6 ms·
The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains
by jandrewrogers 2y ago
The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains go both ways and have real downsides.
Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused, I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers. No one should discount the value of having the power to tell your employer to fuck off at a moment’s notice with no practical repercussions. No one should be required to stay in an abusive relationship a moment longer than they wish to.
- adastra22 2y agoYeah it is definitely an America-centric take. Most of Europe also has strong contract laws. “At-will employment” cuts both ways.
- croes 2y agoMost of them have strong employee protection laws too which prevent such an abuse
- adastra22 2y agoThat’s what the phrase “cuts both ways” means.
- curiousgal 2y agoThey're saying that it cuts one way.
- adastra22 2y agoEmployee protection laws have nothing to do with what I was talking about. As an employee in the USA (contract or freelance), I can quit any time I like. My contract may be for two years, but I can cancel it tomorrow if I want, and only in extreme cases is there any penalty for doing so. In the EU, if I sign a 1-year contract there is an expectation that I will actually work that year. If I break contract by deciding to get another job without negotiating early exit with my employer, I could be on the hook for damages. This doesn't come up very often because in the EU people just don't break contracts like this--if you want to hire someone you ask when their contract is up and work around that. But the reason why people behave this way is because the termination of a contract is a serious deal and hard to navigate. The US is (mostly) at-will employment. One aspect of that everyone talks about is that the company can fire you at any time for almost any reason. That sucks. The flip side though is that you can fire your employer any time you like, and walk of the job to somewhere that pays you better or treats you better. This is at the root of a lot of American dynamism, and a good thing. At-will employment is definitely something that cuts both ways.
- croes 2y agoI wouldn’t call losing your source of income and maybe your health insurance no practical repercussions. I don’t know in which countries you worked but I didn’t have any problems getting out of a contract.
- jayd16 2y agoInexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.
- specproc 2y agoI can spell it out, if it helps. In a country with exorbitant healthcare costs, it means that leaving your job means that you (and often your family) don't get healthcare.
- teaearlgraycold 2y agoCOBRA?
- rqtwteye 2y agoThat’s super expensive. ACA is often better but that may change now with the republicans having control of congress.
- vkou 2y ago> That’s super expensive COBRA costs you exactly how much you + your employer were paying for that insurance. It's expensive because your employer's share of insurance was a significant part of your compensation (And because US healthcare costs are pants-on-head insane.) I'll point out that it's generally quite expensive to, like, stop getting paid. Practically, post-ACA, health insurance in the US is about as tied to employment as having a roof over your head and food on your table is. If you don't have employment, or money, you're going to be in trouble - but that's the case with everything you need to live, not just healthcare.
- jayd16 2y agoAt-will coupled with layoff disclosure laws seems pretty solid. The result seems to be that severance pay is a lot more common.
- dopfk09320k 2y ago>No one should discount the value of having the power to tell your employer to fuck off at a moment’s notice with no practical repercussions. I think you are confusing "it is possible" with "it is common". Never heard of people in Japan get sued for quitting, even with shady English teaching centers. But definitely seen companies do them for scare tactics though.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoFWIW, I don’t have any experience in Japan, I have no idea what the nuances are like there. I have a lot of experience in Europe, which echoed some of the themes raised.
- dopfk09320k 2y agoDo you have examples ? I have never heard European people being sued for quitting either. The opposite of at-will employment is not that you can't quit. Just that employers can't suddenly fire you without repercussions.
- apelapan 2y agoThe termination period in a Swedish employment contract certainly applies in both directions. If you have three months notice period in your contract, your employer could sue for loss of income if you don't honour that notice period. It usually doesn't happen that way, because it is a waste of everyone's time and money. But, if some employer feels the need to set an example the option is there.
- dopfk09320k 2y agoThat is certainly supprising to me. I assume most people just deal with it by showing up but silent quitting ?
- apelapan 2y ago
- Iulioh 2y agoI think your opinion is influenced by probability being a well off professional in a field where you can easily find another job, maybe phisical location is not even that important. Just an hypothesis. I prefer the "chains on both sides" approach for the society.
- tdeck 2y agoIt's a false dichotomy anyway. There's no law of nature that says an employee being able to quit at a moment's notice means the company should be allowed to, for example, fire someone with no cause on the spot.
- WalterBright 2y agoThe asymmetry is an artificial distortion of the market, and like all such distortions, reduces overall productivity.
- colinb 2y agoAsymmetrical relationships are baked into employment. Indeed, that’s the very basis of the idea. Labour laws, unions etc came into existence to change that balance of power. Without them, no paid holiday, no proper weekend, no pension. All of these things reduce productivity. The purpose of our lives is not productivity. (I have no idea what it might be, but that’s a different thread) Look, I lead very comfortable life compared to most. Many of the people here are like me, and I dare say, you. But we’re a blip in history. And most of that history hasn’t been particularly kind to people who weren’t born to wealth. I wish more folks internalised that lesson.
- WalterBright 2y ago> Asymmetrical relationships are baked into employment. If you have ever employed people (I have), it'd be clear that isn't true. You have no actual power over them. You cannot make them come to work. You cannot make them do anything at all. They can get up and leave at any moment, and you can do nothing. You know who can do that? The military. If you don't follow orders, into the brig you go. They can even execute you. > The purpose of our lives is not productivity. Productivity gives us the amazing high standard of living we enjoy today. > most of that history hasn’t been particularly kind to people who weren’t born to wealth Freedom produced prosperity which changed all that for the better. Freedom is the greatest human invention ever. An employer is not the parent of the employees. It's a transaction - trading labor for money. Just like you buying donuts at the store. If you buy donuts from them daily, should you be forced to continue buying donuts from them? Of course not. Have you ever hired a service to mow your lawn? When you're unhappy with them, do you cease the relationship? Or do you now owe them your continuing business?
- jmspring 2y agoI’d say in the US there is a unique situation because health care is tied to employment, or it’s insanely expensive. When the job market is not great, you see increased costs and more exploitation of those employed.
- ponow 2y agoDeregulate medicine and include benefits as income (and lower income tax rates to prevent revenue windfall).
- orthoxerox 2y agoThe US compensates for their lassiez-faire employment model with their gym memberships and other subscriptions, which are harder to get out of than Japanese companies.
- hehehheh 2y agoDrake meme: No way ..... $200,000 more a year comp. Hell yeah ..... gym membership
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSounds like a perfect deal for both employers and gyms - when talking about compensation, it feels like good extra value; when it comes to actually go to the gym, it feels like someone else's money, so no big deal if you skip this time, right?
- fakedang 2y agoAt will employment coupled with a universal healthcare system would have been the best system for America, but as we know, that's an impossibility now.
- CalRobert 2y agoI was stunned when I realised my Irish work contracts had a forced notice period, not just a courtesy. Accenture uses this as a tool to stop people quitting - forced three month notice even for super low level employees. Makes it hard to interview for new jobs!
- politelemon 2y agoIt does not. New jobs know about notice periods and plan ahead.
- Hamuko 2y agoI don’t think I’ve ever talked with a recruiter who didn’t ask what my notice period was in the opening conversation. IT services sector has a standard notice period too, so I think most employers expect 2-4 weeks anyways for most people they’d hire.
- CalRobert 2y agoMy wife’s experience was that having a three month notice period to change jobs was a dealbreaker. She’s not a software engineer.
- harry_ord 2y agoLong ones can be a deal breaker though. It was for me when I was looking for a new job before. It's similar to being willing to relocate imo.
- rsynnott 2y agoThree months is definitely very much on the high side.
- lb1lf 2y agoNot at all, the labour market takes that into account, to the extent that if you're available to start working tomorrow, everyone is jostled off balance and chances are you will be asked to begin in three months, anyway.
- 2y ago
- hehehheh 2y agoMany countries let the worker be at will effectively, the employer can only fire them for cause or redundancy or a proper PIP. However the worker can't sue for much if they are unfairly dismissed, so no company is too on tbe hook. Which is good because it would reduce jobs. Add universal healthcare and social security and it's an OK system. Althouth the SS may not actually be enough to live off.
- matsemann 2y ago> Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused Could you list any examples? Because I honestly don't see any way where potentially getting fired for no reason on the spot would be the beneficial option that you claim. I've btw never heard of anyone where I live getting sued or unable to quit a job.
- guerrilla 2y agoNot even close. Being from the US, I've worked both in Japan and Europe. Nothing holds a candle to how bad Japan is. It's unbelievable.