5 ms·
Disclaimer: I work at Stripe in Ireland. This article is completely misleading. In Ireland, if you leave your employment before the 2 year mark, you can lose
by _trackno5 4y ago
Disclaimer: I work at Stripe in Ireland.
This article is completely misleading.
In Ireland, if you leave your employment before the 2 year mark, you can lose your employers' contributions. Not the ones you have voluntarily put in.
This is pretty standard here (at least as far as tech companies go). It's literally written in the freaking contract.
It sucks, but we all read our contracts when we signed.
The reason I can see an employer doing this is to serve as a retention mechanism. But it obviously doesn't work when people get laid off.
- skellera 4y agoThis isn’t that different from US 401k vesting. Like Amazon has a 3 year vesting period for 401k matches. If you leave before then, you lose all the matched funds but keep your direct contributions. Not sure why this is news other than trying ride the “big tech bad” viewpoint.
- bradly 4y agoAmazon takes back all 401k matching if you leave before three years? That is very different from my experience at large tech companies. Edit: just looked it up and it is three years. Brutal. https://www.amazon.jobs/cs/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us https://www.amazon.jobs/cs/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us
- skellera 4y agoYeah, Amazon has the worst benefits for big tech. They started “considering” improving things before the economy was going down but seems like all that stopped. It’s more in line with “traditional” companies. Amazon is going more down the IBM route everyday. For any Amazonians, it’s day 2.
- teg4n_ 4y agoDamn, i guess that’s another reason to avoid working at Amazon. That is ridiculous.
- pinkcan 4y agothe fact it is being done to people who are being laid off shows it's not just a retention mechanism
- tedivm 4y agoYour comment makes it seem like the article is pretty accurate then? Like they are clawing back the contributions, but you're saying it's okay because their contract allows them to do it. I'm not sure how this makes the article misleading.
- _trackno5 4y agoOf course it's okay to follow a legally binding contract. If you got a mortgage when interest rates were low and now the bank comes knocking at your door to get you to pay more that wouldn't be reasonable. There's always a risk. The problem is a half-ass article that tries to portray a company as being bad for following the agreement we as employees accept to work there.
- tedivm 4y agoLegality and morality are different things- as is marketing and recruiting. This is why a lot of companies wave vesting periods during layoffs. Eventually the market will move in the other direction and the companies that treat their staff better during this time will have an easier time rehiring.
- bee_rider 4y agoQuit vs laid off seems like a reasonable thing to push back on in that contract, wonder if they’d be open to that sort of thing.
- _trackno5 4y agoI agree with you, but I don't if it would make much of a difference. IMO the best solution (from an employee protection PoV) would be for Ireland to ban these clauses. But I doubt all of the tech companies that actually bring money to this country would be happy with that. It's already a small country with a tiny talent pool. Most companies are just here due to the low corporate tax. If the government starts tightening things with regulation I have no idea why companies would stay here. The country has nothing to offer.
- bee_rider 4y agoPerhaps a bit off topic, but there must be some way to act as sort of a go-between for the US and EU, right? I mean you are going to have to put up with the sort of awkward automatic enthusiasm of Americans anyway, may as well take advantage of it!
- mugsie 4y agoIn Ireland there is quite a few companies that have waived this type of clause when they are doing redundancies. Let's not say the company didn't have a choice