3 ms·

Or just make a law that says "if you fire a recently relocated employee, you owe him 2 years salary". That way firms that aren't sure about relocating someone

Or just make a law that says "if you fire a recently relocated employee, you owe him 2 years salary". That way firms that aren't sure about relocating someone will not do it. Firms with some confidence in their business will not have a problem.

monero-xmr 3y ago
The unintended consequences of this are pretty large. I just wouldn’t hire anyone who fit that law because of how onerous it is.
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  A possible solution might be a remote probation period, then if you still need relocation, you will be subject to the law. You get to hire and fire if the relationship doesn’t work, but if you’re still adamant on forcing a relocation then the risk is shared.
- ResearchCode 3y ago
  It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.
- grumple 3y ago
  And that's fine. You'd hire locally, you'd move the company, or you'd allow remote work. But you definitely wouldn't fire someone you just hired and forced to move.
wanttocomment 3y ago
This kind of thing is why we have such long interview cycles and strong bias against false positives
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  ...because a false negative is so much worse than a false positive. I'll take less opportunities for more stability. Many people would. That's what this article is all about. Better for most to have less that you can rely on than more one year and less the other and no sense of calm.
  - wanttocomment 3y ago
    You may be willing to make the tradeoff, but you should acknowledge the downsides. The most extreme example is in academia where they get a lot of stability in exchange for an excruciating job hunt and interview process. And if they don't like the job, they are stuck. I would rather have a world where we can take a chance on someone, then not. If you have all your ducks in a polished row, and look and act the right way, maybe you prefer protection against that.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
The consequence is firms won’t hire relocated employees. Which is strictly worse
- clnq 3y ago
  Good. They will hire remote or go the way of the dinosaurs they are.
JustSomeNobody 3y ago
Or instead of this law, we make stock buybacks illegal again. Then, companies flush with profit, have to take better care of the employees they bring on.
- welshwelsh 3y ago
  I don't support that. Stock buybacks are a great thing; they allow companies to return excess cash to investors, helping ensure that capital is allocated efficiency across the whole economy. Otherwise companies are pressured to spend money just because they happen to have money, even if they don't have anything productive to spend it on. That's not a good thing.
  - JustSomeNobody 3y ago
    > ... nothing productive to spend it on. Employees. Spend it on them. Fully pay benefits (actually no, we need to decouple HC from employment, but that's another rant), pensions, raises. etc.

monero-xmr 3y ago

The unintended consequences of this are pretty large. I just wouldn’t hire anyone who fit that law because of how onerous it is.

licebmi__at__ 3y ago
A possible solution might be a remote probation period, then if you still need relocation, you will be subject to the law. You get to hire and fire if the relationship doesn’t work, but if you’re still adamant on forcing a relocation then the risk is shared.
ResearchCode 3y ago
It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.
grumple 3y ago
And that's fine. You'd hire locally, you'd move the company, or you'd allow remote work. But you definitely wouldn't fire someone you just hired and forced to move.

wanttocomment 3y ago

This kind of thing is why we have such long interview cycles and strong bias against false positives

Pet_Ant 3y ago
...because a false negative is so much worse than a false positive. I'll take less opportunities for more stability. Many people would. That's what this article is all about. Better for most to have less that you can rely on than more one year and less the other and no sense of calm.
- wanttocomment 3y ago
  You may be willing to make the tradeoff, but you should acknowledge the downsides. The most extreme example is in academia where they get a lot of stability in exchange for an excruciating job hunt and interview process. And if they don't like the job, they are stuck. I would rather have a world where we can take a chance on someone, then not. If you have all your ducks in a polished row, and look and act the right way, maybe you prefer protection against that.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

The consequence is firms won’t hire relocated employees. Which is strictly worse

clnq 3y ago
Good. They will hire remote or go the way of the dinosaurs they are.

JustSomeNobody 3y ago

Or instead of this law, we make stock buybacks illegal again. Then, companies flush with profit, have to take better care of the employees they bring on.

welshwelsh 3y ago
I don't support that. Stock buybacks are a great thing; they allow companies to return excess cash to investors, helping ensure that capital is allocated efficiency across the whole economy. Otherwise companies are pressured to spend money just because they happen to have money, even if they don't have anything productive to spend it on. That's not a good thing.
- JustSomeNobody 3y ago
  > ... nothing productive to spend it on. Employees. Spend it on them. Fully pay benefits (actually no, we need to decouple HC from employment, but that's another rant), pensions, raises. etc.