8 ms·

Japanese employment law is a bit of a double edged sword. It's very difficult to fire employees, so if you hire someone on a high salary and it turns out they

Japanese employment law is a bit of a double edged sword. It's very difficult to fire employees, so if you hire someone on a high salary and it turns out they weren't worth it you are now stuck with an employee for years or decades. You basically have to show that employee is malicious to get rid of them. Low wages is one way to soften this risk. The other side of this is many people are not full time employees. Dispatch (派遣) employees are employed by one company and then sent to work alongside regular employees at other companies, with the dispatch company taking a good slice. The employer is now able to shrink their workforce more easily and the employee gets a smaller piece of the pie. Simply writing a temporary contract might not even be enough. Recent changes to the law say that if you have been on temporary contract that is renewed for 5 years then you have the right to full time employment with the same conditions. Now you see plenty of people getting let go at 4 years, just to be on the safe side.

positr0n 4y ago
Surely after 4 years you'd know if they were worth it and convert to an employee if that was your only concern.
- csa 4y ago
  > Surely after 4 years you'd know if they were worth it and convert to an employee I think in many/most cases, the goal is not to have an additional permanent employee. Most large, reputable companies completely gutted their hiring numbers for permanent positions after the 1989 crash. They still needed warm bodies to do stuff, so this “dispatch” system became much more common. An unfortunate side effect of the growth of the dispatch system is that young people rightfully feel much less secure in their long term employment, so they ended up delaying or never making long-term commitments like marriage and having kids. Imho, the growth of the “dispatch” system has been one of the leading reasons that Japan had the “lost decade” that seems to be working on its fourth decade. The federal government and the large corporations of Japan really dropped the ball on this, and they need to look in the mirror when they wonder out loud about the current societal and economic malaise.
  - rippercushions 4y ago
    While everything you say is true, this isn't really unique to Japan though? Shoving more and more work off to temps and vendors with much worse benefits than full-timers has become hugely common at large companies in the US and Europe as well.
    - csa 4y ago
      > While everything you say is true, this isn't really unique to Japan though? I can’t speak to many other countries, as I haven’t really looked as deeply into them as I have into Japan. That said, the differences in Japan are significant in social ways that they are not in other places (like the US, where I currently live). Want a decent/nice apartment? Some places won’t rent to you unless you have a permanent job (the dispatch jobs often/typically don’t count). It doesn’t matter if your income is much higher than it would be while working at the permanent job. This exact experience happened to patio11 in a provincial part of Japan where it would probably have been prudent to try to be more accommodating to financially successful residents. For reference, he quit his salaryman job because bingo card creator was making a multiple of his salaryman income. When it came time to renew his lease, the landlord was not accommodating even though patio11 had proof of his drastically increased income. Want to get married as a male? If you don’t have a permanent job, then your marriage stock takes a massive hit. The dispatch jobs are considered much lower on the prestige scale. The list of detractions go on. Note that this probably wouldn’t be a big deal if the changes had been gradual and/or society had changed just as rapidly, but those things didn’t happen. The hiring was completely gutted, and it never returned to anything close to prior form. I will add that these changes happened during a time of rapid change in regulations (mostly deregulation) in Japan in the 90s. I personally think that these changes were probably good from a corporate-level economic perspective. That said, these changes also led to a complete and irreverent shattering of the social contract in Japan. It was not a change that most people wanted. It is a change that the government and the large corporations, with much goading from the US, foisted upon the broader Japanese population with complete disregard for the social fabric of society. What could have been done differently? The changes could have been slower. Many of the changes just could have not happened, imho. Social support systems could have been developed before or while these changes were implemented. Pro-consumer laws could have been enacted. Instead, the Japanese bureaucrats showed how deep in over their heads they were at the time by just acquiescing to western pressure to deregulate without really understanding why the existing system in Japan actually worked (short version: a lot of “non-competitive” features of the broader Japanese economy functioned as a de facto social safety/support system that never got replaced). Note that patio11 has discussed this topic in more detail with more references than I currently have, so I would search for his stuff if you want to dig deeper.
habibur 4y ago
I was wondering why software industry didn't take off in Japan like in the USA. Now I know. It's the employment rules that makes firing people hard once recruited.
- sidlls 4y ago
  The software industry here didn’t take off because employers could just fire anyone anytime.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It's not a choice between "never able to fire someone" and "fire anyone anytime".
    - sidlls 4y ago
      Yes, but what does that have to do with my comment? The ease with which an employer can fire someone doesn't have much to do with why the software industry in the US took off versus other countries.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > what does that have to do with my comment? Let's say hypothetically that your second sentence is wrong, and ability to fire people more easily than Japan is why US software took off. That doesn't mean it needed to be "fire anyone anytime". Just that it needed to be less locked-in than Japan. In other words, someone made a claim for why the Japan software industry failed, which was employment law being at this extreme. You then claimed the other extreme was not necessary for success. And it looked like your post was intended as a counterargument. But it's not a counterargument unless those are the only two options for employment law. So I pointed out those aren't the only two options for employment law. > The ease with which an employer can fire someone doesn't have much to do with why the software industry in the US took off versus other countries. Okay, I think that's what your original comment should have said. Or it should have said "The software industry here didn’t take off because employers could fire people more easily than in Japan." And then ideally supported that argument with more data. Instead you made a weaker argument that doesn't help narrow down the truth very much.
layer8 4y ago
The traditional way Japanese companies get rid of unwanted employees is to assign them tasks so meaningless and mind-numbing, or just no tasks at all, that they quit by themselves. Random link: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/21/boredom_rooms_japan_electronics_firms/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/21/boredom_rooms_japan_e... This might be less effective nowadays with ubiquitous internet access.
ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
The law should add: sum of dispatch employees over last 5 years. Divided by 5. Is the number of dispatch employees that have to be converted to full time employees this year.
ryan_lane 4y ago
It's difficult to fire someone, but Japanese businesses do reductions in salary for poor performance. There's no more risk to giving pay increases than there is to hiring someone. Part of the reason that Japanese businesses don't give pay increases is because there's effectively no inflation in Japan, and growth in general has been mostly stagnant (though in reality that's not really true, but rather an excuse); but, the other reason is because for the most part, workers work in a company for life and don't switch companies for higher wages. There's no real competition on salaries, so no reason to be competitive on pay increases either.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
So why would someone show up to work after being hired? Why not just surf the internet and play games all day at your desk?
- IIsi50MHz 4y ago
  "Failing to obey company orders" is a terminable offence. Any instruction that's not explicitly illegal counts as a company order. But with the Japanese social preference for conformity[1][2][3], usually there is some mutually beneficial solution rather than firing. [1] "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." [2] "Do not cause disturbance or inconvenience for others." [3] "Everything should be frictionless."

positr0n 4y ago

Surely after 4 years you'd know if they were worth it and convert to an employee if that was your only concern.

csa 4y ago
> Surely after 4 years you'd know if they were worth it and convert to an employee I think in many/most cases, the goal is not to have an additional permanent employee. Most large, reputable companies completely gutted their hiring numbers for permanent positions after the 1989 crash. They still needed warm bodies to do stuff, so this “dispatch” system became much more common. An unfortunate side effect of the growth of the dispatch system is that young people rightfully feel much less secure in their long term employment, so they ended up delaying or never making long-term commitments like marriage and having kids. Imho, the growth of the “dispatch” system has been one of the leading reasons that Japan had the “lost decade” that seems to be working on its fourth decade. The federal government and the large corporations of Japan really dropped the ball on this, and they need to look in the mirror when they wonder out loud about the current societal and economic malaise.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  While everything you say is true, this isn't really unique to Japan though? Shoving more and more work off to temps and vendors with much worse benefits than full-timers has become hugely common at large companies in the US and Europe as well.
  - csa 4y ago
    > While everything you say is true, this isn't really unique to Japan though? I can’t speak to many other countries, as I haven’t really looked as deeply into them as I have into Japan. That said, the differences in Japan are significant in social ways that they are not in other places (like the US, where I currently live). Want a decent/nice apartment? Some places won’t rent to you unless you have a permanent job (the dispatch jobs often/typically don’t count). It doesn’t matter if your income is much higher than it would be while working at the permanent job. This exact experience happened to patio11 in a provincial part of Japan where it would probably have been prudent to try to be more accommodating to financially successful residents. For reference, he quit his salaryman job because bingo card creator was making a multiple of his salaryman income. When it came time to renew his lease, the landlord was not accommodating even though patio11 had proof of his drastically increased income. Want to get married as a male? If you don’t have a permanent job, then your marriage stock takes a massive hit. The dispatch jobs are considered much lower on the prestige scale. The list of detractions go on. Note that this probably wouldn’t be a big deal if the changes had been gradual and/or society had changed just as rapidly, but those things didn’t happen. The hiring was completely gutted, and it never returned to anything close to prior form. I will add that these changes happened during a time of rapid change in regulations (mostly deregulation) in Japan in the 90s. I personally think that these changes were probably good from a corporate-level economic perspective. That said, these changes also led to a complete and irreverent shattering of the social contract in Japan. It was not a change that most people wanted. It is a change that the government and the large corporations, with much goading from the US, foisted upon the broader Japanese population with complete disregard for the social fabric of society. What could have been done differently? The changes could have been slower. Many of the changes just could have not happened, imho. Social support systems could have been developed before or while these changes were implemented. Pro-consumer laws could have been enacted. Instead, the Japanese bureaucrats showed how deep in over their heads they were at the time by just acquiescing to western pressure to deregulate without really understanding why the existing system in Japan actually worked (short version: a lot of “non-competitive” features of the broader Japanese economy functioned as a de facto social safety/support system that never got replaced). Note that patio11 has discussed this topic in more detail with more references than I currently have, so I would search for his stuff if you want to dig deeper.

habibur 4y ago

I was wondering why software industry didn't take off in Japan like in the USA. Now I know. It's the employment rules that makes firing people hard once recruited.

sidlls 4y ago
The software industry here didn’t take off because employers could just fire anyone anytime.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  It's not a choice between "never able to fire someone" and "fire anyone anytime".
  - sidlls 4y ago
    Yes, but what does that have to do with my comment? The ease with which an employer can fire someone doesn't have much to do with why the software industry in the US took off versus other countries.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > what does that have to do with my comment? Let's say hypothetically that your second sentence is wrong, and ability to fire people more easily than Japan is why US software took off. That doesn't mean it needed to be "fire anyone anytime". Just that it needed to be less locked-in than Japan. In other words, someone made a claim for why the Japan software industry failed, which was employment law being at this extreme. You then claimed the other extreme was not necessary for success. And it looked like your post was intended as a counterargument. But it's not a counterargument unless those are the only two options for employment law. So I pointed out those aren't the only two options for employment law. > The ease with which an employer can fire someone doesn't have much to do with why the software industry in the US took off versus other countries. Okay, I think that's what your original comment should have said. Or it should have said "The software industry here didn’t take off because employers could fire people more easily than in Japan." And then ideally supported that argument with more data. Instead you made a weaker argument that doesn't help narrow down the truth very much.

layer8 4y ago

The traditional way Japanese companies get rid of unwanted employees is to assign them tasks so meaningless and mind-numbing, or just no tasks at all, that they quit by themselves. Random link: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/21/boredom_rooms_japan_electronics_firms/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/21/boredom_rooms_japan_e... This might be less effective nowadays with ubiquitous internet access.

ScoobleDoodle 4y ago

The law should add: sum of dispatch employees over last 5 years. Divided by 5. Is the number of dispatch employees that have to be converted to full time employees this year.

ryan_lane 4y ago

It's difficult to fire someone, but Japanese businesses do reductions in salary for poor performance. There's no more risk to giving pay increases than there is to hiring someone. Part of the reason that Japanese businesses don't give pay increases is because there's effectively no inflation in Japan, and growth in general has been mostly stagnant (though in reality that's not really true, but rather an excuse); but, the other reason is because for the most part, workers work in a company for life and don't switch companies for higher wages. There's no real competition on salaries, so no reason to be competitive on pay increases either.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

So why would someone show up to work after being hired? Why not just surf the internet and play games all day at your desk?

IIsi50MHz 4y ago
"Failing to obey company orders" is a terminable offence. Any instruction that's not explicitly illegal counts as a company order. But with the Japanese social preference for conformity[1][2][3], usually there is some mutually beneficial solution rather than firing. [1] "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." [2] "Do not cause disturbance or inconvenience for others." [3] "Everything should be frictionless."