5 ms·

The way US companies do these kinds of layoffs staggering. In the UK redundancies are announced, the areas of the business to be impacted are informed, there is

The way US companies do these kinds of layoffs staggering. In the UK redundancies are announced, the areas of the business to be impacted are informed, there is a review period of a few days to a few weeks, you are then told you are being made redundant or not, you then have a chance to propose an alternative role if you wish and if you’re still being let go you will be told a date and a process put in place for exiting. At a large company this process can take a couple of months and the steps are made very clear and transparent.

jcfrei 3y ago
Switzerland has also liberal labour laws and people can usually get fired with either 1 month or 3 months notice. This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world.
- Tade0 3y ago
  Can you show causation here?
- hyperpape 3y ago
  That may be permissive in international terms, but it’s a huge protection for workers compared to the US. You are not guaranteed any days warning in the US.
- funklute 3y ago
  > This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world. It really is quite a big stretch to assume that this is a causal mechanism. You only need to look to Scandinavia to find a counter-example. I think it is more reasonable to argue that high salaries in US are fuelled by borderline slave wages for menial labour. And Switzerland's wealth comes in a historical context that is completely different from the US - it's almost impossible to blanket compare them side-by-side. The difference in population size is another huge issue with such a comparison.
- secretsatan 3y ago
  I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the 2 I don't think the US has any period of notice Switzerland has many benefits US definitely don't get, like holidays Strong unions in Switzerland fight to keep wages up
- Dma54rhs 3y ago
  Most of the Eastern European countries as well and their economies are growing great compared to old Europe.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    As an Eastern European - that's actually not true. Any form of this comes from abusing the temporary work and contractor system(not exclusive to Eastern Europe, but here it's common). But still - even as a pretend temp worker you normally don't get fired on the spot without notice because with the current demographic situation employers can't afford to do this and will usually include some form of notice in the contract to protect their interests. Also illegal employment, especially in construction, is still very much a thing around here and I would think that, if anything, is a greater factor. Easier to get ahead when you're cheating.
- messe 3y ago
  > This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are plenty of other reasons that the US and Switzerland have become wealthy, you can't simply assume that liberal labour laws are a factor.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  Swiss labour laws are a bit more involved than that. You can fire with 3 months' notice, yes, but not if the employee has recently been unwell or had an accident, and not for any number of legally protected reasons (including the employee being absent for mandatory military service, employees exercising their legal rights such as freedom of speech in ways not directly related to the workplace, or as a result of a dispute between employer or employee if there was no misconduct). Full list (in German): https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Arbeit/Personenfreizugigkeit_Arbeitsbeziehungen/Arbeitsrecht/FAQ_zum_privaten_Arbeitsrecht/kuendigung.html https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Arbeit/Personenfreizu... So effectively, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the reason for firing is a legal one, but that does include "orders drying up so we need to cut back on staff who would otherwise be idling". Courts can and do award fired employees up to 6 months' salary as compensation if employers overstep the lines here. And because Switzerland has a well-working legal system, that means most employers don't abuse their firing powers, and making a facebook post on $CULTURE_WAR_TOPIC from a non-work account is unlikely to get you fired unless your role is "brand ambassador" or executive officer, for example. Also, if you are fired in Switzerland and you're a citizen, you have very generous (by international standards) state redundancy/unemployment benefits. I agree with the parent poster that the flexible labour laws are part of what makes Switzerland attractive for business, but I would much, much rather end up being fired under the Swiss system than the U.S. one.
- sofixa 3y ago
  France, a country famous for workers protections, also allows for: * rupture conventionnelle, by mutual agreement, which requires at least 1/4 month salary per year on the job for less than 10 years, 1/3 month for more than 10 * licenciement économique, which has a mandatory procedure, and requires 1-2 months notice of the employee, with a compensation same as the above Since the procedure for the second one is a bit involved and requires approval from the mini-union embedded in all companies over 50 employees and a government agency (since it's only intended when there's economic troubles), often employers would prefer to pay extra compensation in a rupture conventionnelle instead of wasting time with the procedure. Honestly doesn't sound much more complicated than Switzerland, yet nobody would say this allows France to have low unemployment.
shmatt 3y ago
This just means a lot of these people wouldn’t have a job to begin with. Not saying one is better than the other, but if it took months to fire people, lots of US tech companies wouldn’t have grown 30% without thinking twice. Leaving many of then people let go today without an entry ticket to tech to begin with
- neom 3y ago
  I know many startup founders in the states who use "Hire Fast, Fire Fast" (vs "Hire Slow, Fire Fast")
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    If you have more money than time, that could even be optimal for the company.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Just to be pedantic, in the US there may be little difference between being laid off and being fired, but in the UK there's quite a difference. We're talking about layoffs/redundancies, and yes it's hard specifically to discourage these poor labour practices. However in the UK firing someone is much easier than this. There are protections, and in some jobs (like the civil service) it can be difficult to fire, but that's not universally true.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    In the US there is still a big difference between being fired and being furloughed [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough#Private_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough#Private_sector
  - bluGill 3y ago
    In the US there is a big difference between fired and laid off. Fired means for cause, and when asked the company will say "bad employee, you shouldn't hire them" fired also means you don't get unemployment as it is your fault you don't work there anymore (this varies from state to state). Laid off means you were an acceptable employee (or better), but the company just doesn't need someone to do your job anymore, when asked they will report you left in good standing, and since it isn't your fault that you don't have a job you get unemployment while looking for a new job. Fired is so negatives that companies will rarely fire anyone. They prefer to ask you to quit - you still don't get unemployment pay (varies from state to state, but it is your fault you are not working). If this happens it is in your best interest - while it is now your fault you quit (and you cannot sue them for it - which is why they do it and a downside to keep in mind!) they will then report that you worked there in good standing until you left. In practice most companies only fire someone when they discover actions that would go to the police.
switch007 3y ago
Let’s not forget to mention the very common practice here of taking away projects, making your job worse, reassigning you to a manager you hate etc to make you quit. UK HR teams aren’t staffed with angels and in my experience are great at feigning ignorance of the law And the government did not condemn fire and rehire by BA etc a couple of years ago
jwestbury 3y ago
This is not universally true in the UK. My employer laid off about 10% during the current downturn, and those impacted found out quietly, while everybody else was left to wonder why people were suddenly no longer in the employee directory.
- xnorswap 3y ago
  How large is the company? The UK has pretty strict rules but it only applies above a certain size: https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy . e.g. > If there are 20 or more employees affected by redundancies, your employer must hold collective consultation. Of course, it relies on affect people knowing their rights and being willing to stand up for them, which isn't always easy, especially if you're not being let go.
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  There is a requirement to have a "group consultation" in the UK if 20 or more people are being made redundant which often means the process is relatively well telegraphed. But the "group" which must be consulted with is only people who are at risk so it can still happen relatively quietly if redundancies are limited to a certain team/etc.
  - Macha 3y ago
    In addition, there's no requirement for you to assign them work or require them to be in the office in this period. You can send someone on garden leave while working through the process, you just still have to pay them.
bsenftner 3y ago
The way US companies do these kinds of layoffs betrays the undeniable immaturity of the United State's "leadership class". All rah rah rah until it's anything negative, and then they are scared little boys and girls, hiding the truth.
steveBK123 3y ago
After a few cycles on Wall St tech, what I cynically observe is this: Individual firing takes months, and up to a year, with management papering the decision and only doing so during certain times of the year around the review and compensation cycle. Sort of like the FAANG PIP process. The person being fired still ends up getting severance, etc, they almost never bother with for-cause due to legal burdens. Quite often no one really gets fired but they play chicken with you by giving zero raises and cutting your bonus until you quit. Mass layoff firing is usually announced and followed through on in weeks. Usually they go after low hanging fruit, but often that might just be out of favor teams/departments/divisions more than just poor individual performers. It really puts weird incentives in place for people who might want to skate. If you do a bad job - you have many warning signs before you are fired, if ever. And then everyone has an equal risk of random layoff.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  People don’t all have an equal risk of a random layoff. There’s some baseline, non-zero, random risk for everyone, upon which is added/subtracted a factor which is individual in nature. On a team of 15 laying off 2, do you really think that the highest performing employee has an equal risk as the newest joiner or the lowest performing employee?
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    No, but in some ways its really worse than that. The pattern I tend to see is the most expensive for their title level gets laid off, that is to say, the oldest. So the incentive is to relentlessly chase promotions, but not so much that you reach a level you are incompetent. But also not too slow, such that you are at the top of the compensation band for your title. Also don't plan to work in this industry til your late 50s.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Ideally the "most expensive for their title level" would be the most valuable for their title level, rather than the oldest. To the extent that there's a mismatch and salaries at some company are set by age instead of value, it shouldn't be surprising if layoffs tend to hit those on the wrong side of cost-vs-value. The idea that, all else equal, someone should be paid more to be a 50 year-old Senior Foo than a 40 year-old Senior Foo is just wrong and, when/if implemented, could easily be the source of this apparent ageism during layoffs.
wil421 3y ago
What makes you think all US companies are like this? A lot of non tech roles were made redundant at my last job, affected people had a 90 day notice and if they stayed the 90 days a hefty severance based on years worked. My current company does it similar to what you said and gives you time to find a new role or relocate. The first company I worked for called people into a room and RIFed them out of nowhere. People still got hefty severances. It’s not a one size fits all approach, start up’s are usually less caring and ruthless with layoffs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nonethewiser 3y ago
And the UK and the rest of Europe have a weak tech sector.
lr4444lr 3y ago
And in the USA, unemployment is really low, and is usually lower than other countries in most economic climates. Investors are more prone to invest in new or expanding companies when the leadership is able to protect their assets faster by shedding costs in the event of a downturn. Wish we had a better healthcare safety net for people, but overall, I think our system is better.
- rtoway 3y ago
  FWIW, in the UK unemployment is also very low at the moment.
- pwb25 3y ago
  Better for who? For sure not workers
brianmcc 3y ago
Only because it's legally necessary. If it wasn't, companies would be nowhere near so well behaved. Not complaining of course, this form of better behaviour is hugely preferable! But I think it's fear/loss-aversion, not kindness, driving it!
- simonbarker87 3y ago
  Yeh never said they did it out of kindness, just that the system is very different here in the UK and (imo) clearly better.
bpodgursky 3y ago
No offense, but I would rather not trade the US economy for the UK economy right now. Maybe get your own house in order before giving friendly advice.
- simonbarker87 3y ago
  Not commenting on the relative state of the economies, just commenting on how surprising and alien the redundancy process is in the US. Also, can’t see where I gave any advice in my original post.

jcfrei 3y ago

Switzerland has also liberal labour laws and people can usually get fired with either 1 month or 3 months notice. This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world.

Tade0 3y ago
Can you show causation here?
hyperpape 3y ago
That may be permissive in international terms, but it’s a huge protection for workers compared to the US. You are not guaranteed any days warning in the US.
funklute 3y ago
> This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world. It really is quite a big stretch to assume that this is a causal mechanism. You only need to look to Scandinavia to find a counter-example. I think it is more reasonable to argue that high salaries in US are fuelled by borderline slave wages for menial labour. And Switzerland's wealth comes in a historical context that is completely different from the US - it's almost impossible to blanket compare them side-by-side. The difference in population size is another huge issue with such a comparison.
secretsatan 3y ago
I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the 2 I don't think the US has any period of notice Switzerland has many benefits US definitely don't get, like holidays Strong unions in Switzerland fight to keep wages up
Dma54rhs 3y ago
Most of the Eastern European countries as well and their economies are growing great compared to old Europe.
- Tade0 3y ago
  As an Eastern European - that's actually not true. Any form of this comes from abusing the temporary work and contractor system(not exclusive to Eastern Europe, but here it's common). But still - even as a pretend temp worker you normally don't get fired on the spot without notice because with the current demographic situation employers can't afford to do this and will usually include some form of notice in the contract to protect their interests. Also illegal employment, especially in construction, is still very much a thing around here and I would think that, if anything, is a greater factor. Easier to get ahead when you're cheating.
messe 3y ago
> This kind of flexibility in the labour market is clearly an advantage because the US and CH have some of the highest salaries and lowest unemployment in the world. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are plenty of other reasons that the US and Switzerland have become wealthy, you can't simply assume that liberal labour laws are a factor.
red_admiral 3y ago
Swiss labour laws are a bit more involved than that. You can fire with 3 months' notice, yes, but not if the employee has recently been unwell or had an accident, and not for any number of legally protected reasons (including the employee being absent for mandatory military service, employees exercising their legal rights such as freedom of speech in ways not directly related to the workplace, or as a result of a dispute between employer or employee if there was no misconduct). Full list (in German): https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Arbeit/Personenfreizugigkeit_Arbeitsbeziehungen/Arbeitsrecht/FAQ_zum_privaten_Arbeitsrecht/kuendigung.html https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Arbeit/Personenfreizu... So effectively, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that the reason for firing is a legal one, but that does include "orders drying up so we need to cut back on staff who would otherwise be idling". Courts can and do award fired employees up to 6 months' salary as compensation if employers overstep the lines here. And because Switzerland has a well-working legal system, that means most employers don't abuse their firing powers, and making a facebook post on $CULTURE_WAR_TOPIC from a non-work account is unlikely to get you fired unless your role is "brand ambassador" or executive officer, for example. Also, if you are fired in Switzerland and you're a citizen, you have very generous (by international standards) state redundancy/unemployment benefits. I agree with the parent poster that the flexible labour laws are part of what makes Switzerland attractive for business, but I would much, much rather end up being fired under the Swiss system than the U.S. one.
sofixa 3y ago
France, a country famous for workers protections, also allows for: * rupture conventionnelle, by mutual agreement, which requires at least 1/4 month salary per year on the job for less than 10 years, 1/3 month for more than 10 * licenciement économique, which has a mandatory procedure, and requires 1-2 months notice of the employee, with a compensation same as the above Since the procedure for the second one is a bit involved and requires approval from the mini-union embedded in all companies over 50 employees and a government agency (since it's only intended when there's economic troubles), often employers would prefer to pay extra compensation in a rupture conventionnelle instead of wasting time with the procedure. Honestly doesn't sound much more complicated than Switzerland, yet nobody would say this allows France to have low unemployment.

shmatt 3y ago

This just means a lot of these people wouldn’t have a job to begin with. Not saying one is better than the other, but if it took months to fire people, lots of US tech companies wouldn’t have grown 30% without thinking twice. Leaving many of then people let go today without an entry ticket to tech to begin with

neom 3y ago
I know many startup founders in the states who use "Hire Fast, Fire Fast" (vs "Hire Slow, Fire Fast")
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If you have more money than time, that could even be optimal for the company.
danpalmer 3y ago
Just to be pedantic, in the US there may be little difference between being laid off and being fired, but in the UK there's quite a difference. We're talking about layoffs/redundancies, and yes it's hard specifically to discourage these poor labour practices. However in the UK firing someone is much easier than this. There are protections, and in some jobs (like the civil service) it can be difficult to fire, but that's not universally true.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  In the US there is still a big difference between being fired and being furloughed [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough#Private_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough#Private_sector
- bluGill 3y ago
  In the US there is a big difference between fired and laid off. Fired means for cause, and when asked the company will say "bad employee, you shouldn't hire them" fired also means you don't get unemployment as it is your fault you don't work there anymore (this varies from state to state). Laid off means you were an acceptable employee (or better), but the company just doesn't need someone to do your job anymore, when asked they will report you left in good standing, and since it isn't your fault that you don't have a job you get unemployment while looking for a new job. Fired is so negatives that companies will rarely fire anyone. They prefer to ask you to quit - you still don't get unemployment pay (varies from state to state, but it is your fault you are not working). If this happens it is in your best interest - while it is now your fault you quit (and you cannot sue them for it - which is why they do it and a downside to keep in mind!) they will then report that you worked there in good standing until you left. In practice most companies only fire someone when they discover actions that would go to the police.

switch007 3y ago

Let’s not forget to mention the very common practice here of taking away projects, making your job worse, reassigning you to a manager you hate etc to make you quit. UK HR teams aren’t staffed with angels and in my experience are great at feigning ignorance of the law And the government did not condemn fire and rehire by BA etc a couple of years ago

jwestbury 3y ago

This is not universally true in the UK. My employer laid off about 10% during the current downturn, and those impacted found out quietly, while everybody else was left to wonder why people were suddenly no longer in the employee directory.

xnorswap 3y ago
How large is the company? The UK has pretty strict rules but it only applies above a certain size: https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy . e.g. > If there are 20 or more employees affected by redundancies, your employer must hold collective consultation. Of course, it relies on affect people knowing their rights and being willing to stand up for them, which isn't always easy, especially if you're not being let go.
tomatocracy 3y ago
There is a requirement to have a "group consultation" in the UK if 20 or more people are being made redundant which often means the process is relatively well telegraphed. But the "group" which must be consulted with is only people who are at risk so it can still happen relatively quietly if redundancies are limited to a certain team/etc.
- Macha 3y ago
  In addition, there's no requirement for you to assign them work or require them to be in the office in this period. You can send someone on garden leave while working through the process, you just still have to pay them.

bsenftner 3y ago

The way US companies do these kinds of layoffs betrays the undeniable immaturity of the United State's "leadership class". All rah rah rah until it's anything negative, and then they are scared little boys and girls, hiding the truth.

steveBK123 3y ago

After a few cycles on Wall St tech, what I cynically observe is this: Individual firing takes months, and up to a year, with management papering the decision and only doing so during certain times of the year around the review and compensation cycle. Sort of like the FAANG PIP process. The person being fired still ends up getting severance, etc, they almost never bother with for-cause due to legal burdens. Quite often no one really gets fired but they play chicken with you by giving zero raises and cutting your bonus until you quit. Mass layoff firing is usually announced and followed through on in weeks. Usually they go after low hanging fruit, but often that might just be out of favor teams/departments/divisions more than just poor individual performers. It really puts weird incentives in place for people who might want to skate. If you do a bad job - you have many warning signs before you are fired, if ever. And then everyone has an equal risk of random layoff.

sokoloff 3y ago
People don’t all have an equal risk of a random layoff. There’s some baseline, non-zero, random risk for everyone, upon which is added/subtracted a factor which is individual in nature. On a team of 15 laying off 2, do you really think that the highest performing employee has an equal risk as the newest joiner or the lowest performing employee?
- steveBK123 3y ago
  No, but in some ways its really worse than that. The pattern I tend to see is the most expensive for their title level gets laid off, that is to say, the oldest. So the incentive is to relentlessly chase promotions, but not so much that you reach a level you are incompetent. But also not too slow, such that you are at the top of the compensation band for your title. Also don't plan to work in this industry til your late 50s.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Ideally the "most expensive for their title level" would be the most valuable for their title level, rather than the oldest. To the extent that there's a mismatch and salaries at some company are set by age instead of value, it shouldn't be surprising if layoffs tend to hit those on the wrong side of cost-vs-value. The idea that, all else equal, someone should be paid more to be a 50 year-old Senior Foo than a 40 year-old Senior Foo is just wrong and, when/if implemented, could easily be the source of this apparent ageism during layoffs.

wil421 3y ago

What makes you think all US companies are like this? A lot of non tech roles were made redundant at my last job, affected people had a 90 day notice and if they stayed the 90 days a hefty severance based on years worked. My current company does it similar to what you said and gives you time to find a new role or relocate. The first company I worked for called people into a room and RIFed them out of nowhere. People still got hefty severances. It’s not a one size fits all approach, start up’s are usually less caring and ruthless with layoffs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nonethewiser 3y ago

And the UK and the rest of Europe have a weak tech sector.

lr4444lr 3y ago

And in the USA, unemployment is really low, and is usually lower than other countries in most economic climates. Investors are more prone to invest in new or expanding companies when the leadership is able to protect their assets faster by shedding costs in the event of a downturn. Wish we had a better healthcare safety net for people, but overall, I think our system is better.

rtoway 3y ago
FWIW, in the UK unemployment is also very low at the moment.
pwb25 3y ago
Better for who? For sure not workers

brianmcc 3y ago

Only because it's legally necessary. If it wasn't, companies would be nowhere near so well behaved. Not complaining of course, this form of better behaviour is hugely preferable! But I think it's fear/loss-aversion, not kindness, driving it!

simonbarker87 3y ago
Yeh never said they did it out of kindness, just that the system is very different here in the UK and (imo) clearly better.

bpodgursky 3y ago

No offense, but I would rather not trade the US economy for the UK economy right now. Maybe get your own house in order before giving friendly advice.

simonbarker87 3y ago
Not commenting on the relative state of the economies, just commenting on how surprising and alien the redundancy process is in the US. Also, can’t see where I gave any advice in my original post.