11 ms·

In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they want

In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to. There are also very few places providing leave (outside of white-collar positions). For example, my wife was given two weeks off from her job after having my son. The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having more than 50 employees. Oh, and those two weeks were unpaid. In some places, taking a vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary and consider you "abandoning" your job, or submitting special paperwork. I do not miss the US; moving to the EU was the best decision I ever made.

Fokamul 2y ago
"Unpaid two weeks of matternity leave" are you nuts? Holy sh.. "vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary" What? Why is it called vacation then, I cannot comprehend this at all, heh. Don't tell them some EU companies even give unlimited PAID vacation, lol. Never experienced this myself, because I usually have "only" 5 weeks paids vacation, but unlimited HO. Of course in practice this means I have main job and also doing self-employed contracts, if work in my main job is done.
- comprev 2y ago
  Unlimited paid vacation days are for the employers benefit not employee.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    For those who may not yet know why: US companies must pay out vacation time when employment terminates, meaning unpaid vacation affects liabilities and thus the balance sheet and thus stock price.
    - cr1895 2y ago
      >US companies must pay out vacation time when employment terminates Doesn't that depend on the state?
      - sethammons 2y ago
        It does; didn't realize that but it makes sense
      - paulddraper 2y ago
        It does, but I've never seen any company that doesn't pay for accrued time.
        lolinder 2y ago
        That's a choice the company makes in most states, though, meaning they can just as easily choose not to as choose unlimited vacation.
        mark-r 2y ago
        As I understand it, the company merely needs to be consistent. Either they pay everybody for their accrued time, or they pay nobody.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  > are you nuts? There's a new law still in committee: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4226&session125&summary=B https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4226... > What? Why is it called vacation then Having more than two weeks off in a year is pretty strange. I worked at a place with "unlimited vacation" once, and you weren't allowed to take off more than two weeks at a time until someone took off two weeks every three weeks ... and that ended that policy. They made it about 4 months before getting fired though.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > Having more than two weeks off in a year is pretty strange. I mean, not that strange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b...
    - tialaramex 2y ago
      Yeah, I took July off this year and last year. Obviously that needs some up-front notice to ensure there's cover, but I tell my manager in the spring and it's fine. Americans are very, very strange and the fact they think they're normal is part of that.
      - elteto 2y ago
        Americans are not “strange”, whatever that means. The US has overall worse protections than the EU, that’s it. It sucks, we all know that. There’s no need to appeal to some weirdness argument.
        pintxo 2y ago
        I guess people in Europe find it strange that people in the US are willing to accept the status quo there?
        HelloMcFly 2y ago
- userbinator 2y ago
  The basic principle is --- you work, you get paid. If you're not working, you're not getting paid. Anything additional is a bonus at the discretion of the employer.
  - fhd2 2y ago
    That's where I suppose the US and EU truly differ. The US generally goes for the "the market will solve it" approach. If you're a bad employer, nobody wants to work there, the company goes down and the competition wins. It's a beautiful theory IMHO. The EU approach is sort of the same, but to add regulation on top to steer the market towards specific goals, like having a strong middle class. If, for example, a company doesn't suffer from being nasty to their employees (e.g. because they're a monopolist), regulation will be put in place to create that dynamic. I personally find this approach more feasible, but regulation can be worked around and sometimes backfire, it's not easy to get right. Back to your point: It comes down to how much you get paid. If you work full time and can't afford vacation or sickness, is that OK? If you think that's OK, we just disagree I suppose. There's a power imbalance between employers and employees that favours the employers. They have more money, expertise, legal counsel, negotiation power etc. Given the chance, they will pay as little as they can for labour, crush competition etc. I don't believe that's good for a country in the long run. If you think it's not OK, something has to happen. Paying people more so they can save up money to deal with this is one approach. Assuming the risk of them not working (with paid vacation and sick days) is another one. In the EU, we tend to go down the latter route. I guess you could see it as patronising, but there is beauty in sharing and distributing personal risks. I'm personally fine with both solutions. I'm running a consultancy right now, so I've decided to take the first route, assume and manage my own risks.
    - playingalong 2y ago
      I am not sure all these rules are for stronger middle class. I have always thought these are for low-paid workers at a warehouse, cleaning the streets, or alike. They are way more replaceable than some specialist. Yet the state offers protection for their time off which they deserve.
- sethammons 2y ago
  I have "unlimited" vacation here in the states. If you go over three weeks, they still require special paperwork, but they allow it if you are tenured enough. What unlimited means is "as long as your manager is decent, you will maybe get your days off" vs accrued vacation where you may be forced to take vacation to not lose it.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    > accrued vacation where you may be forced to take vacation to not lose it. I don't look at it that way. If you have accrued vacation, you "earned" your vacation and they can't take it away from you without compensation. Thus, you are guaranteed your days off. If they fire you, they should even have to pay you your salary for those vacation days. "Unlimited" vacation just gives all the control to your employer: the right to deny you vacation, the right to dictate how long your vacation is, etc.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > If they fire you, they should even have to pay you your salary for those vacation days. This is required in the US. That's the point of unlimited vacation - since it doesn't accrue, the company doesn't have to pay it out when you leave.
      - hiatus 2y ago
        It is not required in the US as it varies by state.
        mrkstu 2y ago
        Enough states require it that most companies large enough to be multistate in employment go ahead and standardize it into their policies.
        hiatus 2y ago
        Apparently 27 states require it, but New York does which makes it more likely a large employer would.
- polski-g 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ldoughty 2y ago
    He is not. > FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. Source: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla
  - pimterry 2y ago
    FMLA has a 50 employee minimum limit, as they noted above. If there aren't 50 employees within a 75-mile radius, you aren't FMLA eligible (there's quite a few other conditions too, and it's still unpaid regardless): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    As they said in their comment, FMLA only kicks in for employers with more than 50 employees(technically, 50 employees within a 75 mile radius). States can implement their own laws to extend maternity leave to all employers, but most don't.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  We really do not care about caregivers - or kids for that matter - in the US. It’s sad. A lot of talk about “family” and how wonderful kids are yet many companies and politicians fight tooth and nail to make sure people don’t spend time with newborns and otherwise don’t have access to childcare. I don’t have to tell parents in this thread about the “July to August gulf” when all the summer camps end and school is a few weeks away. I am not the only one reading this burning precious PTO just to take care of my kids right now.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Sure. It's great when people have kids, but the whole scam run by society is to offload most the costs on the parent then tax the shit out the kid once they're raised, effectively creating a massive wealth transfer system away from working families. Much of the societal issues of how they deal with parents traces back to tragedy of the commons IMO since the kids are future tax stock.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  My brother in New Zealand only got two weeks off no pay for their baby.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    Paternity != maternity but that's still awfully short IMHO.
- ghaff 2y ago
  >"vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary" This is nonsense in general. I've taken month-long vacations and never had to do anything special so long as I had the time and, obviously, told my manager.
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  Unlimited vacation was actually pioneered in the U.S., and spread from there. Most famously popularized by Netflix in its early days, but popular in law firms before that. https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_researched_the_origin_of_unlimited_pto_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_r...
  - chii 2y ago
    It's not actually unlimited. In fact, by not providing a fixed amount, and calling it unlimited, it lets managers put peer pressure onto people into taking less vacations than if they'd made a fixed amount!
    - zarzavat 2y ago
      It should be called unknown vacation. There’s a limit, you just don’t know where it is. I assume if you took the UK legal minimum of 5.6 weeks for example, you would get fired.
    - kcarter80 2y ago
      It is unlimited if the employee is talented and good at advocating for themselves. It isn't if they are meek or mid. In general: it's good to let your employer know that you value your time. If you don't suck, they'll respect you more, not less.
    - marpstar 2y ago
      To add to that: it also can't be "banked" (and thereby paid out after departure). Companies give free PTO because real "paid time off" has to be tracked as a liability on their books; if you haven't "earned" anything and they don't "credit" you, you aren't "owed" you anything when you leave/are terminated.
      - 1over137 2y ago
        What does PTO mean here?
- ponector 2y ago
  Unlimited vacation is a marketing bullshit. Can I work for 3 months there and go for vacation for another 9 months? Not really. Then it not unlimited. To have it really unlimited you need a special position, like be a relative of CEO. But in that case you can have the same even with limited vacation policy.
  - mmmm2 2y ago
    Yeah, it's just a scam so companies don't have to keep vacation on their books. It just means if you give your boss enough notice, maybe you'll get some time off, as long as your project is progressing well.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hyperpape 2y ago
I believe this stunt by Elon still doesn't work in the states. It's true that if you don't sign, they are entitled to fire you, but their line that it's a voluntary resignation is still bullshit. The consequences are smaller, but they've managed to do something that doesn't even make sense in terms of US labor law.
masklinn 2y ago
> your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. IIRC it's much safer not to provide any either — except in Montana which I believe requires Just Cause after probation, as there are only a handful of statutory exceptions to at-will employment, and most of them are very, very hard to prove without an extensive paper trail... or the employer spelling it out when they fire you.
highcountess 2y ago
so now you’ve taken your savings from higher American income and lower taxes and are feeling and bidding up prices for European locals? Yes, you can be layered off a lot easier in the USA, but you also can jump around and chase higher income that isn’t regulated by the government. The problem with your perspective is that people in America still want to make 30-50% more than in Europe for the same job and they want to pay 20% less taxes, but they also want all kinds of services and protection. So I will go out on a limb and guess you are so self-righteous because you have a large savings pool, so you tell yourself “I don’t mind paying higher taxes and making less money because I have security” … largely because you have your savings, which you are also using to make life for Europeans unaffordable but bidding up prices.
yodsanklai 2y ago
> I do not miss the US; moving to the EU was the best decision I ever made. I agree. I work for a FAANG and could ask for a transfer, but I'm worried about the risks that come with the US labor law and the lack of paid holiday too. Also the waves of lay off were much harsher in the US. That being said, it's fun to live in a different country (I lived in the US in the past) and there are more opportunities in tech in the US so I'm still contemplating it.
- elteto 2y ago
  EU lifestyle with a US salary is the perfect combination. I don’t know if you have that, but if you do, keep it! :)
  - nequo 2y ago
    Do you get a US salary? What I’ve heard is that the same company pays much lower wages in the EU than in the US. (With the EU job coming with more non wage amenities like paid vacation, maternity leave, as discussed, and guaranteed healthcare and better public infrastructure.) But I have no personal data point.
    - nness 2y ago
      levels.fyi contains salary information for comparison. Take a Google L4 - $280K US, $190K UK, $160K DE. But when you include the regulatory protections and benefits, the differences in living standards, etc. the US salary is probably still higher but these salaries are certainly nothing to balk at.
      - yodsanklai 2y ago
        Yes, these numbers seem accurate. In my personal case, I could save a bit more (very roughly 20%?) in the US, but I've concluded that it wasn't worth it. However, for higher levels (L6+), I think the difference becomes more important. Also, in US tech centers, there are many more opportunities than in Europe. If I were to lose my FAANG job, there would be no way I'd make the same amount of money in a different company in my country. On the other hand, being on a transfer visa in the US can make it hard to switch to a different company too. In the end, there are pros and cons, and not a definite answer as to where it's best. It depends highly on individual circumstances.
Xenoamorphous 2y ago
> For example, my wife was given two weeks off from her job after having my son. The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having more than 50 employees. Oh, and those two weeks were unpaid. Man this is fucking terrible. Despite what someone’s ideas about work might be, this is just not right unless you put work above literally everything else.
grecy 2y ago
My god, what a horrible life. My wife currently has 18 months fully paid maternity leave, and we’re having tons of family adventure with our little one who is already 9 months old. I couldn’t imagine not having that family time.
- maipen 2y ago
  Yeah, I think people forget that when you are employed you are not the owner, you are sacrificing your freedom to serve someone else’s enterprise. I think its very healthy and human to understand people have phases in life where they need to be cared for. It’s very easy to have a narrow view of the world where everything would be fixed by the ‘market’.
xtiansimon 2y ago
> “…vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary and consider you "abandoning" your job” Can you explain more about your experience with this? I’ve never heard of it. You begin by referring to at-will employment, which has a long history in state laws. This context gives the impression the “what” that is doing the “requiring” is the state and its laws. I’m wondering if this “long vacation” thing has a basis in law or possibly originates from individual company or union contracts. Or if this is a cost savings measure for business services which are paid on monthly basis. Most insurances are based on employee count and earnings, but are calculated yearly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
hartator 2y ago
> I do not miss the US; moving to the EU was the best decision I ever made. It’s very easy to live in the EU with an US compensation. I wonder if you will feel the same if you had a local job.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Cost of living is also lower here in the EU so it's not a big deal. And money isn't that relevant anyway. Quality of life is more important. That's why I live in Spain where I make about half of what I could make in Holland where I'm from. The biggest party in Holland for the last 20 years (VVD) was very neoliberal and they wanted to make the country into America where money trumps everything so I got disenfranchised and left. And right now the biggest party is even extreme right (and supported by the neolibs) so I'm extra glad I left. But I'm happy in Spain. People enjoy life much more. There's no calvinist influence. Not to mention the climate.
  - wyclif 2y ago
    > There's no calvinist influence. You traded the Calvinist influence for the Roman Catholic influence in Spain. I'm sure there are tradeoffs involved. For instance, Dutch people tend to be very direct and matter-of-fact in their criticism of anything, which has benefits w/r/t efficiency and public order. Kind of hard to pull that off in a Catholic country.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
I wonder if the development of maternity leave sort of happened backwards from how we typically think of it happening. Like most people talk about it as if culturally we used to expect 0 accommodations for working mothers, which was bad, and the expectation has increased over time. But, actually in the past the mother would have spent many dedicated years with the infant/baby/toddler/child, until they entered school. If the mother has multiple children, it’s not really practical for a company to hold their spot open for like 8 years and I don’t think this happens even in the most progressive of European countries. So, culturally speaking, does the rise of maternity leave actually come from an increasing cultural tolerance for the mother spending less time with the child via daycare?
- realityking 2y ago
  > If the mother has multiple children, it’s not really practical for a company to hold their spot open for like 8 years and I don’t think this happens even in the most progressive of European countries. Almost no one in Europe has 8 children but I know women who went on maternity leave 3 times. Generally kills your career as you don‘t advance during those years (and most only work part time afterwards) but the original job is still there. Especially in very large companies, it‘s not too big of a burden. Just some extra slack in headcount planning. It‘s pretty rough in smaller companies. I used to sit on the board of pre-school. 5-6 employees, all women, lots of pregnancies and with the added twist that if they didn‘t have certain childhood diseases or vaccinations, they weren‘t allowed to work the entire pregnancy. We had to hire a lot of folks on temporary contracts. Worth pointing out, while we had to pay the salary in case of work not being permitted and the time no work is allowed for anyone pregnant (6 weeks before birth and 8 weeks after), this is fully reimbursed trough insurance schemes every company has to pay into.
  - pfannkuchen 2y ago
    > Almost no one in Europe has 8 children You don’t need 8 children to get to 8 years of dedicated child care with the pre-daycare-normalization worldview. You only need 2 children with an offset of 3 years, or 3 children with less offset.
valevino 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
roywiggins 2y ago
> The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having more than 50 employees. Oh, and those two weeks were unpaid. Likely the only reason for this minimal amount of statutory leave is a federal law: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla Though it does mandate twelve weeks of unpaid leave, not two, but it only kicks in if you've worked there for a year already.
brightball 2y ago
Something to keep in mind on the maternity leave front… Most short term disability insurance actually covers maternity leave for about 6 weeks. It’s really easy for employers to make sure this is part of their benefits package these days.
- bardak 2y ago
  While that might seem generous in the US that is not universal and still woefully minimal. All fathers in Canada are entitled to a minimum of 5 weeks of leave let alone the maximum of 18 months leave mothers
  - brightball 2y ago
    I understand. I just mention it because many small business don’t have the cash reserve to offer anything if insurance doesn’t provide it.
addicted 2y ago
> In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to. This is not entirely correct. They can fire you for any reason as long as it’s not because of a protected reason. There are certain protected reasons at the federal level and many states add additional ones at the state level. So, for example, they can fire you for wearing a red shirt, but they cannot fire you for being too old (well, too old is defined as above 40…if you’re 35 they can legally fire you for being too old if they want).
- GJim 2y ago
  Question: So what stops them firing the old bloke, simply because they are wearing a red shirt? Ergo: Surely it should be the other way around; that you can only be fired for specific protracted reasons, i.e. gross negligence.
  - D-Coder 2y ago
    > Question: So what stops them firing the old bloke, simply because they are wearing a red shirt? The possibility of a lawsuit, resulting in fines and penalties. Obviously many people won't bother to sue, and some companies will take the risk.
wkat4242 2y ago
Yeah the "at will" employment. It's terrible. I could never deal with that. I'm really glad for all our social protections here and it's worth the money. Also socialized healthcare <3
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  Bear in mind that it works both ways. I can be offered a new job tomorrow and give my current employer immediate notice that I'm never coming back. Regardless of at-will employment, the vast majority of employers will still give you plenty of warning before you're fired for performance reasons. It's mainly an issue when a company suddenly has large layoffs. And despite what you see in the media, most people are employed by smaller companies that are generally not laying anyone off. IOW, the negative aspects of at-will employment really don't have much impact on the average techie's life.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    > IOW, the negative aspects of at-will employment really don't have much impact on the average techie's life. It would for me. It would be a constant worry, being jobless from one day to the next, how to pay the mortgage etc? I would find that a huge negative, even if it doesn't actually end up happening. Also besides the notice period you're also entitled to a significant fee when you get fired (up to about a year's worth of salary depending on how long you worked for the company). Which is really reassuring especially for paying mortgage etc. I don't want to live on the edge of my seat all the time. And it's also something that stops me from moving to another job because I would have to start from zero and lose this protection. Which I don't mind, I don't like job-hopping anyway. I really don't like the American mentality of high-risk, high-reward. I don't care much about money but I do care a lot about stability. But anyway I live in Europe and I'm happy with the way things are here. I do hate the neoliberals here that try to make europe like America (which mainly benefits the big corpos, not us).
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    You can quit anywhere you don't have a contract to keep working. That's not some special "TEAM USA!" feature.
mind-blight 2y ago
One caveat: at will employment doesn't allow a company to fire you for "any" reason. It allows you to be fired for "no" reason. So, if a company says "we're firing everyone wearing red shirts", then you can potentially contest that. If they fire you without a reason, then it's legal. If you can prove there was actually a reason, and that the reason was illegal, then you can sue them for wrongful termination
- asadotzler 2y ago
  In this case "red shirts" isn't an illegal reason for firing because people in red shirts are not a covered class. You can fire for any reason except those related to covered classes so it's fine to fire with reasons. "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk because people who steal are not part of a protected class.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    > "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk Sure, it is a risk. You could be wrong and then they sue you. Now you have to prove it. Better to just say that you're firing them and that is all. If they don't know the reason, they can't effectively sue you.
gamblor956 2y ago
In some places, taking a vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary and consider you "abandoning" your job, or submitting special paperwork. Possibly in Europe, but this not the law anywhere in the U.S. To the extent that any American corporation requires this, it is purely a corporate policy.
- ghaff 2y ago
  While there are certainly insane laws and regulation in the US, I'm not sure I understand what would even possess a government to require such a thing. I mean, some companies even have paid sabbaticals even if they're not common. That certainly would seem like totally inappropriate meddling into company benefits for no good reason. I'd understand (though not agree with) an individual company capping an individual vacation at three weeks, but not a (presumably) state law to that effect.
valval 2y ago
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure I suppose. I hate living in a socialist country and paying for other men’s families when I have my own one to feed.

Fokamul 2y ago

"Unpaid two weeks of matternity leave" are you nuts? Holy sh.. "vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary" What? Why is it called vacation then, I cannot comprehend this at all, heh. Don't tell them some EU companies even give unlimited PAID vacation, lol. Never experienced this myself, because I usually have "only" 5 weeks paids vacation, but unlimited HO. Of course in practice this means I have main job and also doing self-employed contracts, if work in my main job is done.

comprev 2y ago
Unlimited paid vacation days are for the employers benefit not employee.
- sethammons 2y ago
  For those who may not yet know why: US companies must pay out vacation time when employment terminates, meaning unpaid vacation affects liabilities and thus the balance sheet and thus stock price.
  - cr1895 2y ago
    >US companies must pay out vacation time when employment terminates Doesn't that depend on the state?
    - sethammons 2y ago
      It does; didn't realize that but it makes sense
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      It does, but I've never seen any company that doesn't pay for accrued time.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        That's a choice the company makes in most states, though, meaning they can just as easily choose not to as choose unlimited vacation.
      - mark-r 2y ago
        As I understand it, the company merely needs to be consistent. Either they pay everybody for their accrued time, or they pay nobody.
withinboredom 2y ago
> are you nuts? There's a new law still in committee: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4226&session125&summary=B https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=4226... > What? Why is it called vacation then Having more than two weeks off in a year is pretty strange. I worked at a place with "unlimited vacation" once, and you weren't allowed to take off more than two weeks at a time until someone took off two weeks every three weeks ... and that ended that policy. They made it about 4 months before getting fired though.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > Having more than two weeks off in a year is pretty strange. I mean, not that strange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b...
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    Yeah, I took July off this year and last year. Obviously that needs some up-front notice to ensure there's cover, but I tell my manager in the spring and it's fine. Americans are very, very strange and the fact they think they're normal is part of that.
    - elteto 2y ago
      Americans are not “strange”, whatever that means. The US has overall worse protections than the EU, that’s it. It sucks, we all know that. There’s no need to appeal to some weirdness argument.
      - pintxo 2y ago
        I guess people in Europe find it strange that people in the US are willing to accept the status quo there?
        HelloMcFly 2y ago
userbinator 2y ago
The basic principle is --- you work, you get paid. If you're not working, you're not getting paid. Anything additional is a bonus at the discretion of the employer.
- fhd2 2y ago
  That's where I suppose the US and EU truly differ. The US generally goes for the "the market will solve it" approach. If you're a bad employer, nobody wants to work there, the company goes down and the competition wins. It's a beautiful theory IMHO. The EU approach is sort of the same, but to add regulation on top to steer the market towards specific goals, like having a strong middle class. If, for example, a company doesn't suffer from being nasty to their employees (e.g. because they're a monopolist), regulation will be put in place to create that dynamic. I personally find this approach more feasible, but regulation can be worked around and sometimes backfire, it's not easy to get right. Back to your point: It comes down to how much you get paid. If you work full time and can't afford vacation or sickness, is that OK? If you think that's OK, we just disagree I suppose. There's a power imbalance between employers and employees that favours the employers. They have more money, expertise, legal counsel, negotiation power etc. Given the chance, they will pay as little as they can for labour, crush competition etc. I don't believe that's good for a country in the long run. If you think it's not OK, something has to happen. Paying people more so they can save up money to deal with this is one approach. Assuming the risk of them not working (with paid vacation and sick days) is another one. In the EU, we tend to go down the latter route. I guess you could see it as patronising, but there is beauty in sharing and distributing personal risks. I'm personally fine with both solutions. I'm running a consultancy right now, so I've decided to take the first route, assume and manage my own risks.
  - playingalong 2y ago
    I am not sure all these rules are for stronger middle class. I have always thought these are for low-paid workers at a warehouse, cleaning the streets, or alike. They are way more replaceable than some specialist. Yet the state offers protection for their time off which they deserve.
sethammons 2y ago
I have "unlimited" vacation here in the states. If you go over three weeks, they still require special paperwork, but they allow it if you are tenured enough. What unlimited means is "as long as your manager is decent, you will maybe get your days off" vs accrued vacation where you may be forced to take vacation to not lose it.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  > accrued vacation where you may be forced to take vacation to not lose it. I don't look at it that way. If you have accrued vacation, you "earned" your vacation and they can't take it away from you without compensation. Thus, you are guaranteed your days off. If they fire you, they should even have to pay you your salary for those vacation days. "Unlimited" vacation just gives all the control to your employer: the right to deny you vacation, the right to dictate how long your vacation is, etc.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > If they fire you, they should even have to pay you your salary for those vacation days. This is required in the US. That's the point of unlimited vacation - since it doesn't accrue, the company doesn't have to pay it out when you leave.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      It is not required in the US as it varies by state.
      - mrkstu 2y ago
        Enough states require it that most companies large enough to be multistate in employment go ahead and standardize it into their policies.
        hiatus 2y ago
        Apparently 27 states require it, but New York does which makes it more likely a large employer would.
polski-g 2y ago
[flagged]
- ldoughty 2y ago
  He is not. > FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. Source: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla
- pimterry 2y ago
  FMLA has a 50 employee minimum limit, as they noted above. If there aren't 50 employees within a 75-mile radius, you aren't FMLA eligible (there's quite a few other conditions too, and it's still unpaid regardless): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- brendoelfrendo 2y ago
  As they said in their comment, FMLA only kicks in for employers with more than 50 employees(technically, 50 employees within a 75 mile radius). States can implement their own laws to extend maternity leave to all employers, but most don't.
Forgeties79 2y ago
We really do not care about caregivers - or kids for that matter - in the US. It’s sad. A lot of talk about “family” and how wonderful kids are yet many companies and politicians fight tooth and nail to make sure people don’t spend time with newborns and otherwise don’t have access to childcare. I don’t have to tell parents in this thread about the “July to August gulf” when all the summer camps end and school is a few weeks away. I am not the only one reading this burning precious PTO just to take care of my kids right now.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  Sure. It's great when people have kids, but the whole scam run by society is to offload most the costs on the parent then tax the shit out the kid once they're raised, effectively creating a massive wealth transfer system away from working families. Much of the societal issues of how they deal with parents traces back to tragedy of the commons IMO since the kids are future tax stock.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
My brother in New Zealand only got two weeks off no pay for their baby.
- airstrike 2y ago
  Paternity != maternity but that's still awfully short IMHO.
ghaff 2y ago
>"vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary" This is nonsense in general. I've taken month-long vacations and never had to do anything special so long as I had the time and, obviously, told my manager.
WrongAssumption 2y ago
Unlimited vacation was actually pioneered in the U.S., and spread from there. Most famously popularized by Netflix in its early days, but popular in law firms before that. https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_researched_the_origin_of_unlimited_pto_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/nq2ph2/i_r...
- chii 2y ago
  It's not actually unlimited. In fact, by not providing a fixed amount, and calling it unlimited, it lets managers put peer pressure onto people into taking less vacations than if they'd made a fixed amount!
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    It should be called unknown vacation. There’s a limit, you just don’t know where it is. I assume if you took the UK legal minimum of 5.6 weeks for example, you would get fired.
  - kcarter80 2y ago
    It is unlimited if the employee is talented and good at advocating for themselves. It isn't if they are meek or mid. In general: it's good to let your employer know that you value your time. If you don't suck, they'll respect you more, not less.
  - marpstar 2y ago
    To add to that: it also can't be "banked" (and thereby paid out after departure). Companies give free PTO because real "paid time off" has to be tracked as a liability on their books; if you haven't "earned" anything and they don't "credit" you, you aren't "owed" you anything when you leave/are terminated.
    - 1over137 2y ago
      What does PTO mean here?
ponector 2y ago
Unlimited vacation is a marketing bullshit. Can I work for 3 months there and go for vacation for another 9 months? Not really. Then it not unlimited. To have it really unlimited you need a special position, like be a relative of CEO. But in that case you can have the same even with limited vacation policy.
- mmmm2 2y ago
  Yeah, it's just a scam so companies don't have to keep vacation on their books. It just means if you give your boss enough notice, maybe you'll get some time off, as long as your project is progressing well.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hyperpape 2y ago

I believe this stunt by Elon still doesn't work in the states. It's true that if you don't sign, they are entitled to fire you, but their line that it's a voluntary resignation is still bullshit. The consequences are smaller, but they've managed to do something that doesn't even make sense in terms of US labor law.

masklinn 2y ago

> your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. IIRC it's much safer not to provide any either — except in Montana which I believe requires Just Cause after probation, as there are only a handful of statutory exceptions to at-will employment, and most of them are very, very hard to prove without an extensive paper trail... or the employer spelling it out when they fire you.

highcountess 2y ago

so now you’ve taken your savings from higher American income and lower taxes and are feeling and bidding up prices for European locals? Yes, you can be layered off a lot easier in the USA, but you also can jump around and chase higher income that isn’t regulated by the government. The problem with your perspective is that people in America still want to make 30-50% more than in Europe for the same job and they want to pay 20% less taxes, but they also want all kinds of services and protection. So I will go out on a limb and guess you are so self-righteous because you have a large savings pool, so you tell yourself “I don’t mind paying higher taxes and making less money because I have security” … largely because you have your savings, which you are also using to make life for Europeans unaffordable but bidding up prices.

yodsanklai 2y ago

> I do not miss the US; moving to the EU was the best decision I ever made. I agree. I work for a FAANG and could ask for a transfer, but I'm worried about the risks that come with the US labor law and the lack of paid holiday too. Also the waves of lay off were much harsher in the US. That being said, it's fun to live in a different country (I lived in the US in the past) and there are more opportunities in tech in the US so I'm still contemplating it.

elteto 2y ago
EU lifestyle with a US salary is the perfect combination. I don’t know if you have that, but if you do, keep it! :)
- nequo 2y ago
  Do you get a US salary? What I’ve heard is that the same company pays much lower wages in the EU than in the US. (With the EU job coming with more non wage amenities like paid vacation, maternity leave, as discussed, and guaranteed healthcare and better public infrastructure.) But I have no personal data point.
  - nness 2y ago
    levels.fyi contains salary information for comparison. Take a Google L4 - $280K US, $190K UK, $160K DE. But when you include the regulatory protections and benefits, the differences in living standards, etc. the US salary is probably still higher but these salaries are certainly nothing to balk at.
    - yodsanklai 2y ago
      Yes, these numbers seem accurate. In my personal case, I could save a bit more (very roughly 20%?) in the US, but I've concluded that it wasn't worth it. However, for higher levels (L6+), I think the difference becomes more important. Also, in US tech centers, there are many more opportunities than in Europe. If I were to lose my FAANG job, there would be no way I'd make the same amount of money in a different company in my country. On the other hand, being on a transfer visa in the US can make it hard to switch to a different company too. In the end, there are pros and cons, and not a definite answer as to where it's best. It depends highly on individual circumstances.

Xenoamorphous 2y ago

> For example, my wife was given two weeks off from her job after having my son. The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having more than 50 employees. Oh, and those two weeks were unpaid. Man this is fucking terrible. Despite what someone’s ideas about work might be, this is just not right unless you put work above literally everything else.

grecy 2y ago

My god, what a horrible life. My wife currently has 18 months fully paid maternity leave, and we’re having tons of family adventure with our little one who is already 9 months old. I couldn’t imagine not having that family time.

maipen 2y ago
Yeah, I think people forget that when you are employed you are not the owner, you are sacrificing your freedom to serve someone else’s enterprise. I think its very healthy and human to understand people have phases in life where they need to be cared for. It’s very easy to have a narrow view of the world where everything would be fixed by the ‘market’.

xtiansimon 2y ago

> “…vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary and consider you "abandoning" your job” Can you explain more about your experience with this? I’ve never heard of it. You begin by referring to at-will employment, which has a long history in state laws. This context gives the impression the “what” that is doing the “requiring” is the state and its laws. I’m wondering if this “long vacation” thing has a basis in law or possibly originates from individual company or union contracts. Or if this is a cost savings measure for business services which are paid on monthly basis. Most insurances are based on employee count and earnings, but are calculated yearly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

hartator 2y ago

> I do not miss the US; moving to the EU was the best decision I ever made. It’s very easy to live in the EU with an US compensation. I wonder if you will feel the same if you had a local job.

wkat4242 2y ago
Cost of living is also lower here in the EU so it's not a big deal. And money isn't that relevant anyway. Quality of life is more important. That's why I live in Spain where I make about half of what I could make in Holland where I'm from. The biggest party in Holland for the last 20 years (VVD) was very neoliberal and they wanted to make the country into America where money trumps everything so I got disenfranchised and left. And right now the biggest party is even extreme right (and supported by the neolibs) so I'm extra glad I left. But I'm happy in Spain. People enjoy life much more. There's no calvinist influence. Not to mention the climate.
- wyclif 2y ago
  > There's no calvinist influence. You traded the Calvinist influence for the Roman Catholic influence in Spain. I'm sure there are tradeoffs involved. For instance, Dutch people tend to be very direct and matter-of-fact in their criticism of anything, which has benefits w/r/t efficiency and public order. Kind of hard to pull that off in a Catholic country.

pfannkuchen 2y ago

I wonder if the development of maternity leave sort of happened backwards from how we typically think of it happening. Like most people talk about it as if culturally we used to expect 0 accommodations for working mothers, which was bad, and the expectation has increased over time. But, actually in the past the mother would have spent many dedicated years with the infant/baby/toddler/child, until they entered school. If the mother has multiple children, it’s not really practical for a company to hold their spot open for like 8 years and I don’t think this happens even in the most progressive of European countries. So, culturally speaking, does the rise of maternity leave actually come from an increasing cultural tolerance for the mother spending less time with the child via daycare?

realityking 2y ago
> If the mother has multiple children, it’s not really practical for a company to hold their spot open for like 8 years and I don’t think this happens even in the most progressive of European countries. Almost no one in Europe has 8 children but I know women who went on maternity leave 3 times. Generally kills your career as you don‘t advance during those years (and most only work part time afterwards) but the original job is still there. Especially in very large companies, it‘s not too big of a burden. Just some extra slack in headcount planning. It‘s pretty rough in smaller companies. I used to sit on the board of pre-school. 5-6 employees, all women, lots of pregnancies and with the added twist that if they didn‘t have certain childhood diseases or vaccinations, they weren‘t allowed to work the entire pregnancy. We had to hire a lot of folks on temporary contracts. Worth pointing out, while we had to pay the salary in case of work not being permitted and the time no work is allowed for anyone pregnant (6 weeks before birth and 8 weeks after), this is fully reimbursed trough insurance schemes every company has to pay into.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  > Almost no one in Europe has 8 children You don’t need 8 children to get to 8 years of dedicated child care with the pre-daycare-normalization worldview. You only need 2 children with an offset of 3 years, or 3 children with less offset.

valevino 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

roywiggins 2y ago

> The state we lived in only required maternity leave to be implemented at companies having more than 50 employees. Oh, and those two weeks were unpaid. Likely the only reason for this minimal amount of statutory leave is a federal law: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla Though it does mandate twelve weeks of unpaid leave, not two, but it only kicks in if you've worked there for a year already.

brightball 2y ago

Something to keep in mind on the maternity leave front… Most short term disability insurance actually covers maternity leave for about 6 weeks. It’s really easy for employers to make sure this is part of their benefits package these days.

bardak 2y ago
While that might seem generous in the US that is not universal and still woefully minimal. All fathers in Canada are entitled to a minimum of 5 weeks of leave let alone the maximum of 18 months leave mothers
- brightball 2y ago
  I understand. I just mention it because many small business don’t have the cash reserve to offer anything if insurance doesn’t provide it.

addicted 2y ago

> In the US, in most (all?) jurisdictions, your employer doesn't really need to have a reason to fire you. They can fire everyone wearing red shirts, if they wanted to. This is not entirely correct. They can fire you for any reason as long as it’s not because of a protected reason. There are certain protected reasons at the federal level and many states add additional ones at the state level. So, for example, they can fire you for wearing a red shirt, but they cannot fire you for being too old (well, too old is defined as above 40…if you’re 35 they can legally fire you for being too old if they want).

GJim 2y ago
Question: So what stops them firing the old bloke, simply because they are wearing a red shirt? Ergo: Surely it should be the other way around; that you can only be fired for specific protracted reasons, i.e. gross negligence.
- D-Coder 2y ago
  > Question: So what stops them firing the old bloke, simply because they are wearing a red shirt? The possibility of a lawsuit, resulting in fines and penalties. Obviously many people won't bother to sue, and some companies will take the risk.

wkat4242 2y ago

Yeah the "at will" employment. It's terrible. I could never deal with that. I'm really glad for all our social protections here and it's worth the money. Also socialized healthcare <3

HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
Bear in mind that it works both ways. I can be offered a new job tomorrow and give my current employer immediate notice that I'm never coming back. Regardless of at-will employment, the vast majority of employers will still give you plenty of warning before you're fired for performance reasons. It's mainly an issue when a company suddenly has large layoffs. And despite what you see in the media, most people are employed by smaller companies that are generally not laying anyone off. IOW, the negative aspects of at-will employment really don't have much impact on the average techie's life.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > IOW, the negative aspects of at-will employment really don't have much impact on the average techie's life. It would for me. It would be a constant worry, being jobless from one day to the next, how to pay the mortgage etc? I would find that a huge negative, even if it doesn't actually end up happening. Also besides the notice period you're also entitled to a significant fee when you get fired (up to about a year's worth of salary depending on how long you worked for the company). Which is really reassuring especially for paying mortgage etc. I don't want to live on the edge of my seat all the time. And it's also something that stops me from moving to another job because I would have to start from zero and lose this protection. Which I don't mind, I don't like job-hopping anyway. I really don't like the American mentality of high-risk, high-reward. I don't care much about money but I do care a lot about stability. But anyway I live in Europe and I'm happy with the way things are here. I do hate the neoliberals here that try to make europe like America (which mainly benefits the big corpos, not us).
- asadotzler 2y ago
  You can quit anywhere you don't have a contract to keep working. That's not some special "TEAM USA!" feature.

mind-blight 2y ago

One caveat: at will employment doesn't allow a company to fire you for "any" reason. It allows you to be fired for "no" reason. So, if a company says "we're firing everyone wearing red shirts", then you can potentially contest that. If they fire you without a reason, then it's legal. If you can prove there was actually a reason, and that the reason was illegal, then you can sue them for wrongful termination

asadotzler 2y ago
In this case "red shirts" isn't an illegal reason for firing because people in red shirts are not a covered class. You can fire for any reason except those related to covered classes so it's fine to fire with reasons. "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk because people who steal are not part of a protected class.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  > "You stole from us so you're fired!" isn't any risk Sure, it is a risk. You could be wrong and then they sue you. Now you have to prove it. Better to just say that you're firing them and that is all. If they don't know the reason, they can't effectively sue you.

gamblor956 2y ago

In some places, taking a vacation longer than three weeks requires the company to stop paying your salary and consider you "abandoning" your job, or submitting special paperwork. Possibly in Europe, but this not the law anywhere in the U.S. To the extent that any American corporation requires this, it is purely a corporate policy.

ghaff 2y ago
While there are certainly insane laws and regulation in the US, I'm not sure I understand what would even possess a government to require such a thing. I mean, some companies even have paid sabbaticals even if they're not common. That certainly would seem like totally inappropriate meddling into company benefits for no good reason. I'd understand (though not agree with) an individual company capping an individual vacation at three weeks, but not a (presumably) state law to that effect.

valval 2y ago

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure I suppose. I hate living in a socialist country and paying for other men’s families when I have my own one to feed.