5 ms·

France != Europe. This sort of thing doesn't exist in the UK, for example. As for firing people, perhaps France, but not UK. Most jobs have a 3-6 month probati

France != Europe. This sort of thing doesn't exist in the UK, for example. As for firing people, perhaps France, but not UK. Most jobs have a 3-6 month probation period, with a week's notice either way, and in the first 2 years you can fire anyone for no reason (apart from reasons of race, gender, pregnancy, etc.). After that, by which point it's obvious they can do the job, generally you have to give a progression of verbal, written, last chance warnings to an employee to change their behaviour before you can fire them.

reader_mode 6y ago
UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems :) Anyway I've seen similar laws in several countries in EU, but I talked to a lawyer friend and he said he looked into it (briefly) and couldn't find examples of it being enforced through court in my country (Croatia). As for termination - probation periods exist for sure but passed that it's really hard to get rid of people, the two year thing exists if you give someone extended temporary contract but that really sucks for people because it messes with their credit score etc. I remember working in a company where a woman got hired to work in office A she was then moved to office B because of a reorg (15km away from office A) she refused to accept this - got fired - sued - got pay for the time she was without work, times two in damages and got reinstated to previous position.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  >UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems In what sense?
  - stephenhuey 6y ago
    Brexit, perhaps?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Brexit. It's not just an amicable separation of bureaucracies. If you're in the UK (as I am), the kinds of headlines coming up regularly make it really clear the UK government is trying to not be part of Europe in all sorts of bizarre ways. For example the most recent big deal was the UK has formally decided to break international law by reneging on the UK-EU withdrawal treaty it signed up to less than a year ago. That's a very unusual thing for the UK to do, and it has people up in arms because it means the UK will now not be taken as seriously when it makes future international commitments (including trade deals), and when it is finger-pointing to other nation-states breaking their international commitments in future. It's keener than ever to trash human rights and civil rights enshrined into EU law and show that it wants to take them away from people in the UK, which is a curious turnaround because at one time the UK was a leading champion, drafting the legislation and putting them into place. It is all very tribal and symbolic, and doesn't appear to be rooted in any kind of advantages for the UK or people and businesses within the UK. Costs to businesses are going up (new tariffs on import and export). Trade deals are defaulting to worse terms (there's no good trade deal with the EU). Cooperation on major scientific projects is breaking down. Financial institutions are starting to move headquarters out of London. UK citizens living abroad are losing rights (a UK passport is much less useful than it used to be), and the cost of travel for UK citzens is going up (need more visas, need to pay for medical treatment, can't retire in the EU any more, if you already did you may have to move back and be poor). What it does appear to be rooted in is the UK Brexit leaders being able to see "we did it, as you can see we are visibly not part of Europe any more".
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      The European Union is a political and economic union. Europe is a continent. It seems strange to refer to wanting to leave the European Union as wanting to leave Europe. Of course, I'm sure those who support the European Union are generally also very much in favour of it being treated as synonymous with Europe. But it sounds like nothing short of absurd rhetoric to me.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        "Europe" is how it's often described in the UK. There's a long history of using "Europe" in news or political writing to refer to the continent (excluding the UK), and also to the various political and administrative entities such as the European Union, EEC, EC, ECHR, ECJ, etc. Also referring to "Europeans" as people in those countries. Much as, say, "China" is use to refer to the political entity that is the Chinese government rather than the geopgraphy, and "America" is used to refer to the USA government, not the continent. The way language is used, with "Europe" in the UK usually taken to mean "that landmass on the other side of the English Channel to the East of the UK, not us", might be a reason why a lot of people in the UK have such cognitive dissonance over it that most don't recognise they had "EU Citizenship", including some great citizenship rights, which they will now lose at the end of this year. Because for many, "EU Citizen" conjures up images from other countries to the East, immigrants by definition it they are in the UK. Yet in reality all UK citizens have been EU citizens for decades. Ireland is also in Europe and the EU yet people don't think of Ireland when thinking about "Europe", and sometimes not even when thinking of the EU, although the last few years of politics have raised the profile of the EU Irish border issues. If you're thinking it's absurd rhetoric, fair enough, but you would be mistaken to think it's just language of those who support the EU, within the UK. It has a long history.
        garbagetime 6y ago
        Only 27 out of 44 countries in Europe are part of the union. Governmentally speaking, Europe and the EU are not at all synonymous. >Much as, say, "China" is use to refer to the political entity that is the Chinese government rather than the geopgraphy, That's not at all a fair comparison. China is country, not a continent, and thus is pretty much defined as being the area under control of the PRC (and other Chinese regimes). Europe, being a continent, remains (in all relevant senses) constant in size, regardless of what happens to the European Union. >and "America" is used to refer to the USA government, not the continent. That's absurd rhetoric, too. I don't refer to the USA as America (well, sometimes I do, but I try not to). Besides, it would be strange to talk about California leaving America. One would say California left the USA.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Not least the legal system (Common law) feels quite foreign to me. Labor laws are more US-like. Just two examples.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    It seems that whenever there's a substantial difference in practices between continental Europe and USA, it seems that the UK practice is somewhere in between but closer to USA than the rest of the Europe.
- passerby1 6y ago
  I can't imagine how toxic it is when person are being reinstated to position in court. What did she do afterwards? Did she happily work at the position or dismissed voluntarily right after reinstating?
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    > Did she happily work at the position Yep - I mean once the company is >500 employees and has mixed ownership (funds etc.) it's mainly just between her and management that got overturned and they know better than to keep pressing on it.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > got reinstated to previous position In which office? A or B
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    Office A
- mattmanser 6y ago
  This story sounds like there's much more to it than meets the eye. Again, UK, but you can't just move an employee around willy-nilly. This could be construed as constructive dismissal. You might know the employee can't relocate, and are trying to force them to quit so you don't have to pay redundancy pay.
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    But this wasn't about relocation - there are regular bus lines between her previous place of work and new one (it was basically an office outside of city and she then got moved to office inside of city, distance is less than 15KM by car) - it's just that she was hired to work in place A and she wasn't willing to travel, also she's not exactly an agreeable personality. Court ruled that she got hired in position A and that was in her work description and they couldn't change that without good cause (and they were doing office rotations I don't know exactly why)
donw 6y ago
I honestly think something like this makes a lot more sense. First year or so, you're in a probationary period. Unemployment benefits will kick in, but you and the company are still feeling each other out. After that, you get certain protections, whereby firing you becomes a more lengthy (3-6 month) process with specific regulatory milestones. Speaking from a management perspective, if I have had an employee that has been solidly meeting the bar for a year, I am better off to work with them to remedy performance problems afterwards, then I am to fire-and-replace. Training costs are a thing, and there's also a real benefit to not having your workforce continuously worried about being fired on-the-spot. It is fair for newcomers to "earn their stripes" as it were, to show that they can productively participate in and contribute to the organization, but people that have cleared that hurdle do deserve some protection from bad actors in their management chain. As always, I like to hear from others where they think this doesn't work. :)
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  > Speaking from a management perspective... Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > > Speaking from a management perspective... > Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance? Because management isn't necessarily rational?
  - donw 6y ago
    Because people are often irrational. Dilbert's pointy-haired boss resonates with a lot of office workers for a reason. We've all had, or at least heard about, that boss who was utterly incompetent, who masked that incompetence in self-important blustering, and who were physically unable to listen to the rank-and-file. Regulation is and should be there to deal with the abusers, and not with the companies that do, in fact, look out for the long-term welfare of both their employees and their customers.
donor20 6y ago
Sorry - I wasn't even thinking of UK. And UK is very different in this area for sure!

reader_mode 6y ago

UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems :) Anyway I've seen similar laws in several countries in EU, but I talked to a lawyer friend and he said he looked into it (briefly) and couldn't find examples of it being enforced through court in my country (Croatia). As for termination - probation periods exist for sure but passed that it's really hard to get rid of people, the two year thing exists if you give someone extended temporary contract but that really sucks for people because it messes with their credit score etc. I remember working in a company where a woman got hired to work in office A she was then moved to office B because of a reorg (15km away from office A) she refused to accept this - got fired - sued - got pay for the time she was without work, times two in damages and got reinstated to previous position.

garbagetime 6y ago
>UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems In what sense?
- stephenhuey 6y ago
  Brexit, perhaps?
- jlokier 6y ago
  Brexit. It's not just an amicable separation of bureaucracies. If you're in the UK (as I am), the kinds of headlines coming up regularly make it really clear the UK government is trying to not be part of Europe in all sorts of bizarre ways. For example the most recent big deal was the UK has formally decided to break international law by reneging on the UK-EU withdrawal treaty it signed up to less than a year ago. That's a very unusual thing for the UK to do, and it has people up in arms because it means the UK will now not be taken as seriously when it makes future international commitments (including trade deals), and when it is finger-pointing to other nation-states breaking their international commitments in future. It's keener than ever to trash human rights and civil rights enshrined into EU law and show that it wants to take them away from people in the UK, which is a curious turnaround because at one time the UK was a leading champion, drafting the legislation and putting them into place. It is all very tribal and symbolic, and doesn't appear to be rooted in any kind of advantages for the UK or people and businesses within the UK. Costs to businesses are going up (new tariffs on import and export). Trade deals are defaulting to worse terms (there's no good trade deal with the EU). Cooperation on major scientific projects is breaking down. Financial institutions are starting to move headquarters out of London. UK citizens living abroad are losing rights (a UK passport is much less useful than it used to be), and the cost of travel for UK citzens is going up (need more visas, need to pay for medical treatment, can't retire in the EU any more, if you already did you may have to move back and be poor). What it does appear to be rooted in is the UK Brexit leaders being able to see "we did it, as you can see we are visibly not part of Europe any more".
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    The European Union is a political and economic union. Europe is a continent. It seems strange to refer to wanting to leave the European Union as wanting to leave Europe. Of course, I'm sure those who support the European Union are generally also very much in favour of it being treated as synonymous with Europe. But it sounds like nothing short of absurd rhetoric to me.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      "Europe" is how it's often described in the UK. There's a long history of using "Europe" in news or political writing to refer to the continent (excluding the UK), and also to the various political and administrative entities such as the European Union, EEC, EC, ECHR, ECJ, etc. Also referring to "Europeans" as people in those countries. Much as, say, "China" is use to refer to the political entity that is the Chinese government rather than the geopgraphy, and "America" is used to refer to the USA government, not the continent. The way language is used, with "Europe" in the UK usually taken to mean "that landmass on the other side of the English Channel to the East of the UK, not us", might be a reason why a lot of people in the UK have such cognitive dissonance over it that most don't recognise they had "EU Citizenship", including some great citizenship rights, which they will now lose at the end of this year. Because for many, "EU Citizen" conjures up images from other countries to the East, immigrants by definition it they are in the UK. Yet in reality all UK citizens have been EU citizens for decades. Ireland is also in Europe and the EU yet people don't think of Ireland when thinking about "Europe", and sometimes not even when thinking of the EU, although the last few years of politics have raised the profile of the EU Irish border issues. If you're thinking it's absurd rhetoric, fair enough, but you would be mistaken to think it's just language of those who support the EU, within the UK. It has a long history.
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        Only 27 out of 44 countries in Europe are part of the union. Governmentally speaking, Europe and the EU are not at all synonymous. >Much as, say, "China" is use to refer to the political entity that is the Chinese government rather than the geopgraphy, That's not at all a fair comparison. China is country, not a continent, and thus is pretty much defined as being the area under control of the PRC (and other Chinese regimes). Europe, being a continent, remains (in all relevant senses) constant in size, regardless of what happens to the European Union. >and "America" is used to refer to the USA government, not the continent. That's absurd rhetoric, too. I don't refer to the USA as America (well, sometimes I do, but I try not to). Besides, it would be strange to talk about California leaving America. One would say California left the USA.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Not least the legal system (Common law) feels quite foreign to me. Labor laws are more US-like. Just two examples.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  It seems that whenever there's a substantial difference in practices between continental Europe and USA, it seems that the UK practice is somewhere in between but closer to USA than the rest of the Europe.
passerby1 6y ago
I can't imagine how toxic it is when person are being reinstated to position in court. What did she do afterwards? Did she happily work at the position or dismissed voluntarily right after reinstating?
- reader_mode 6y ago
  > Did she happily work at the position Yep - I mean once the company is >500 employees and has mixed ownership (funds etc.) it's mainly just between her and management that got overturned and they know better than to keep pressing on it.
cutemonster 6y ago
> got reinstated to previous position In which office? A or B
- reader_mode 6y ago
  Office A
mattmanser 6y ago
This story sounds like there's much more to it than meets the eye. Again, UK, but you can't just move an employee around willy-nilly. This could be construed as constructive dismissal. You might know the employee can't relocate, and are trying to force them to quit so you don't have to pay redundancy pay.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  But this wasn't about relocation - there are regular bus lines between her previous place of work and new one (it was basically an office outside of city and she then got moved to office inside of city, distance is less than 15KM by car) - it's just that she was hired to work in place A and she wasn't willing to travel, also she's not exactly an agreeable personality. Court ruled that she got hired in position A and that was in her work description and they couldn't change that without good cause (and they were doing office rotations I don't know exactly why)

donw 6y ago

I honestly think something like this makes a lot more sense. First year or so, you're in a probationary period. Unemployment benefits will kick in, but you and the company are still feeling each other out. After that, you get certain protections, whereby firing you becomes a more lengthy (3-6 month) process with specific regulatory milestones. Speaking from a management perspective, if I have had an employee that has been solidly meeting the bar for a year, I am better off to work with them to remedy performance problems afterwards, then I am to fire-and-replace. Training costs are a thing, and there's also a real benefit to not having your workforce continuously worried about being fired on-the-spot. It is fair for newcomers to "earn their stripes" as it were, to show that they can productively participate in and contribute to the organization, but people that have cleared that hurdle do deserve some protection from bad actors in their management chain. As always, I like to hear from others where they think this doesn't work. :)

oh_sigh 6y ago
> Speaking from a management perspective... Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?
- webmaven 6y ago
  > > Speaking from a management perspective... > Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance? Because management isn't necessarily rational?
- donw 6y ago
  Because people are often irrational. Dilbert's pointy-haired boss resonates with a lot of office workers for a reason. We've all had, or at least heard about, that boss who was utterly incompetent, who masked that incompetence in self-important blustering, and who were physically unable to listen to the rank-and-file. Regulation is and should be there to deal with the abusers, and not with the companies that do, in fact, look out for the long-term welfare of both their employees and their customers.

donor20 6y ago

Sorry - I wasn't even thinking of UK. And UK is very different in this area for sure!