their own employees (government employees)? I guess not. So the proper title would be "Sweden government lowers employment by forcing additional labor cost on employers". That is nothing but a hidden tax. The government could tax employers and fund (or give tax breaks to) startups, to the same negative economic effect. If the startup is so lame to not be able to afford paying its employees, why the heck should its employees be funded by their previous employer?

vezycash 8y ago

This will reduce the fear of, "I've got mouths to feed. What if it doesn't work out?"

mherrmann 8y ago
How? The sabbatical is unpaid.
- dazc 8y ago
  Yes, indeed, although, I guess, the knowledge that you can go back and pick-up from where you left off is sufficient security for some?
- numbsafari 8y ago
  Because you are guaranteed to return to your existing job. Sure, you’ll need to use savings for those six months, but you know you can go back. That’s not nothing.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    I’m curious how they enforce the policy of allowing you to keep your job after you’ve left for six months. What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? This doesn’t seem like a good long term solution. A better one would be several weeks off, then half time work for several more months. It allows you to keep you head in the game, make money, and take care of your kid.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      I would guess it would work the same way as it already does when the position you had is no longer needed/replaced by automation. I'm not sure what the situation in Sweden is like, but I'd wager to guess that that would at least have to come with a severance package (assuming I'm using that term correctly here - not a native speaker). You can't just fire people that are not on unpaid leave either.
    - lucozade 8y ago
      > Would they be forced to rehire you The employees aren't unhired, they are on leave. And yes, the employer is required to return you to your old position, or a very similar one. > What if the position ... is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Then they return you to a similar position and/or run less efficiently than they may have done otherwise. I don't see this as particularly different from similar issues you get with parental or education leave arrangements. There are sometimes edge cases that complicate things a bit but any reasonably sizeable organisation can usually deal with them without too much bother.
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      > What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? The person is still employed so still has the same protections as if they never left. It's very hard to fire someone in Sweden so that is important.
    - rightbyte 8y ago
  - ourmandave 8y ago
    What's the flip side if you succeed and don't want to go back to your old job? Do you have to give X days notice?
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Yes, since you are still hired, just on leave.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

roenxi 8y ago

The stand-out detail is 6 months unpaid leave. Sounds like a pretty reasonable idea; if an employer can't cope with that they probably have a resiliency issue with their staffing numbers anyway. The upside of a lucky startup is clearly much greater than the potential drain on the economy, and the incentives don't seem unsound.

rorykoehler 8y ago
This just plays into the hands of big businesses at the expense of small ones. What if the company is 25 people and 6 decide to take the leave at the same time? No way they could handle that.
- lawik 8y ago
  I would say this is fairly uncommon and unlikely to hit any given business. But sure, it puts some strain on businesses. It also seems to work fine. We have companies of many different sizes. I haven't heard a lot of complains about it.
- Dahoon 8y ago
  Parental leave is paid. If they can't survive 6 months unpaid leave from a worker, then they got a problem. The system with paid leave works fine in all of Scandinavia so how could unpaid leave not.
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    Paid by the employer or by the government? In Canada I get leave but I get paid by the Employment Insurance program (tax). Interestingly it caps off meaning lower income people might get 100% of their salary while I'd get like 30%.
  - metaphor 8y ago
    It takes ~9-1/2 months to have a baby; that's a huge planning and coordination window. What would that minimum window look like to my hypothetical employer if I decided on a whim to start a business tomorrow?

programLyrique 8y ago

There is the same kind of unpaid leave in France to create a company, but it's for one year (and possible to extend it for one more year): https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2382 https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2382 (in French)

plogik 8y ago

Swede here. I had no idea this existed. I know it is allowed to take a leave for studying but not for starting a company. So i learned something! Anyway, i don't think this is such a big risk here in Sweden because very few take the opportunity for doing stuff like that. Running your company i generally frowned upon in many areas still here. Disclaimer: could not read the article, doesn't allow adblocker.

vezycash 8y ago
Disable javascript and try again.
Ma8ee 8y ago
I don't know which part of Sweden you live in, but in Stockholm it's definitely not frowned upon running your own businesss.
travisoneill1 8y ago
> Running your company i generally frowned upon in many areas still here So who runs the companies that everybody works for now?

frano 8y ago

This was posted before in a different form, but I think the discussion became a bit one sided and went off on a tangent. So there is a few point I would like to make about this practice in Sweden: 1. As the article states this is an old practice. There used to be an even better scheme around 10 years ago when you could get unemployment for a year by having someone unemployed replace you. 2. The primary benefit, since is not paid, is that you can keep you employment i.e. you can't be fired. But for every year this is less of a given as more and more people have temporary employment, work as contractors, at smaller firms where different rules apply or are granted lesser rights under the law. 3. In Sweden you are required to be loyal to your employer. Which means you aren't allowed to start a competing business while being employed or for some time after and retain your rights. Which also means you can't for this scheme either. This makes the whole thing useless for most people in technology. 4. Living costs, and centralization of society, are off the charts in Sweden. You will be bleeding money fast unless you are already rich. So I think there is very little real benefit to this. Edit: Pretty lame to mark this story as a dupe though, now this comment is pretty much meaningless since the primary motivation was discussing the issue. I guess the "middlebrow dismissal" would have been a better idea.

merricksb 8y ago

Discussed a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103557

travisoneill1 8y ago

I have to assume that there is also a policy to prevent firing them as soon as they get back from leave, or else the whole thing is useless. I also have to assume that a replacement hired has the same rights as the employee who took leave. So there could be successive waves of sabbaticals. This policy would instantly destroy Silicon Valley. I can picture companies with more employees on leave to start startups than actual working employees of the company!

mac_was 8y ago

Does it protect the current employer from employees ‚borrowing’ ideas and leads?