4 ms·

Assuming of course that you live in the US. In the UK it's relatively difficult to get rid of people - sacking is very difficult and likely to end up in court

by stoney 16y ago

Assuming of course that you live in the US. In the UK it's relatively difficult to get rid of people - sacking is very difficult and likely to end up in court (you need a bulletproof reason for doing it) and the redundancy process is quite complex (with guaranteed payments if you've been there more than 2 years, etc). Looks like the blog article was written by an Australian - their level of job security falls somewhere between the UK and the US. EDIT: Also, I believe, in the UK you can't make permanent staff redundant if you've got temporary staff - so the contractors are first out of the door.

OJ 16y ago
Correct mate, I am an Australian. I would say that our job security level is closer to that of the USA than the UK, but I don't think it's exactly the same. On the whole I've seen way too many good people let go from permy positions while other plebs are retained. In same cases there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to who gets culled and when. To me that's a real sign that the "important" differences between permy and contractor are well in favour of the latter. Cheers!
- nl 16y ago
  Actually, the Australian redundancy route is closer to the UK than to the US (we usually have 4 week notice period etc etc). But Australia has such low unemployment at the moment that it doesn't really matter - forced redundancies are pretty uncommon at the moment. I agree about the contractor thing regardless though - the difference in rates make permanent employment a pretty hard sell. (I'm Australian if it matters)
  - OJ 16y ago
    Conditions aren't the important bit imho mate. The important bit is that you can still be got rid of fairly easily (unless you work in the public service, which seems almost impossible to be fired from). In that regard we are quite diff to the UK and more like the USA. Forced redundancies are indeed uncommon at the moment, but I think that'll change. They weren't too uncommon just a few short years ago either.
CrabDude 16y ago
Sounds like a recipe for failure and bankruptcy.

by stoney 16y ago

OJ 16y ago

Correct mate, I am an Australian. I would say that our job security level is closer to that of the USA than the UK, but I don't think it's exactly the same. On the whole I've seen way too many good people let go from permy positions while other plebs are retained. In same cases there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to who gets culled and when. To me that's a real sign that the "important" differences between permy and contractor are well in favour of the latter. Cheers!

nl 16y ago
Actually, the Australian redundancy route is closer to the UK than to the US (we usually have 4 week notice period etc etc). But Australia has such low unemployment at the moment that it doesn't really matter - forced redundancies are pretty uncommon at the moment. I agree about the contractor thing regardless though - the difference in rates make permanent employment a pretty hard sell. (I'm Australian if it matters)
- OJ 16y ago
  Conditions aren't the important bit imho mate. The important bit is that you can still be got rid of fairly easily (unless you work in the public service, which seems almost impossible to be fired from). In that regard we are quite diff to the UK and more like the USA. Forced redundancies are indeed uncommon at the moment, but I think that'll change. They weren't too uncommon just a few short years ago either.

CrabDude 16y ago

Sounds like a recipe for failure and bankruptcy.