5 ms·

That sounds like the "internesia" of the original article. The problem is that, in most countries, employment law will make it pretty difficult to do this. Al

by gyulai 4y ago

That sounds like the "internesia" of the original article. The problem is that, in most countries, employment law will make it pretty difficult to do this. Also, with deliberate high turnover like that, you'll find it difficult to keep trade secrets and there will be a huge drain on resources for onboarding those people who are quickly come and gone.

Asooka 4y ago
In Europe you usually have a 1-3 month probationary period that works more or less like "at-will" employment does in the USA. Either party can cancel the contract on the spot for any reason or no reason at all. There are also some limits on how much time off you can take at once and in total in that time.
- iainmerrick 4y ago
  That’s standard, but as far as I know it’s very uncommon to actually make use of that and drop somebody during probation. And employers definitely do not interview less carefully because of it. (This is for software engineering jobs, at least. In other industries it might work differently.)
- gyulai 4y ago
  Employment law is more like a grenade than a sharp-shooter rifle. It just deals out damage in all directions regardless of how it's used and where it's supposedly targeted. In a country like Germany, if you fire an employee and they walk away with a hurt ego and start talking to a lawyer, you will end up hurting in some way or another, so the game is to manage egos and make sure that, when a company parts ways with an employee, the employee feels that it was mutual. Actually, I think it would be a step in the right direction for both bosses and employees, if bosses could just say: Hey, I'm firing you because I just no longer want you here. You didn't do anything wrong. I just have other people who do the job better. The perverse incentive is that it's probably better for companies to single out individuals they want to get rid of and treat them badly until they leave of their own account, rather than do that.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    That's how it used to be, and a lot of other bad things happened. If bosses could be trusted not to discriminate, we wouldn't have such a law in the first place. Regulations are written in blood. They are always Chesterton's fence. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea, or even that it ever was. But there's a reason it was put there, and it's wise to at least know why before removing it.
    - t0suj4 4y ago
      Safety manuals and instructions are written in blood, regulations come later. If you don't like your boss you can pack your things and go elsewhere. Your boss doesn't have that luxury.
    - gyulai 4y ago
      ...the question is whether the historical context from which it grew is still in place today. Today we have at least three "layers" of social security in most European countries: The first layer is that government makes sure everyone has employment and makes it difficult for employers to get rid of employees, even those ones that cost the company more than they're worth. Family law extends the coverage to everyone else, e.g. for non-bread-winning spouses (even ex-spouses), it's the bread-winner that's on the hook (so, transitively, the bread-winner's employer) and for children the parents (again: ultimately the parents' employers). The second layer is mandatory social insurance. The third layer is usually some kind of outright government handout that kicks in for people who, for some reason, fall through both the first AND the second layer of social security. (e.g. [1] in Austria) My guess would be that each layer was brought in at a time when the layers below were not yet in place, though, maybe, someone can provide the necessary facts to the contrary here. I just wish they'd do away with all that crap, and instead just implement universal basic income, paid for by the tax payer. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsicherung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsich...
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > Hey, I'm firing you because I just no longer want you here. This requires a really comprehensive social security net to not be abusive.

by gyulai 4y ago

Asooka 4y ago

In Europe you usually have a 1-3 month probationary period that works more or less like "at-will" employment does in the USA. Either party can cancel the contract on the spot for any reason or no reason at all. There are also some limits on how much time off you can take at once and in total in that time.

iainmerrick 4y ago
That’s standard, but as far as I know it’s very uncommon to actually make use of that and drop somebody during probation. And employers definitely do not interview less carefully because of it. (This is for software engineering jobs, at least. In other industries it might work differently.)
gyulai 4y ago
Employment law is more like a grenade than a sharp-shooter rifle. It just deals out damage in all directions regardless of how it's used and where it's supposedly targeted. In a country like Germany, if you fire an employee and they walk away with a hurt ego and start talking to a lawyer, you will end up hurting in some way or another, so the game is to manage egos and make sure that, when a company parts ways with an employee, the employee feels that it was mutual. Actually, I think it would be a step in the right direction for both bosses and employees, if bosses could just say: Hey, I'm firing you because I just no longer want you here. You didn't do anything wrong. I just have other people who do the job better. The perverse incentive is that it's probably better for companies to single out individuals they want to get rid of and treat them badly until they leave of their own account, rather than do that.
- jfengel 4y ago
  That's how it used to be, and a lot of other bad things happened. If bosses could be trusted not to discriminate, we wouldn't have such a law in the first place. Regulations are written in blood. They are always Chesterton's fence. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea, or even that it ever was. But there's a reason it was put there, and it's wise to at least know why before removing it.
  - t0suj4 4y ago
    Safety manuals and instructions are written in blood, regulations come later. If you don't like your boss you can pack your things and go elsewhere. Your boss doesn't have that luxury.
  - gyulai 4y ago
    ...the question is whether the historical context from which it grew is still in place today. Today we have at least three "layers" of social security in most European countries: The first layer is that government makes sure everyone has employment and makes it difficult for employers to get rid of employees, even those ones that cost the company more than they're worth. Family law extends the coverage to everyone else, e.g. for non-bread-winning spouses (even ex-spouses), it's the bread-winner that's on the hook (so, transitively, the bread-winner's employer) and for children the parents (again: ultimately the parents' employers). The second layer is mandatory social insurance. The third layer is usually some kind of outright government handout that kicks in for people who, for some reason, fall through both the first AND the second layer of social security. (e.g. [1] in Austria) My guess would be that each layer was brought in at a time when the layers below were not yet in place, though, maybe, someone can provide the necessary facts to the contrary here. I just wish they'd do away with all that crap, and instead just implement universal basic income, paid for by the tax payer. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsicherung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsich...
- pjc50 4y ago
  > Hey, I'm firing you because I just no longer want you here. This requires a really comprehensive social security net to not be abusive.