4 ms·

I believe you will need a lot of de-astonishing if you plan to manage your EU business unit. Three months is not "EU", it is more likely a Law of a specific co

by jaclaz 4y ago

I believe you will need a lot of de-astonishing if you plan to manage your EU business unit. Three months is not "EU", it is more likely a Law of a specific country in EU. Typically (but again it may depend on country) you can of course leave, but without an agreement on the lack of advance notice the employer may keep the equivalent of your pay for the period.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
Another iteration of the ancient story: "American shocked to find rest of world operates differently in some ways".
- kube-system 4y ago
  It’s less of a shock that it’s different and more of a shock that it’s anti employee
  - pjc50 4y ago
    It's not anti-employee! It's symmetrical; this is the trade off for "your employer has to give YOU three months notice". (conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance") Edit: yes, I think it's at-will and "right to work" is a different euphemism referring to law against "closed shop" unions.
    - pbowyer 4y ago
      > (conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance") Is that an incorrect interpretation?
    - sushibowl 4y ago
      Are you referring to at-will employment? Right to work means it is illegal to make it required to join a union as condition of employment.
      - p_l 4y ago
        Is there any separation between the two? Because as far as I know, it was conflated into one union-and-protection busting idea. Funnily enough, in Poland, I have been covered by Union contract without being a member of the Union. Because you can't force Union membership, but unions negotiate for all employees.
        kube-system 4y ago
        There is nothing in common between the two. They're entirely different concepts.
    - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
      It's not like I'm a fan of the concept itself, but I feel like "at will" is not really a euphemism, but just a straightforward statement of the conditions under which you can quit or be fired: at will, in other words, because your employer or you say so.
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      It is disadvantageous to the employee, therefore it is fair to call it "anti-employee". Just because you like the policy it does not change that.
      - throwawaycopter 4y ago
        I never had a problem with extended notice periods. The companies hiring me know full well how the law operates. It offers me no disadvantage. Only upsides.
        kube-system 4y ago
        I'm glad you've never had a problem with it. But sometimes people do leave jobs rather than simply move to a new job on good terms. I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work. If something changes at work or in my personal life and I no longer want to work at my job, I have the right to say "goodbye", and leave immediately, and I wouldn't want it any other way. If you've seen an American TV show where someone says "I quit!" and walks out the door, that isn't just a trope. I know people who have done that. As should be their right.
        throwawaycopter 4y ago
        > I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work. Well, that is easier. Just show up drunk and tell your boss to fuck off. Piss on his door if his office has one. They will terminate you immediately with just cause and you'll be free. Otherwise just be professional and give them the proper notice period. Being professional is not hard.
        kube-system 4y ago
        If an employer ceases to be professional, reasonable, or safe, there is not a damn thing wrong with immediate termination of employment from the employee’s end. If an employer can terminate the agreement for just cause immediately, why can’t the employee?
    - kube-system 4y ago
      It restricts the ability of an employee to leave a job. Why not require an employer to give notice and let employees leave jobs they no longer want to work? Requiring someone to work a job they don't want to work seems dystopian to me.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - p_l 4y ago
    From the pov of european employee, no it's not - it's pro-employee, with employers generally finding it a problem and trying to weasel out. This is literally the reality behind all those "it's hard to fire people in Europe" - you can terminate the employment, but you still need to pay for the notice period even if you suspend actual work. Notice period being bidirectional is used to also guarantee that a leaving employee can be depended on to pass necessary training for those who remain. Effectively it forms insurance for both sides.
  - Avicebron 4y ago
    It's not, it provides stability for both employee and employer, not being able to be ruthlessly laid off when a ceo sees a dip in quarterly earnings and has to appease the capital class pulling the strings stabilizes employees lives. Employees understanding this and engaging in it also gives the company planning room.
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      You could have these protections only for the employees and not for the employers. If you as an employer have made your business completely dependent on a single employee you haven't done your job, especially if that person decides to leave suddenly.
  - snehk 4y ago
    If it's part of European employment law that's not part of the US employment law you can be pretty certain that the employee benefits from it.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      I am pretty sure it is not a benefit to be forced to work a job for 3 months that you don't want to work.
pjc50 4y ago
Bidirectional notice periods tend to be contract, rather than statute. That is, it exists because the country has not legislated against it, and it's by convention included in the contracts.
- p_l 4y ago
  Depends on country - Polish employment law has "notice period" be bidirectional asa statute unless a gross abuse happened (enumerated in another section of employment law). Shortening notice period is a bidirectional contract where the employee may forfeit owed wages for shorter notice period.

by jaclaz 4y ago

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

Another iteration of the ancient story: "American shocked to find rest of world operates differently in some ways".

kube-system 4y ago
It’s less of a shock that it’s different and more of a shock that it’s anti employee
- pjc50 4y ago
  It's not anti-employee! It's symmetrical; this is the trade off for "your employer has to give YOU three months notice". (conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance") Edit: yes, I think it's at-will and "right to work" is a different euphemism referring to law against "closed shop" unions.
  - pbowyer 4y ago
    > (conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance") Is that an incorrect interpretation?
  - sushibowl 4y ago
    Are you referring to at-will employment? Right to work means it is illegal to make it required to join a union as condition of employment.
    - p_l 4y ago
      Is there any separation between the two? Because as far as I know, it was conflated into one union-and-protection busting idea. Funnily enough, in Poland, I have been covered by Union contract without being a member of the Union. Because you can't force Union membership, but unions negotiate for all employees.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        There is nothing in common between the two. They're entirely different concepts.
  - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
    It's not like I'm a fan of the concept itself, but I feel like "at will" is not really a euphemism, but just a straightforward statement of the conditions under which you can quit or be fired: at will, in other words, because your employer or you say so.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    It is disadvantageous to the employee, therefore it is fair to call it "anti-employee". Just because you like the policy it does not change that.
    - throwawaycopter 4y ago
      I never had a problem with extended notice periods. The companies hiring me know full well how the law operates. It offers me no disadvantage. Only upsides.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        I'm glad you've never had a problem with it. But sometimes people do leave jobs rather than simply move to a new job on good terms. I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work. If something changes at work or in my personal life and I no longer want to work at my job, I have the right to say "goodbye", and leave immediately, and I wouldn't want it any other way. If you've seen an American TV show where someone says "I quit!" and walks out the door, that isn't just a trope. I know people who have done that. As should be their right.
        throwawaycopter 4y ago
        > I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work. Well, that is easier. Just show up drunk and tell your boss to fuck off. Piss on his door if his office has one. They will terminate you immediately with just cause and you'll be free. Otherwise just be professional and give them the proper notice period. Being professional is not hard.
        kube-system 4y ago
        If an employer ceases to be professional, reasonable, or safe, there is not a damn thing wrong with immediate termination of employment from the employee’s end. If an employer can terminate the agreement for just cause immediately, why can’t the employee?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    It restricts the ability of an employee to leave a job. Why not require an employer to give notice and let employees leave jobs they no longer want to work? Requiring someone to work a job they don't want to work seems dystopian to me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- p_l 4y ago
  From the pov of european employee, no it's not - it's pro-employee, with employers generally finding it a problem and trying to weasel out. This is literally the reality behind all those "it's hard to fire people in Europe" - you can terminate the employment, but you still need to pay for the notice period even if you suspend actual work. Notice period being bidirectional is used to also guarantee that a leaving employee can be depended on to pass necessary training for those who remain. Effectively it forms insurance for both sides.
- Avicebron 4y ago
  It's not, it provides stability for both employee and employer, not being able to be ruthlessly laid off when a ceo sees a dip in quarterly earnings and has to appease the capital class pulling the strings stabilizes employees lives. Employees understanding this and engaging in it also gives the company planning room.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    You could have these protections only for the employees and not for the employers. If you as an employer have made your business completely dependent on a single employee you haven't done your job, especially if that person decides to leave suddenly.
- snehk 4y ago
  If it's part of European employment law that's not part of the US employment law you can be pretty certain that the employee benefits from it.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I am pretty sure it is not a benefit to be forced to work a job for 3 months that you don't want to work.

pjc50 4y ago

Bidirectional notice periods tend to be contract, rather than statute. That is, it exists because the country has not legislated against it, and it's by convention included in the contracts.

p_l 4y ago
Depends on country - Polish employment law has "notice period" be bidirectional asa statute unless a gross abuse happened (enumerated in another section of employment law). Shortening notice period is a bidirectional contract where the employee may forfeit owed wages for shorter notice period.