48 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    If only we could fire the pointy haired boss.
    - donor20 6y ago
      In California you can - non-competes are basically unenforceable, and what you have in your head you can basically use. So you fire them by getting another job.
donor20 6y ago
But it is part of the reason these countries don't have startup cultures. In the US you can just try stuff out including hiring someone who may not be a perfect fit. In the US you can pivot your startup if something isn't working, roll off 20% of your staff and you don't have to talk to a govt tribunal or go through appeals. You can make your own management calls on who you want to work with - you don't have to justify things or provide the verbal -> written -> tribunal -> appeal cycles process. And founders are notoriously bad managers - while they should perhaps spend the time to do PIP's and training plans and being better managers, most of them are very focused on outcomes - so startups can be a very self managed area.
- jlokier 6y ago
  > In the US you can pivot your startup if something isn't working, roll off 20% of your staff and you don't have to talk to a govt tribunal or go through appeals. You can do this in the UK too, without a tribunal or appeals. What you've described is covered by "redundancy", and it's completely fine legally to make people redundant, in large numbers or small numbers.
  - 0xfaded 6y ago
    But what's the notice period? 3-6 months may be enough to kill a pivoting company when otherwise IP and team could be packaged up and sold off. One of the things people seem complain about on HN is that founders of failed companies in SV seem to make off quite well. In fact I believe this mentality helped me take the leap with my startup. The only problem is that I moved to Europe to do it, and the prospects for failed founders are basically lost years.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      When I was last made redundant, in the UK, the notice period was 1 month and there was no redundancy payment. They let me go just before 2 years of employment, when a redundancy payout would have started. I don't think there would have been a longer notice period after 2 years, just a payout. It was legitimate redundancy because they let go of a number of people at the same time. So it wasn't personally targeted, though of course there was an element of deciding who to let go of.

by donw 6y ago

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.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  If only we could fire the pointy haired boss.
  - donor20 6y ago
    In California you can - non-competes are basically unenforceable, and what you have in your head you can basically use. So you fire them by getting another job.

donor20 6y ago

But it is part of the reason these countries don't have startup cultures. In the US you can just try stuff out including hiring someone who may not be a perfect fit. In the US you can pivot your startup if something isn't working, roll off 20% of your staff and you don't have to talk to a govt tribunal or go through appeals. You can make your own management calls on who you want to work with - you don't have to justify things or provide the verbal -> written -> tribunal -> appeal cycles process. And founders are notoriously bad managers - while they should perhaps spend the time to do PIP's and training plans and being better managers, most of them are very focused on outcomes - so startups can be a very self managed area.

jlokier 6y ago
> In the US you can pivot your startup if something isn't working, roll off 20% of your staff and you don't have to talk to a govt tribunal or go through appeals. You can do this in the UK too, without a tribunal or appeals. What you've described is covered by "redundancy", and it's completely fine legally to make people redundant, in large numbers or small numbers.
- 0xfaded 6y ago
  But what's the notice period? 3-6 months may be enough to kill a pivoting company when otherwise IP and team could be packaged up and sold off. One of the things people seem complain about on HN is that founders of failed companies in SV seem to make off quite well. In fact I believe this mentality helped me take the leap with my startup. The only problem is that I moved to Europe to do it, and the prospects for failed founders are basically lost years.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    When I was last made redundant, in the UK, the notice period was 1 month and there was no redundancy payment. They let me go just before 2 years of employment, when a redundancy payout would have started. I don't think there would have been a longer notice period after 2 years, just a payout. It was legitimate redundancy because they let go of a number of people at the same time. So it wasn't personally targeted, though of course there was an element of deciding who to let go of.