3 ms·
That's an incredible leap. The commission is pushing US companies to avoid breaking employment law in Ireland. Companies that believe the law is unfairly attac
by giaour 2y ago
That's an incredible leap.
The commission is pushing US companies to avoid breaking employment law in Ireland. Companies that believe the law is unfairly attacked against them or who were planning on ignoring the law might be deterred from opening up shop in Ireland, but how many companies does that describe?
- psychlops 2y agoBreaking the law isn't a meaningful part of the economic argument. X can hire employees in any country in the world. Ireland is proving itself to be more costly than a competing country and thereby pushing employment away.
- surgical_fire 2y agoEh, this is bullshit. Ireland always had labor laws, and most companies operating there had little problems navigating through it. Of course, those companies were not under the whims of a moronic buffoon.
- psychlops 2y agoCrass as your point is and it may be true, each time they fine companies it raises the cost of operation and changes the nature of the decision.
- surgical_fire 2y agoX was not fined. The €550k was compensation for unlawful termination.
- giaour 2y agoWhat you're describing is a political calculation that I doubt Irish courts have the discretion to make. The law was in place, and Twitter chose to either knowingly break it or act without assessing the legality of their actions. Inconsistent application of corporate/employment law is a strong disincentive to business participation because it makes the law feel capricious (and because there are plenty of disputes between businesses where there's no obvious way for political actors to put their thumbs on the scale in a "pro-business" way).
- psychlops 2y agoI'm describing an economic calculation. The political decision is irrelevant and simply a cost of doing business. The higher the total cost of employees in a country without an offsetting benefit, the more likely companies will be to avoid the country.