8 ms·

This is just so wrong on so many levels. > If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring

This is just so wrong on so many levels. > If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? > In Europe where firing is almost impossible It is called "job security" - if you hired somebody, you "promised" them to pay a wage. If they are not needed anymore, you need to keep on promise and pay a wage. For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. So it is not impossible in Europe. It is expensive at most because it only looks reasonable. > Companies are big and look financially stable Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? All the Scandinavian startups? And etc.?

ttoinou 4y ago
Most industries would deserve less barriers of entry and less legal protections, it would favor the little ones. Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !) If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways
- Jochim 4y ago
  > If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways Firing isn't entirely forbidden for a start. Secondly, if companies know that firing has a cost they're more likely to grow their headcount in line with what they're able to support. Making firing cheap only serves to encourage the type of behaviour that leads to instability in an economic crisis. > Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !) The vast majority of employee/employer relationships have a power balance that's vastly in favour of the employer. Even for those of us lucky enough to be in tech, we've seen that employers are more than willing to secretly conspire in order to drive employee wages below what would have been the market rate.
atemerev 4y ago
> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. > It is called "job security" An outdated concept of the XX century. No such thing in the post-industrial society. > Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? They are closing by thousands now, like in every other economic crisis. And Scandinavian startups — what Scandinavian startups? (Finland and Estonia are not Scandinavian countries, they have somewhat more business-friendly environment).
- eCa 4y ago
  > An outdated concept of the XX century. I guess that was suggested in the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc centuries as well. But I quite enjoy my job security in the XXI century.
  - atemerev 4y ago
    Yes, that's called a privilege.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed Jenga, you build something that will inevitably collapse. Mass layoffs only serve to deepen an economic crisis. You remove a huge sum of disposable income from the economy which only contributes to more closures/layoffs. The result is an increased concentration of assets in the hands of those with the most access to capital during the crisis.
  - atemerev 4y ago
    This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies. European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
charlieyu1 4y ago
There are definitely companies who spend more during economical crisis. Because everything costs less and it costs less to expand your business.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Because everything costs less and it costs less to expand your business. What's become cheaper in the current economic crisis? There are by definition, fewer jobs available in total during an economic crisis. More competition for those positions also makes it likely that living standards will decrease.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > What's become cheaper in the current economic crisis? Good point. In all the others I’ve lived though, something has, but not this time. Shares have got cheaper and savings are being hit due to inflation being so high. It’s a good time to spend but what do you buy?
scarface74 4y ago
> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. My plan was always to use where I worked as a stepping stone for my next job. I spent my first two years saving money and building my resume. I have spent most of my career “with my running shoes on”. Meaning I’m always prepared for a layoff or to leave when the pay/bullshit ratio is going in the wrong direction. My employer owes me nothing besides to pay me for the hours I worked. When that arrangement isn’t working for either of us, we both have agency and the ability to terminate that arrangement. > Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? I lived through both the 2000 crash and 2008-2011. The 2000 crash wasn’t bad if you had both skills and was working in many major cities in the US as just a regular old enterprise developer working for profitable non tech companies. 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.
- matsemann 4y ago
  > But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.

ttoinou 4y ago

Most industries would deserve less barriers of entry and less legal protections, it would favor the little ones. Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !) If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways

Jochim 4y ago
> If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways Firing isn't entirely forbidden for a start. Secondly, if companies know that firing has a cost they're more likely to grow their headcount in line with what they're able to support. Making firing cheap only serves to encourage the type of behaviour that leads to instability in an economic crisis. > Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !) The vast majority of employee/employer relationships have a power balance that's vastly in favour of the employer. Even for those of us lucky enough to be in tech, we've seen that employers are more than willing to secretly conspire in order to drive employee wages below what would have been the market rate.

atemerev 4y ago

> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily. If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. > It is called "job security" An outdated concept of the XX century. No such thing in the post-industrial society. > Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? They are closing by thousands now, like in every other economic crisis. And Scandinavian startups — what Scandinavian startups? (Finland and Estonia are not Scandinavian countries, they have somewhat more business-friendly environment).

eCa 4y ago
> An outdated concept of the XX century. I guess that was suggested in the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc centuries as well. But I quite enjoy my job security in the XXI century.
- atemerev 4y ago
  Yes, that's called a privilege.
Jochim 4y ago
> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse. Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed Jenga, you build something that will inevitably collapse. Mass layoffs only serve to deepen an economic crisis. You remove a huge sum of disposable income from the economy which only contributes to more closures/layoffs. The result is an increased concentration of assets in the hands of those with the most access to capital during the crisis.
- atemerev 4y ago
  This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies. European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.

charlieyu1 4y ago

There are definitely companies who spend more during economical crisis. Because everything costs less and it costs less to expand your business.

Jochim 4y ago
> Because everything costs less and it costs less to expand your business. What's become cheaper in the current economic crisis? There are by definition, fewer jobs available in total during an economic crisis. More competition for those positions also makes it likely that living standards will decrease.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > What's become cheaper in the current economic crisis? Good point. In all the others I’ve lived though, something has, but not this time. Shares have got cheaper and savings are being hit due to inflation being so high. It’s a good time to spend but what do you buy?

scarface74 4y ago

> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. My plan was always to use where I worked as a stepping stone for my next job. I spent my first two years saving money and building my resume. I have spent most of my career “with my running shoes on”. Meaning I’m always prepared for a layoff or to leave when the pay/bullshit ratio is going in the wrong direction. My employer owes me nothing besides to pay me for the hours I worked. When that arrangement isn’t working for either of us, we both have agency and the ability to terminate that arrangement. > Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? I lived through both the 2000 crash and 2008-2011. The 2000 crash wasn’t bad if you had both skills and was working in many major cities in the US as just a regular old enterprise developer working for profitable non tech companies. 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.

matsemann 4y ago
> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.