3 ms·

> how much easier it is to let employee's go when there's good reason or fire them when necessary. Like what are the barriers for this, normally? In Germany th

> how much easier it is to let employee's go when there's good reason or fire them when necessary. Like what are the barriers for this, normally? In Germany there's the so called "fristlose Kündigung" where you can immediately be fired when you steal or something alike. How does this compare to Denmark?

tokai 5y ago
If you break the contract you signed when being employed you can be fired with immediate effect. Other than that you can always be fired without any reason, but you have some period where you will stay in employment. Its different from profession to profession. But one month, rising to three months with seniority, is normal. Usually you can also be fired at will the first month of your employment.
- Scandiravian 5y ago
  Writing that you can always be fired without any reason is not entirely correct. For anyone who's covered by "funktionærloven" (a law that covers pretty much all white collar employees who's not hired under a collective bargain), the employer can only terminate without cause in the first twelve months of employment. Since an employee has a 3 month notice period after 6 months of employment, this means that after 9 months (3 months notice makes the employment longer than 12 months) the employer needs to provide reasonable cause for termination.
  - tokai 5y ago
    You are right of cause. I wrote "without any reason" bcs the reasonable cause for termination can be very loose. Bad fit, competence not needed etc. are enough. Unless the true reason is an illegal one like pregnancy and so on.
    - Scandiravian 5y ago
      I think it depends on the industry Generally an employee must have received at least one written warning before termination with a description of what they need to change and how. After that the employee needs to have enough time to make those adjustments before an employer can terminate This is of course very dependent on what the warning is about. If an employee is showing up hours too late and is asked to be at the office on time, then an employer is (for the most part) allowed to fire them if they show up late the following day If on the other hand the warning is about something like performance, then the employee has to have time to actually "perform" before they can be terminated Anecdotally I've noticed an increasing amount of my colleagues who do not step up for themselves when employers break these agreements This has emboldened some companies to be a bit too creative with their interpretation of the law because they think they can get away with it, so the type of "cause" you're describing definitely happens more than it should
      - jopsen 5y ago
        > Anecdotally I've noticed an increasing amount of my colleagues who do not step up for themselves when employers break these agreements Which is a good reason to join a union (IDA). Personally, I've seen American companies both in and outside Denmark spend a lot more effort than necessary to fire someone. Basically, because everybody is afraid of getting sued -- which is a great pretext for creating a healthy work environment :)
hhansen 5y ago
It's more or less the same. The employer is obligated to giving a truthful and sensible reason for the dismissal in writing, the employee has no such obligation. The union can only object and demand compensation if the employer is lying or the grounds for dismissal are unreasonable. Also, Denmark has public salary insurance backed by the state, so in case the employer goes bankrupt, all back wages will still be paid as if the employees were just dismissed. Overtime, vacation and severance packages will not be lost by the employees, giving them more security and time to relocate to other jobs. But eg. in Sweden the dismissal process can be extremely difficult and complicated. As a consultant in a Swedish corporation I experienced the crazy consequences of extreme union protectionism of employee rights. In one case, a worker was fired because he was caught sleeping on the night shift, while he should have been keeping an eye on a multi-million dollar food processing machinery, making ingredients all night long - ingredients which has to be produced within strict food safety tolerances. The union blocked his firing, so the department boss let him go after a few month, giving lack of work as the reason. When the boss of the department finally had waited long enough, and went looking for another employee with the same qualification in the small towns near the factory, the union representatives at the factory demanded that the boss re-hired the Mr. Sleepy, because he was the last one to be let go, and as such had first priority for being re-hired. Also, I was informed of a factory of domestic appliances being shut down and moved some 300 km away, because the top brass was annoyed by the grey haired middle management at the site, their obstructionism and resistance to change, backed by the manager's union. The C-suites figured that they could easily replace the employees, but the middle management wouldn't tag along, sell their houses, etc. The union was told it was a cost cutting exercise, and all employees would be offered their old jobs back at the new location if they were willing to relocate. The real reason for the exercise was actually the elimination of the useless middle management layer and getting free hands to rebuild the organisation.

tokai 5y ago

If you break the contract you signed when being employed you can be fired with immediate effect. Other than that you can always be fired without any reason, but you have some period where you will stay in employment. Its different from profession to profession. But one month, rising to three months with seniority, is normal. Usually you can also be fired at will the first month of your employment.

Scandiravian 5y ago
Writing that you can always be fired without any reason is not entirely correct. For anyone who's covered by "funktionærloven" (a law that covers pretty much all white collar employees who's not hired under a collective bargain), the employer can only terminate without cause in the first twelve months of employment. Since an employee has a 3 month notice period after 6 months of employment, this means that after 9 months (3 months notice makes the employment longer than 12 months) the employer needs to provide reasonable cause for termination.
- tokai 5y ago
  You are right of cause. I wrote "without any reason" bcs the reasonable cause for termination can be very loose. Bad fit, competence not needed etc. are enough. Unless the true reason is an illegal one like pregnancy and so on.
  - Scandiravian 5y ago
    I think it depends on the industry Generally an employee must have received at least one written warning before termination with a description of what they need to change and how. After that the employee needs to have enough time to make those adjustments before an employer can terminate This is of course very dependent on what the warning is about. If an employee is showing up hours too late and is asked to be at the office on time, then an employer is (for the most part) allowed to fire them if they show up late the following day If on the other hand the warning is about something like performance, then the employee has to have time to actually "perform" before they can be terminated Anecdotally I've noticed an increasing amount of my colleagues who do not step up for themselves when employers break these agreements This has emboldened some companies to be a bit too creative with their interpretation of the law because they think they can get away with it, so the type of "cause" you're describing definitely happens more than it should
    - jopsen 5y ago
      > Anecdotally I've noticed an increasing amount of my colleagues who do not step up for themselves when employers break these agreements Which is a good reason to join a union (IDA). Personally, I've seen American companies both in and outside Denmark spend a lot more effort than necessary to fire someone. Basically, because everybody is afraid of getting sued -- which is a great pretext for creating a healthy work environment :)

hhansen 5y ago

It's more or less the same. The employer is obligated to giving a truthful and sensible reason for the dismissal in writing, the employee has no such obligation. The union can only object and demand compensation if the employer is lying or the grounds for dismissal are unreasonable. Also, Denmark has public salary insurance backed by the state, so in case the employer goes bankrupt, all back wages will still be paid as if the employees were just dismissed. Overtime, vacation and severance packages will not be lost by the employees, giving them more security and time to relocate to other jobs. But eg. in Sweden the dismissal process can be extremely difficult and complicated. As a consultant in a Swedish corporation I experienced the crazy consequences of extreme union protectionism of employee rights. In one case, a worker was fired because he was caught sleeping on the night shift, while he should have been keeping an eye on a multi-million dollar food processing machinery, making ingredients all night long - ingredients which has to be produced within strict food safety tolerances. The union blocked his firing, so the department boss let him go after a few month, giving lack of work as the reason. When the boss of the department finally had waited long enough, and went looking for another employee with the same qualification in the small towns near the factory, the union representatives at the factory demanded that the boss re-hired the Mr. Sleepy, because he was the last one to be let go, and as such had first priority for being re-hired. Also, I was informed of a factory of domestic appliances being shut down and moved some 300 km away, because the top brass was annoyed by the grey haired middle management at the site, their obstructionism and resistance to change, backed by the manager's union. The C-suites figured that they could easily replace the employees, but the middle management wouldn't tag along, sell their houses, etc. The union was told it was a cost cutting exercise, and all employees would be offered their old jobs back at the new location if they were willing to relocate. The real reason for the exercise was actually the elimination of the useless middle management layer and getting free hands to rebuild the organisation.