6 ms·
Why didn't you just structure your company differently? Have a main company that does stuff, which hires subcontractor subsidiaries. They have one employee eac
by heartbeats 7y ago
Why didn't you just structure your company differently?
Have a main company that does stuff, which hires subcontractor subsidiaries. They have one employee each.
Then, when she took maternal leave, you could just have liquidated the subcontractor - problem solved.
- herbstein 7y agoBecause shit like that is generally against the law in countries that care about workers rights. It's utterly transparent and anyone can see through it. It's the same reasons Uber aren't allowed in many European countries - at least not in the way they are in the US. You can't just claim that the people that are effectively your employees are simply contractors.
- briandear 7y agoWhen an Uber driver also drives for Lyft — even within the same hour, isn’t that the very definition of independent contractor?
- seppin 7y agoIt's because Uber can't guarantee supply of rides.
- heartbeats 7y agoHow does this violate the law? Could you point me to any European country with laws prohibiting this? > You can't just claim that the people that are effectively your employees are simply contractors. No, they are the employees of my subsidiary. They are entitled to all of the protections of labour law, including all the maternity leave and all that. If the subsidiary goes out of business, too bad. That's what they're for.
- scbrg 7y agoIf this actually was a functioning way of handling the situation, every single company would be structured this way. Worker protection laws are a huge pain for employers in Sweden, so they wouldn't hesitate a second if they could work around them through such a loophole. Calling for us to point to a certain paragraph of a certain law is not really fair, because we're generally not lawyers here. Can you instead explain why all companies are not structured the way you suggest. Because all managers are idiots, or because they've realized that it's not legally sound?
- heartbeats 7y agoBecause it's bad PR, and because few people bother to be bold enough to innovate. Sweden, like most of Europe, is a country of conformism. There is very little innovation being conducted there, just like with the Chinese. In America, people have a long and proud tradition of coming up with Byzantine workarounds for laws. In Europe, not so much. I can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive.
- alkonaut 7y agoThose would be pretty useless labor laws if you could circumvent them so easily. The company hiring the subcontractor would run a high risk of being classified as the employer despite the intermediate company.
- heartbeats 7y agoThen you bring in a few extra layers based in the Seychelles or whatever. This is an engineering problem, stop pretending it isn't.
- alkonaut 7y agoEither this isn’t happening because people wouldn’t accept that form of employment, or it isn’t happening because it’s too cumbersome or the cost of it cancels the gain. Or it isn’t happening because the laws are successful in preventing it. Who knows - either way it’s not happening.
- heartbeats 7y agoOr it's not happening because people are too stupid to see the potential.
- ohmaigad 7y agoWhat exactly do you gain? The leave pay is paid by the government and you still need a new employee.
- alkonaut 7y agoThe only gain is that you can employ a new full time employee instead of hiring a temp while waiting for the person on leave to come back. It's a minor gain compared to the hassle/risk of trying to circumvent a law anyway.
- xorcist 7y agoMaybe for the most unskilled labor. Try to hire qualified professionals with those conditions and see how that goes.
- SahAssar 7y agoIf you hire people in a country, follow that countries laws. Not doing so makes you a shit employer and I hope you get caught.
- heartbeats 7y agoThere is nothing illegal about what I am proposing, not even by European standards.