4 ms·

That just sounds like slavery with extra steps. Why would anyone stand for it? Just stay home 'sick', or roll in late, take an actual hour for your lunch (scan

That just sounds like slavery with extra steps. Why would anyone stand for it? Just stay home 'sick', or roll in late, take an actual hour for your lunch (scandalous!), take your legally required breaks, do the bare minimum, what are they gonna do, fire you? Stuff like this continues because workers don't seem to realize they CAN just leave.

nasmorn 4y ago
This. I always jokingly say if the company is not fair to me I will simply only do the tasks they actually assign to me as punishment. Which is probably gonna half my work. I understand not every profession is as self directed but you can certainly work to rule. In Europe eg your lunch break is not optional. So just go for 30min. Leave the building. If getting fired is no longer a concern I don’t understand what the employer has on you
ck2 4y ago
It would be somewhere in the top ten after seizing worker passports. Dystopia. Who wants to be a customer or patient being helped by a worker feeling that dire? Somewhere between massive weekly turnover vs "paying to quit" has to be some sanity but individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments.
- groffee 4y ago
  > individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments That's true, but only if you play their game. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8
choeger 4y ago
>That just sounds like slavery with extra steps. No it's not. It's absolutely normal in Germany. > Why would anyone stand for it? Because it goes both ways. The employer has to adhere to the same period. This gives some safety for both parties. The employee can search for a new job if they are let go and the employer can plan for at least a quarter. That said, a one-sided clause would not even be legal here.
- olliej 4y ago
  Does the article say the employer has to adhere to this? Because my US employment contracts try very hard to make arbitrary, cause less, and notice-free dismissal built in. You have to realize that the US governments have repeatedly taken then position that non executives do not have rights. There’s the concept of a “right to work” law in the US, and what that means is that a company can fire you at any time for any or no reason. Historically the government would use the policy to break strikes by having the police kill the strikes en mass, and as we see with the recent rail strike, the government will just make strike action illegal if you ever actually attempt it.

nasmorn 4y ago

This. I always jokingly say if the company is not fair to me I will simply only do the tasks they actually assign to me as punishment. Which is probably gonna half my work. I understand not every profession is as self directed but you can certainly work to rule. In Europe eg your lunch break is not optional. So just go for 30min. Leave the building. If getting fired is no longer a concern I don’t understand what the employer has on you

ck2 4y ago

It would be somewhere in the top ten after seizing worker passports. Dystopia. Who wants to be a customer or patient being helped by a worker feeling that dire? Somewhere between massive weekly turnover vs "paying to quit" has to be some sanity but individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments.

groffee 4y ago
> individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments That's true, but only if you play their game. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8

choeger 4y ago

>That just sounds like slavery with extra steps. No it's not. It's absolutely normal in Germany. > Why would anyone stand for it? Because it goes both ways. The employer has to adhere to the same period. This gives some safety for both parties. The employee can search for a new job if they are let go and the employer can plan for at least a quarter. That said, a one-sided clause would not even be legal here.

olliej 4y ago
Does the article say the employer has to adhere to this? Because my US employment contracts try very hard to make arbitrary, cause less, and notice-free dismissal built in. You have to realize that the US governments have repeatedly taken then position that non executives do not have rights. There’s the concept of a “right to work” law in the US, and what that means is that a company can fire you at any time for any or no reason. Historically the government would use the policy to break strikes by having the police kill the strikes en mass, and as we see with the recent rail strike, the government will just make strike action illegal if you ever actually attempt it.