3 ms·

I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA. I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would

by dbspin 2y ago

I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA. I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US.

jollyllama 2y ago
> I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US. Would that still be true in the particular case of RTO mandates? I don't think so since "showing up to work" fits nicely into existing employment law on both sides of the pond and is easily documented by employers. The point being that in this particular case of RTO mandates, at-will employment affords you the advantage of being more easily hired elsewhere, whereas you don't lose any practical protection.
Aurornis 2y ago
> I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA. It’s common knowledge in the industry. When I worked for a company with EU offices, we always had to be much more careful about hiring and pay very close attention to laws in each country that could force our hands if we hired someone who didn’t work out. Meanwhile, back in the US we would often hire people who were junior, had non-traditional backgrounds, or who were borderline passing out interviews but showed potential. We knew we could take the risk and if it didn’t work out we didn’t have to be attached to the employee for an extended period of time. If you want statistics: You can look at compensation as a proxy. US tech companies have to offer significantly higher pay, even adjusting for cost of living, to hire anyone because the situation is stacked in favor of employees. European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay. > I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US. That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  > European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay The cost structure is also different (when you compare spendings such as retirement, medical, ...)
- Pufferbo 2y ago
  > That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly. Because this is more often the case. It’s so easy for companies to fire employees that it becomes the employer’s goto strategy for dealing with any kind of turmoil (caused by the employee or otherwise). I do agree that it’s somewhat easier get hired in the States compared to other markets with more employee protections. Here in Japan, it’s common for small companies (startups etc) to hire new employees on contract with the “promise” of being seishain (company employee) at the end of the contract. This lowers the risk for the employer, is often terrible for the new joiner, and is a huge red flag. It’s often used by startups who just can’t afford, or can’t find someone to do the role they’re hiring for. I.e. they list the role as a SE but really want a PM; new joiner enters the company and is let go after a month because they don’t know how to be a PM. It also disproportionally affects foreign workers, as they don’t know all their rights as workers and could be limited in the scope of companies they can work for (due to language or visa restrictions). Yes, it might be “harder” to find a job since respectful companies are more cautious, but I’d take that over the “come into work on Monday to find the pink slip on my desk”.

by dbspin 2y ago

jollyllama 2y ago

> I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US. Would that still be true in the particular case of RTO mandates? I don't think so since "showing up to work" fits nicely into existing employment law on both sides of the pond and is easily documented by employers. The point being that in this particular case of RTO mandates, at-will employment affords you the advantage of being more easily hired elsewhere, whereas you don't lose any practical protection.

Aurornis 2y ago

> I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA. It’s common knowledge in the industry. When I worked for a company with EU offices, we always had to be much more careful about hiring and pay very close attention to laws in each country that could force our hands if we hired someone who didn’t work out. Meanwhile, back in the US we would often hire people who were junior, had non-traditional backgrounds, or who were borderline passing out interviews but showed potential. We knew we could take the risk and if it didn’t work out we didn’t have to be attached to the employee for an extended period of time. If you want statistics: You can look at compensation as a proxy. US tech companies have to offer significantly higher pay, even adjusting for cost of living, to hire anyone because the situation is stacked in favor of employees. European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay. > I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US. That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago
> European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay The cost structure is also different (when you compare spendings such as retirement, medical, ...)
Pufferbo 2y ago
> That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly. Because this is more often the case. It’s so easy for companies to fire employees that it becomes the employer’s goto strategy for dealing with any kind of turmoil (caused by the employee or otherwise). I do agree that it’s somewhat easier get hired in the States compared to other markets with more employee protections. Here in Japan, it’s common for small companies (startups etc) to hire new employees on contract with the “promise” of being seishain (company employee) at the end of the contract. This lowers the risk for the employer, is often terrible for the new joiner, and is a huge red flag. It’s often used by startups who just can’t afford, or can’t find someone to do the role they’re hiring for. I.e. they list the role as a SE but really want a PM; new joiner enters the company and is let go after a month because they don’t know how to be a PM. It also disproportionally affects foreign workers, as they don’t know all their rights as workers and could be limited in the scope of companies they can work for (due to language or visa restrictions). Yes, it might be “harder” to find a job since respectful companies are more cautious, but I’d take that over the “come into work on Monday to find the pink slip on my desk”.