5 ms·

It's a common sentiment everywhere. That's just basic human decency. Hiring shouldn't be used as a variable of adjustment. That's people lives you are playing w

It's a common sentiment everywhere. That's just basic human decency. Hiring shouldn't be used as a variable of adjustment. That's people lives you are playing with. That's why any decent country has some employee protection in its law. If you want temporary workers to face a burst of activity, hire temps. They are paid more specifically for this reason. It will never cease to amaze me that companies in the US seemingly can have their cake and eat it too with workers neither organising nor complaining.

speleding 4y ago
Many countries make hiring temporary workers very hard or unattractive. In my country there is an additional tax and strict terms on how long they can be employed. So they end up being hired and then fired instead. Ironically, it's often the left wing politicians pushing companies to offer fixed employment instead of using flexible labour. Of course, they also try to make the firing as hard as possible. It would be much better if they realise that in some businesses labour demand just fluctuates and it's not necessarily capitalists trying to take advantage of the little man.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Your argument doesn’t seem very coherent to me. Placing strict terms on how long temporary workers can be employed is not an issue in the case you point. If your demand really fluctuates, you will have ended their employment long before the generally generous limit. Avoiding long term employment though a stint of short term contracts is legitimate. You don’t want company trying to wiggle out of employment law through this kind of stints and experience prove some definitely will.
  - speleding 4y ago
    Business cycles in many industries can be 5-10 years, much longer than you are allowed to have people on temp contracts. Forcing companies to keep staff around they no longer need tends to make matters worse in the long run. I think the Danish model of combining a very flexible labour market with a great social safety net is better for all involved.
prottog 4y ago
> That's why any decent country has some employee protection in its law. You can probably draw a linear relationship between the amount of employee protection in the laws of a country and its unemployment rate, especially among younger people. This sort of stuff always benefits those already in the system at the cost of those outside looking in. Cities with stronger tenant protection have higher rents than places without. Homelessness is worse in places with rent control.
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  > You can probably draw a linear relationship between the amount of employee protection in the laws of a country and its unemployment rate, especially among younger people. You can not draw a linear relationship between those. Top unemployment rates over the last 10 years: Greece, Turkey, Spain, Costa Rica, Poland, Slovak Republic... [0] One thing you're ignoring is that countries with strong employee protection also tend have a strong social safety net where unemployed people have a backstop, they haven't lost their healthcare and assistance, so being unemployed isn't the peril it is somewhere that employee protections are basically nil. Correlation is not causality, strong tenant protections allow people to live in places longer term, which is seen as desirable to forming neighborhoods and bonds among neighbors, which in turn makes it a more desirable place to live. Homelessness in a specific place has a diverse number of factors that play into it, including geographic factors, from ambient air temperature, housing prices, employment availability, social services available, etc etc etc. You can't draw a line from rent control to homelessness unless those are the only two graphs you're looking at. [0] https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm#indicator-...
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> It's a common sentiment everywhere. That's just basic human decency. Hiring shouldn't be used as a variable of adjustment. That's people lives you are playing with. That's why any decent country has some employee protection in its law. Sorry, as someone who has been through layoffs, I totally disagree. I don't think it falls under "basic human decency" that just because a company hires me that they have an obligation to keep me on until I retire or die. Essentially what you are arguing is "It would be better to never have hired that person at all, and provide them a salary for N years, than to hire them if you may one day lay them off due to changes in the business." I'd much prefer either (a) requirements for a longer notice period or severance and/or (b) the government providing a better safety net for the ups and downs of the business cycle (like someone commented with the Danish model). I especially think it's nuts that in the US so many critical benefits are tied to employment, like healthcare.

speleding 4y ago

Many countries make hiring temporary workers very hard or unattractive. In my country there is an additional tax and strict terms on how long they can be employed. So they end up being hired and then fired instead. Ironically, it's often the left wing politicians pushing companies to offer fixed employment instead of using flexible labour. Of course, they also try to make the firing as hard as possible. It would be much better if they realise that in some businesses labour demand just fluctuates and it's not necessarily capitalists trying to take advantage of the little man.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Your argument doesn’t seem very coherent to me. Placing strict terms on how long temporary workers can be employed is not an issue in the case you point. If your demand really fluctuates, you will have ended their employment long before the generally generous limit. Avoiding long term employment though a stint of short term contracts is legitimate. You don’t want company trying to wiggle out of employment law through this kind of stints and experience prove some definitely will.
- speleding 4y ago
  Business cycles in many industries can be 5-10 years, much longer than you are allowed to have people on temp contracts. Forcing companies to keep staff around they no longer need tends to make matters worse in the long run. I think the Danish model of combining a very flexible labour market with a great social safety net is better for all involved.

prottog 4y ago

> That's why any decent country has some employee protection in its law. You can probably draw a linear relationship between the amount of employee protection in the laws of a country and its unemployment rate, especially among younger people. This sort of stuff always benefits those already in the system at the cost of those outside looking in. Cities with stronger tenant protection have higher rents than places without. Homelessness is worse in places with rent control.

MarkMarine 4y ago
> You can probably draw a linear relationship between the amount of employee protection in the laws of a country and its unemployment rate, especially among younger people. You can not draw a linear relationship between those. Top unemployment rates over the last 10 years: Greece, Turkey, Spain, Costa Rica, Poland, Slovak Republic... [0] One thing you're ignoring is that countries with strong employee protection also tend have a strong social safety net where unemployed people have a backstop, they haven't lost their healthcare and assistance, so being unemployed isn't the peril it is somewhere that employee protections are basically nil. Correlation is not causality, strong tenant protections allow people to live in places longer term, which is seen as desirable to forming neighborhoods and bonds among neighbors, which in turn makes it a more desirable place to live. Homelessness in a specific place has a diverse number of factors that play into it, including geographic factors, from ambient air temperature, housing prices, employment availability, social services available, etc etc etc. You can't draw a line from rent control to homelessness unless those are the only two graphs you're looking at. [0] https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm#indicator-...

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> It's a common sentiment everywhere. That's just basic human decency. Hiring shouldn't be used as a variable of adjustment. That's people lives you are playing with. That's why any decent country has some employee protection in its law. Sorry, as someone who has been through layoffs, I totally disagree. I don't think it falls under "basic human decency" that just because a company hires me that they have an obligation to keep me on until I retire or die. Essentially what you are arguing is "It would be better to never have hired that person at all, and provide them a salary for N years, than to hire them if you may one day lay them off due to changes in the business." I'd much prefer either (a) requirements for a longer notice period or severance and/or (b) the government providing a better safety net for the ups and downs of the business cycle (like someone commented with the Danish model). I especially think it's nuts that in the US so many critical benefits are tied to employment, like healthcare.