3 ms·

So, you advocate that employees from abroad should have some sort of default lay-off protection? Why do you think this is fair?

by lynx23 4y ago

makeitdouble 4y ago
Would it be fair to you if _all_ employees had a default lay-off protection ? That would be for the best as well.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Once hired, you can never be fired. Great idea! Enjoy companies never hiring anyone because they'll be completely unable to let them go.
- lynx23 4y ago
  Too much protection leads to dismal performance, because people know whatever they do, there are no consequences. I am not a fan of such an approach.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    "Too much protection" doesn't match "whatever they do" to me. On your larger point, looking at countries with pretty strong worker protection, companies still have a flurry of tools to punish or get rid of workers that are way below their expected performance or crossing lines. "We can't fire people" is basically a myth, or what people really mean is "We can't willy nilly fire people like they're cattle". I've seen people fired on the spot after heated discussion with the direction or people let go following a month or two of HR monitoring. The company only needs to do its homework and properly document offenses, follow the processes, or pay the full price if it really wants to get rid of someone with no objective reason.
blitzar 4y ago
Fire the employee who has put in 10 years building the business up for you, has deep internal knowledge, knows their way around the maze of infrastructure instead?
vidarh 4y ago
Most developed countries have consultation requirements and notice period requirements for layoffs that would have made this either a non-issue or at least significantly less of a problem. The US (EDIT: given this was in Canada, clearly the US isn't as extreme an outlier as I thought, overall point still stands for the US and Canada) is a pretty extreme outlier in how it allows employers to deal with redundancies, because almost every other developed country recognises there's a massive power asymmetry.
- lynx23 4y ago
  But the article talks about Canada, not the US. Why/how is the US relevant here?
  - vidarh 4y ago
    I missed that it was Canada (title cut off, and yes I didn't read the article), not least because I didn't expect Canada would be as awful as the US in this respect.
- mcherm 4y ago
  This occurred in Canada, not the US.
LtWorf 4y ago
> Why do you think this is fair? Immigrants are paid less than locals… do you think that is fair?
- lynx23 4y ago
  Source? At least where I am from, people are payed according to what they do and know, and not according to where they are from.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
unethical_ban 4y ago
Not immunity, but extra support perhaps, as their position is extra-vulnerable. Yes. Next question.

So, you advocate that employees from abroad should have some sort of default lay-off protection? Why do you think this is fair?

by lynx23 4y ago

So, you advocate that employees from abroad should have some sort of default lay-off protection? Why do you think this is fair?

makeitdouble 4y ago

Would it be fair to you if _all_ employees had a default lay-off protection ? That would be for the best as well.

luckylion 4y ago
Once hired, you can never be fired. Great idea! Enjoy companies never hiring anyone because they'll be completely unable to let them go.
lynx23 4y ago
Too much protection leads to dismal performance, because people know whatever they do, there are no consequences. I am not a fan of such an approach.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  "Too much protection" doesn't match "whatever they do" to me. On your larger point, looking at countries with pretty strong worker protection, companies still have a flurry of tools to punish or get rid of workers that are way below their expected performance or crossing lines. "We can't fire people" is basically a myth, or what people really mean is "We can't willy nilly fire people like they're cattle". I've seen people fired on the spot after heated discussion with the direction or people let go following a month or two of HR monitoring. The company only needs to do its homework and properly document offenses, follow the processes, or pay the full price if it really wants to get rid of someone with no objective reason.

blitzar 4y ago

Fire the employee who has put in 10 years building the business up for you, has deep internal knowledge, knows their way around the maze of infrastructure instead?

vidarh 4y ago

Most developed countries have consultation requirements and notice period requirements for layoffs that would have made this either a non-issue or at least significantly less of a problem. The US (EDIT: given this was in Canada, clearly the US isn't as extreme an outlier as I thought, overall point still stands for the US and Canada) is a pretty extreme outlier in how it allows employers to deal with redundancies, because almost every other developed country recognises there's a massive power asymmetry.

lynx23 4y ago
But the article talks about Canada, not the US. Why/how is the US relevant here?
- vidarh 4y ago
  I missed that it was Canada (title cut off, and yes I didn't read the article), not least because I didn't expect Canada would be as awful as the US in this respect.
mcherm 4y ago
This occurred in Canada, not the US.

LtWorf 4y ago

> Why do you think this is fair? Immigrants are paid less than locals… do you think that is fair?

lynx23 4y ago
Source? At least where I am from, people are payed according to what they do and know, and not according to where they are from.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

unethical_ban 4y ago

Not immunity, but extra support perhaps, as their position is extra-vulnerable. Yes. Next question.