6 ms·

Stories like this make like the employee protection I enjoy even more.

by hef19898 4y ago

kingsloi 4y ago
/cries in an at-will state/
- Y-bar 4y ago
  Unions. Not just for fancy Europeans and factory workers. If your colleagues gets fired for some bs reason you and your other colleagues can stand for each other by striking.
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    ... and codetermination. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
    - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
      I read this as "code termination" instead of "co determination" and was about halfway through the wikipedia article and quite confused before I figured it out.
      - adolph 4y ago
        Yeah, its what happens when you get fired but everyone wraps their arms around you in a big group hug so security can't get to you: de-termination.
    - kazen44 4y ago
      exists in most northern and western european companies aswell.. Unions in europe also seem far less militant than those in the US.
      - kwhitefoot 4y ago
        > Unions in europe also seem far less militant That's because unions are an integral part of the way many of the countries socio-political systems work. In Norway, for instance, the trades unions and the employers get together once a year to hammer out what is called tarriflønn, essentially the going rate for each broad type of job. The state provides a referee for the meetings whose job is to keep them on track and to encourage both sides to compromise. Unions and companies work together rather than fight each other, most of the time. But this can only work if there is a broad consensus that we are all in the same boat and that we will all be better off if we work together. The attitude, that appears to be common, in the US that employers are always exploitative, employees are always lazy and thieving, that the government is just a parasite, and that the aphorism "Good enough for government work" is a synonym for delivering shoddy work means that no one trusts anyone so you end up fighting all the time.
        int_19h 4y ago
        It should be noted that European unions were no less militant originally. Being militant (and strong enough) is what gets you concessions - including better arrangements for future deals.
        kwhitefoot 4y ago
        Of course, no argument there. But European society even then wasn't quite so polarised as the US seems to be now. So being militant was effective. Somehow unions in the US seem to have got such a bad reputation that even those who would benefit from them don't join.
      - uni_rule 4y ago
        I presume because their functional existence is already a given. America still hasn't quite gotten over the Pinkertons.
  - freeopinion 4y ago
    Unless some of your colleagues don't go along with it and are willing to train recruits enough to keep the ship afloat. Unions: the anti-anti-trust weapon in the war to win the balance of power.
- masklinn 4y ago
  Fwiw all states are at-will, though there are varying exceptions from state to state.
  - kingsloi 4y ago
    Yeah I know broadly they all are, but some states offer slightly more protection. On a side note, what happens to health insurance for employees who're let go? Does it end the time of your last day or midnight? I was too afraid to Google it as I likely knew it's be pretty cut throat, but have always stressed about it regardless.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      It might be immediate, it might be end of month, might be some other period. In any case COBRA kicks in and can be paid for retrospectively if you need it.
    - ufmace 4y ago
      Generally the end of the month that you were terminated in, unless you pay the same company to keep the same plan via COBRA. It's the same plan, you're just paying what you paid for it before plus whatever the company was paying for your share, which is generally much higher.
  - teraflop 4y ago
    Montana is the biggest exception. It's only at-will for a 6-month probationary period, and after that, you can generally only be fired for "good cause".
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Good cause could be Twitter is losing money and has massive debt.
      - Cogito 4y ago
        A redundancy is different to being fired, and comes with a payout depending on length of tenure with the company. Fire for cause means "you aren't doing your job properly." Redundancy means "your job is no longer required." If twitter restructures to save money, the jobs that no longer exist have been made redundant.
btilly 4y ago
TANSTAAFL. (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.) The downside of employee protections is that it makes companies more reluctant to hire. And also once hired, the salary to be offered is reduced to cover the estimated current value of the future employee protections. These are real downsides, particularly for young people who are trying to get a foot into the corporate ladder. I have even personally witnessed a situation where a company evaluated a legal change to increase employee protections, and decided to layoff almost everyone in a particular country before the new law took effect. (The company was Pictage, the country was Argentina, and this was a bit over a dozen years ago.) So I'll take the up front downsides of at will over the hidden downsides of employee protections.
- prottog 4y ago
  Indeed! Harder to hire, harder to fire. Like most such schemes, it advantages those already inside at the cost to those looking in from the outside; see also rent control.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. Employee protection exists because there's a huge power imbalance. A company who can constantly just say, "we'll fire you if this doesn't get done" and colludes with other companies on such matters makes it very difficult for workers. This is why employee protection, unions, etc... exist.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Whether it does or does not protect them, employees will pay for these protections in the form of lowered salary and fewer jobs available. Nothing comes for free.
    - danielheath 4y ago
      That's absolutely true, but in practice most people would experience substantial hardship if they suddenly lost their job. I wouldn't, but being in a country with employee protections means the people around me are almost never placed in a desparate situation, and I am meaningfully safer because of that.

Stories like this make like the employee protection I enjoy even more.

kingsloi 4y ago

/cries in an at-will state/

Y-bar 4y ago
Unions. Not just for fancy Europeans and factory workers. If your colleagues gets fired for some bs reason you and your other colleagues can stand for each other by striking.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  ... and codetermination. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    I read this as "code termination" instead of "co determination" and was about halfway through the wikipedia article and quite confused before I figured it out.
    - adolph 4y ago
      Yeah, its what happens when you get fired but everyone wraps their arms around you in a big group hug so security can't get to you: de-termination.
  - kazen44 4y ago
    exists in most northern and western european companies aswell.. Unions in europe also seem far less militant than those in the US.
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      > Unions in europe also seem far less militant That's because unions are an integral part of the way many of the countries socio-political systems work. In Norway, for instance, the trades unions and the employers get together once a year to hammer out what is called tarriflønn, essentially the going rate for each broad type of job. The state provides a referee for the meetings whose job is to keep them on track and to encourage both sides to compromise. Unions and companies work together rather than fight each other, most of the time. But this can only work if there is a broad consensus that we are all in the same boat and that we will all be better off if we work together. The attitude, that appears to be common, in the US that employers are always exploitative, employees are always lazy and thieving, that the government is just a parasite, and that the aphorism "Good enough for government work" is a synonym for delivering shoddy work means that no one trusts anyone so you end up fighting all the time.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        It should be noted that European unions were no less militant originally. Being militant (and strong enough) is what gets you concessions - including better arrangements for future deals.
        kwhitefoot 4y ago
        Of course, no argument there. But European society even then wasn't quite so polarised as the US seems to be now. So being militant was effective. Somehow unions in the US seem to have got such a bad reputation that even those who would benefit from them don't join.
    - uni_rule 4y ago
      I presume because their functional existence is already a given. America still hasn't quite gotten over the Pinkertons.
- freeopinion 4y ago
  Unless some of your colleagues don't go along with it and are willing to train recruits enough to keep the ship afloat. Unions: the anti-anti-trust weapon in the war to win the balance of power.
masklinn 4y ago
Fwiw all states are at-will, though there are varying exceptions from state to state.
- kingsloi 4y ago
  Yeah I know broadly they all are, but some states offer slightly more protection. On a side note, what happens to health insurance for employees who're let go? Does it end the time of your last day or midnight? I was too afraid to Google it as I likely knew it's be pretty cut throat, but have always stressed about it regardless.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    It might be immediate, it might be end of month, might be some other period. In any case COBRA kicks in and can be paid for retrospectively if you need it.
  - ufmace 4y ago
    Generally the end of the month that you were terminated in, unless you pay the same company to keep the same plan via COBRA. It's the same plan, you're just paying what you paid for it before plus whatever the company was paying for your share, which is generally much higher.
- teraflop 4y ago
  Montana is the biggest exception. It's only at-will for a 6-month probationary period, and after that, you can generally only be fired for "good cause".
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Good cause could be Twitter is losing money and has massive debt.
    - Cogito 4y ago
      A redundancy is different to being fired, and comes with a payout depending on length of tenure with the company. Fire for cause means "you aren't doing your job properly." Redundancy means "your job is no longer required." If twitter restructures to save money, the jobs that no longer exist have been made redundant.

btilly 4y ago

TANSTAAFL. (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.) The downside of employee protections is that it makes companies more reluctant to hire. And also once hired, the salary to be offered is reduced to cover the estimated current value of the future employee protections. These are real downsides, particularly for young people who are trying to get a foot into the corporate ladder. I have even personally witnessed a situation where a company evaluated a legal change to increase employee protections, and decided to layoff almost everyone in a particular country before the new law took effect. (The company was Pictage, the country was Argentina, and this was a bit over a dozen years ago.) So I'll take the up front downsides of at will over the hidden downsides of employee protections.

prottog 4y ago
Indeed! Harder to hire, harder to fire. Like most such schemes, it advantages those already inside at the cost to those looking in from the outside; see also rent control.
kenjackson 4y ago
If increased employee protection causes you to layoff almost everyone in a country -- you probably had little good business reason to be in that country. Employee protection exists because there's a huge power imbalance. A company who can constantly just say, "we'll fire you if this doesn't get done" and colludes with other companies on such matters makes it very difficult for workers. This is why employee protection, unions, etc... exist.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Whether it does or does not protect them, employees will pay for these protections in the form of lowered salary and fewer jobs available. Nothing comes for free.
  - danielheath 4y ago
    That's absolutely true, but in practice most people would experience substantial hardship if they suddenly lost their job. I wouldn't, but being in a country with employee protections means the people around me are almost never placed in a desparate situation, and I am meaningfully safer because of that.