6 ms·

Being from the US it wasn't immediately clear to me why they would do this. Found the relevant part of the article: > In Poland, workers say they were told by

Being from the US it wasn't immediately clear to me why they would do this. Found the relevant part of the article: > In Poland, workers say they were told by their line managers and HR that they were underperforming and would be terminated if they didn’t leave voluntarily. But in Portugal mutual agreements stated that dismissals were a result of a reduction of 40 per cent in the group’s activity and a 30 per cent excess in staff numbers. By getting employees to voluntarily leave, Revolut has avoided launching a group redundancy consultation, that, among other things would give employees the right to severance payments and the chance to be offered alternative roles within the company. “[Mutual agreement] is better for Revolut because they can’t go to labour court [employment tribunal],” says the source from the HR department. “The way they prepare the terminations are so bad that if someone would go to court Revolut would lose,” the source claims.

joncrane 6y ago
Sounds like the employees should go to court, then.
- frei 6y ago
  It sounds like the employees are foreigners who are probably unfamiliar with the polish legal system, with no income or health insurance as more pressing issues.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > It sounds like the employees are foreigners who are probably unfamiliar with the polish legal system I would be a little surprised if this was true. One of the big reasons for Western European companies to hire in Poland is because Eastern European countries are very cheap. For most Western European companies, Polish people _are_ the foreigners (along with all the unfair preconceptions and prejudices that comes with that).
    - hrydgard 6y ago
      Just like many Polish people work in say England or Sweden, Ukrainians work in Poland. Exactly the same dynamic.
    - snappieT 6y ago
      Did you read the article? It specifically mentions that the Polish office has workers from India, Chile and Italy
    - dantondwa 6y ago
      Actually, it is exceptionally easy as a foreigner to find a job in Poland and there’s a very big demand for them. Many multinationals move their seats to Poland for this. As a foreigner, you generally get higher than the Polish average salaries but still lower than in other countries.
Klinky 6y ago
I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you voluntarily quit versus get fired or laid off.
- loeg 6y ago
  Which is why US companies sometimes pay people to voluntarily retire instead of laying them off.
  - xsmasher 6y ago
    I was curious what the benefit was to the company if the unemployment insurance is already paid (sunk cost) so I looked it up - > Employers with more unemployment claims against them will pay a higher rate, and employers with fewer claims will pay less.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Yes, indirectly. Businesses in the US generally have to pay into unemployment "premiums" to the appropriate state labor dept. If the business has a lot of terminations, then its premiums go up. However, employees resigning doesn't result in higher unemployment premiums because those employees aren't eligible for unemployment benefits. However, forcing employees to resign instead of be fired is a huge labor law violation, and in many states also constitutes unemployment fraud. On top of paying fines to the state labor dept, at a minimum you'd be paying employees for lost wages due to the unlawful terminations (or lost UE benefits)...and if the company is stupid enough to fight this in court, usually a much larger settlement or award for employees' financial losses plus treble damages (aka punitive damages). Usually ends up costing the company 10x of what they thought they would save.
avianlyric 6y ago
I find this approach really weird. I’m not sure about Poland, but at least in the the UK, for a mutual agreement (or settlement agreement) to be valid, the employee _must_ receive independent legal guidance. Anything else and the dismissal would be completely illegal. I’m not sure, but I would guess the Poland has similar or equivalent worker protections (the EU is generally pretty hot on worker protection). Which means that Revolut are opening themselves up to quite a bit future legal liability and pain. Doubly now that it’s in the press and there’s probably lawyers who see an opportunity to earn a paycheque and do some public good.
- toyg 6y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end that obligation is on you - so you can just sign the bit that says "I declare that I received independent advice" and the other party is fine. If you then turn around and say "but it was a lie!" the company can just put their hands up, it's not their problem.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    In the UK the company needs to get certification from the provider of the independent legal advice, otherwise the agreement is void. Normal behaviour is for the company to pay for the legal advice up to some reasonable limit.
- jacekm 6y ago
  In Poland legal consultation is not required and parting ways via mutual agreement is common here. While this system is often abused by companies there are many cases where it benefits employees too.
loeg 6y ago
In the US it isn't immediately obvious why it would work, either. As a worker you're much better off being laid off than quitting. "Firing" when it is pretty flagrantly just a mass lay-off shouldn't impact future hiring.
- Ozzie_osman 6y ago
  I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer ("if they were, the company would have found a way to keep them"). Of course, reality is great people do get laid off when companies draw really broad lines like "everyone hired within the past year" or "the entire division of X". Or sometimes it's just being on the wrong side of your manager, director, or whoever is making the decision. Hell, sometimes it's "all the people who we felt were at risk of leaving in the next few months anyway". But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder.
  - throwaway-asdz9 6y ago
    SWE @ Lyft: Just one data point, but we went through a layoff last month. Every person I knew closely who was laid off had one or more weak performance reviews in the last year. Not saying this is always the case, but there is some truth in this concern that might make hiring managers weary.
    - Ozzie_osman 6y ago
      Sure. Like any generalization, there is always some truth. But it's still a generalization. Also, generally, well-run companies don't need covid-like events to cull the herd. They're managing low-performers out regularly.
  - loeg 6y ago
    > I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer The distinction I was trying to draw was between firing-for-cause and layoffs; I believe there is more negative association with the former. > But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder. Pretty hard to claim wrongful termination for a non-cause layoff in the US with typical at-will employment.
ornornor 6y ago
Why would any employee take that deal though? When would it make sense to have your employer tell you to quit because they don’t want to lay you off and you just do it??
- jacekm 6y ago
  A company may threaten with disciplinary dismissal which in theory could diminish your prospects on the job market. I never heard of this being an actual problem (unless your position requires background checks) but maybe I just work in an industry that doesn't care about this stuff.
PeterStuer 6y ago
I don't know about Poland, but in most EU countries you can not just fire someone and stop paying them. There is a termination period the length of which is relative to the time they were employed at the company. After an initial 'trial' period of typically 6 months, during which both parties can end the contract without notice, the notice period can run between 3 to 24 months for the employer, and 1 to 6 months for the employee. While in case of a firing the employee is in theory still working during that period, in practice most knowledge or commercial workers are cut from access to the company's premises and systems the second after the firing meeting. Companies try to avoid having to pay salary during the termination period by pressuring employees to sign a voluntary immediate mutual contract ending agreement.

joncrane 6y ago

Sounds like the employees should go to court, then.

frei 6y ago
It sounds like the employees are foreigners who are probably unfamiliar with the polish legal system, with no income or health insurance as more pressing issues.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > It sounds like the employees are foreigners who are probably unfamiliar with the polish legal system I would be a little surprised if this was true. One of the big reasons for Western European companies to hire in Poland is because Eastern European countries are very cheap. For most Western European companies, Polish people _are_ the foreigners (along with all the unfair preconceptions and prejudices that comes with that).
  - hrydgard 6y ago
    Just like many Polish people work in say England or Sweden, Ukrainians work in Poland. Exactly the same dynamic.
  - snappieT 6y ago
    Did you read the article? It specifically mentions that the Polish office has workers from India, Chile and Italy
  - dantondwa 6y ago
    Actually, it is exceptionally easy as a foreigner to find a job in Poland and there’s a very big demand for them. Many multinationals move their seats to Poland for this. As a foreigner, you generally get higher than the Polish average salaries but still lower than in other countries.

Klinky 6y ago

I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you voluntarily quit versus get fired or laid off.

loeg 6y ago
Which is why US companies sometimes pay people to voluntarily retire instead of laying them off.
- xsmasher 6y ago
  I was curious what the benefit was to the company if the unemployment insurance is already paid (sunk cost) so I looked it up - > Employers with more unemployment claims against them will pay a higher rate, and employers with fewer claims will pay less.
gamblor956 6y ago
Yes, indirectly. Businesses in the US generally have to pay into unemployment "premiums" to the appropriate state labor dept. If the business has a lot of terminations, then its premiums go up. However, employees resigning doesn't result in higher unemployment premiums because those employees aren't eligible for unemployment benefits. However, forcing employees to resign instead of be fired is a huge labor law violation, and in many states also constitutes unemployment fraud. On top of paying fines to the state labor dept, at a minimum you'd be paying employees for lost wages due to the unlawful terminations (or lost UE benefits)...and if the company is stupid enough to fight this in court, usually a much larger settlement or award for employees' financial losses plus treble damages (aka punitive damages). Usually ends up costing the company 10x of what they thought they would save.

avianlyric 6y ago

I find this approach really weird. I’m not sure about Poland, but at least in the the UK, for a mutual agreement (or settlement agreement) to be valid, the employee _must_ receive independent legal guidance. Anything else and the dismissal would be completely illegal. I’m not sure, but I would guess the Poland has similar or equivalent worker protections (the EU is generally pretty hot on worker protection). Which means that Revolut are opening themselves up to quite a bit future legal liability and pain. Doubly now that it’s in the press and there’s probably lawyers who see an opportunity to earn a paycheque and do some public good.

toyg 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end that obligation is on you - so you can just sign the bit that says "I declare that I received independent advice" and the other party is fine. If you then turn around and say "but it was a lie!" the company can just put their hands up, it's not their problem.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  In the UK the company needs to get certification from the provider of the independent legal advice, otherwise the agreement is void. Normal behaviour is for the company to pay for the legal advice up to some reasonable limit.
jacekm 6y ago
In Poland legal consultation is not required and parting ways via mutual agreement is common here. While this system is often abused by companies there are many cases where it benefits employees too.

loeg 6y ago

In the US it isn't immediately obvious why it would work, either. As a worker you're much better off being laid off than quitting. "Firing" when it is pretty flagrantly just a mass lay-off shouldn't impact future hiring.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago
I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer ("if they were, the company would have found a way to keep them"). Of course, reality is great people do get laid off when companies draw really broad lines like "everyone hired within the past year" or "the entire division of X". Or sometimes it's just being on the wrong side of your manager, director, or whoever is making the decision. Hell, sometimes it's "all the people who we felt were at risk of leaving in the next few months anyway". But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder.
- throwaway-asdz9 6y ago
  SWE @ Lyft: Just one data point, but we went through a layoff last month. Every person I knew closely who was laid off had one or more weak performance reviews in the last year. Not saying this is always the case, but there is some truth in this concern that might make hiring managers weary.
  - Ozzie_osman 6y ago
    Sure. Like any generalization, there is always some truth. But it's still a generalization. Also, generally, well-run companies don't need covid-like events to cull the herd. They're managing low-performers out regularly.
- loeg 6y ago
  > I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer The distinction I was trying to draw was between firing-for-cause and layoffs; I believe there is more negative association with the former. > But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder. Pretty hard to claim wrongful termination for a non-cause layoff in the US with typical at-will employment.

ornornor 6y ago

Why would any employee take that deal though? When would it make sense to have your employer tell you to quit because they don’t want to lay you off and you just do it??

jacekm 6y ago
A company may threaten with disciplinary dismissal which in theory could diminish your prospects on the job market. I never heard of this being an actual problem (unless your position requires background checks) but maybe I just work in an industry that doesn't care about this stuff.

PeterStuer 6y ago

I don't know about Poland, but in most EU countries you can not just fire someone and stop paying them. There is a termination period the length of which is relative to the time they were employed at the company. After an initial 'trial' period of typically 6 months, during which both parties can end the contract without notice, the notice period can run between 3 to 24 months for the employer, and 1 to 6 months for the employee. While in case of a firing the employee is in theory still working during that period, in practice most knowledge or commercial workers are cut from access to the company's premises and systems the second after the firing meeting. Companies try to avoid having to pay salary during the termination period by pressuring employees to sign a voluntary immediate mutual contract ending agreement.