4 ms·

I might have phrased it poorly. What I meant is that there's a significant power imbalance between employer and employee and as such, employees in many jurisdic

by messe 4y ago

I might have phrased it poorly. What I meant is that there's a significant power imbalance between employer and employee and as such, employees in many jurisdictions outside the US have significant protections to prevent employers from taking advantage of them. For example, countries in the EU don't allow for termination without cause (without some form of severance, and assuming you're outside a probation period); unlike the US, where you're employment status is entirely at the whims of your employer. Other examples are vacation days, sick leave, parental leave, rest periods between shifts, etc.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> significant power imbalance between employer and employee In this case, the employee was an executive himself, who usually is the one wielding that power against non-executive employees.
- messe 4y ago
  That'd still fall under employment law here in Ireland. A precedent that allows an employer to reduce director salaries at will, would apply to other employees also here.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
You did phrase it rather poorly, because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer. Really the main unique aspect of employment law in the US (compared to Europe at least) is that both parties are allowed to terminate the employment agreement at will.
- messe 4y ago
  > because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? From what I've gathered here, the employer can change their salary at will. The employee can't turn around and do that. The employer could presumably change their location of work, their hours, or even the job they've been hired to do, at will. This would all be protected against in the EU. Keeping in mind that I agree with you that I phrased my original statement poorly: more importantly, how do these additional rights that you're talking about translate to benefits for the employee?
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        There is a very clear distinction, because the employer has no ability to force you to continue working under the new conditions. There is essentially nothing they can do to prevent you from accepting a better offer elsewhere. If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. An employee also has exactly the same rights. They can offer a salary ultimatum, and terminate the relationship if it is not met, at any time they choose. Both parties have exactly the same entitlements in this scenario.
        tptacek 4y ago
        This is like saying that an employer can't enforce an arbitrary dress code, because you could always quit rather than comply. Well, yeah, sure.

by messe 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

> significant power imbalance between employer and employee In this case, the employee was an executive himself, who usually is the one wielding that power against non-executive employees.

messe 4y ago
That'd still fall under employment law here in Ireland. A precedent that allows an employer to reduce director salaries at will, would apply to other employees also here.

AmericanChopper 4y ago

You did phrase it rather poorly, because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer. Really the main unique aspect of employment law in the US (compared to Europe at least) is that both parties are allowed to terminate the employment agreement at will.

messe 4y ago
> because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? From what I've gathered here, the employer can change their salary at will. The employee can't turn around and do that. The employer could presumably change their location of work, their hours, or even the job they've been hired to do, at will. This would all be protected against in the EU. Keeping in mind that I agree with you that I phrased my original statement poorly: more importantly, how do these additional rights that you're talking about translate to benefits for the employee?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      There is a very clear distinction, because the employer has no ability to force you to continue working under the new conditions. There is essentially nothing they can do to prevent you from accepting a better offer elsewhere. If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. An employee also has exactly the same rights. They can offer a salary ultimatum, and terminate the relationship if it is not met, at any time they choose. Both parties have exactly the same entitlements in this scenario.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        This is like saying that an employer can't enforce an arbitrary dress code, because you could always quit rather than comply. Well, yeah, sure.