6 ms·

> The Myth of Job Security in Germany > Since I was working for a German entity of a company, I want to address a common myth about job security in Germany. Ma

by pc86 2y ago

> The Myth of Job Security in Germany > Since I was working for a German entity of a company, I want to address a common myth about job security in Germany. Many people believe that it’s nearly impossible to be fired in Germany. While this is partially true for individuals who have completed their probation period, it doesn’t hold up in the context of layoffs. If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal. The author decries how he was laid off despite his contribution then - without a hint of irony - says Germany isn't as safe for employees as most people think because layoffs are legally required to take into account information completely disconnected from your contributions at work. Of course if you have legal structures that make it harder to fire people based on what they do outside of work, you will be forced to lay off people you otherwise wouldn't. What are the odds the author got laid off despite his contributions precisely because somebody who earned more than him and did less couldn't be fired because they happened to have children? In the US it would be approximately zero. Even if the person picking names knows you have kids - but they don't because they're usually 3-4 levels above you - they have to justify the names to their boss and "J. Doe just had their second kid so let's keep them around until next year" will absolutely not fly.

bluGill 2y ago
The hard to lay off makes it harder to hire as well. Sure you get the 6 month probation period, but it is risky to hire anyone because they might make it past those 6 months before bad times come. There is no good answer.
- pc86 2y ago
  You will have a hard time convincing me that at will employment and hire-fast-fire-fast mentality is not objectively better than whatever you might call the German-style system. (Notice I didn't say it's good, just better) The German-style system seems to treat a job as something the employee is guaranteed, that it's their inherent right to have, rather than something the employer chooses to give them. It doesn't seem to line up with reality.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    Better for whom? I think most people sleep better knowing that they can't be let go for no reason, no notice and no severance tomorrow. Yes, you can lay off people in Germany, and France, and Italy. But there are rules, notice periods, and mandatory severances, as well as often (country dependent) consultation periods. In what way is that worse for the employee?
    - Eridrus 2y ago
      It's worse because people don't want to hire in those countries and the conjecture here is also that layoffs are unrelated to productivity, so there is nothing you can personally do to avoid getting laid off except having a family. So it's worse for people who are productive in their jobs. We were approached by a French startup looking for an acquihire and well, French labor law was a big reason not to do it (not because the people at the startup weren't good, but because staffing an Eng office around them was seen as too risky). To some extent perception is reality here; we didn't really know that much about French labor laws, but the reputation and uncertainty is the issue.
    - pc86 2y ago
      I'm not saying there should be no rules but saying "you can't lay off Employee A because he has kids, you have to lay off Employee B instead because they don't" with absolutely no consideration of work product is pretty asinine on its face. Laying people off is a business decision - forcing a company to justify that from a business context is probably a Good Thing, but injecting weird social requirements on top of that is silly.
      - Tade0 2y ago
        It makes sense if you consider the social cost of having children live through their parents' layoff. Meanwhile businesses enjoy the privilege of operating in a country where contracts are enforced and people are educated. In exchange they're expected to not treat their employees like cattle - that's not a lot to ask IMHO.
Eridrus 2y ago
I had the same reaction. This sort of law makes it very expensive to keep ambitious young folk like the author in a layoff. I am very confused about how this works in practice though. Presumably you're not expected to keep an old accountant with a family over a young childless developer, but where is that line actually drawn? Can you make such a distinction between teams, or are you expected to reassign people from a team that is being disbanded? What if they don't have some experience you would like, are you expected to train them?
- jjmarr 2y ago
  From this article by a German lawyer, "the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.": https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl > Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG provides four criteria that have to be taken into account in the selection decision: Length of service, age, statutory maintenance obligations and the employee's severe disability. > The employer must first determine which employees work at the same level in the company and can therefore be replaced. The group of employees determined in this way is what is known as a horizontal comparability. Social selection is then carried out in this group on the basis of the legally prescribed criteria. The members of the respective group are then ranked according to their need for social protection. > Older employees are more in need of protection than younger ones. A longer period of employment also increases the need for protection, as does the existence of statutory maintenance obligations and the presence of a severe disability. > Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG does not indicate how the social aspects mentioned are to be put in relation to each other, which is why each of the four criteria is to be given equal importance. > When reducing staff, employers often make use of point schemes through which points are assigned to the individual social criteria. It also gives information through which the need for social protection of the employees in the comparison group can be assessed. > All employees who are interchangeable must be included in the social selection. Criteria that can be used in this examination are the vocational training as well as the practical experience and knowledge that the respective employees have. If there is comparability, these workers are horizontally interchangeable. In practice, the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.
pgorczak 2y ago
> If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. At least this part is partially wrong. There is an entire law about how lay offs are only allowed if they are “socially justified” with definitions of acceptable circumstances. An employer can not fire you “at will” in Germany.

by pc86 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

The hard to lay off makes it harder to hire as well. Sure you get the 6 month probation period, but it is risky to hire anyone because they might make it past those 6 months before bad times come. There is no good answer.

pc86 2y ago
You will have a hard time convincing me that at will employment and hire-fast-fire-fast mentality is not objectively better than whatever you might call the German-style system. (Notice I didn't say it's good, just better) The German-style system seems to treat a job as something the employee is guaranteed, that it's their inherent right to have, rather than something the employer chooses to give them. It doesn't seem to line up with reality.
- sofixa 2y ago
  Better for whom? I think most people sleep better knowing that they can't be let go for no reason, no notice and no severance tomorrow. Yes, you can lay off people in Germany, and France, and Italy. But there are rules, notice periods, and mandatory severances, as well as often (country dependent) consultation periods. In what way is that worse for the employee?
  - Eridrus 2y ago
    It's worse because people don't want to hire in those countries and the conjecture here is also that layoffs are unrelated to productivity, so there is nothing you can personally do to avoid getting laid off except having a family. So it's worse for people who are productive in their jobs. We were approached by a French startup looking for an acquihire and well, French labor law was a big reason not to do it (not because the people at the startup weren't good, but because staffing an Eng office around them was seen as too risky). To some extent perception is reality here; we didn't really know that much about French labor laws, but the reputation and uncertainty is the issue.
  - pc86 2y ago
    I'm not saying there should be no rules but saying "you can't lay off Employee A because he has kids, you have to lay off Employee B instead because they don't" with absolutely no consideration of work product is pretty asinine on its face. Laying people off is a business decision - forcing a company to justify that from a business context is probably a Good Thing, but injecting weird social requirements on top of that is silly.
    - Tade0 2y ago
      It makes sense if you consider the social cost of having children live through their parents' layoff. Meanwhile businesses enjoy the privilege of operating in a country where contracts are enforced and people are educated. In exchange they're expected to not treat their employees like cattle - that's not a lot to ask IMHO.

Eridrus 2y ago

I had the same reaction. This sort of law makes it very expensive to keep ambitious young folk like the author in a layoff. I am very confused about how this works in practice though. Presumably you're not expected to keep an old accountant with a family over a young childless developer, but where is that line actually drawn? Can you make such a distinction between teams, or are you expected to reassign people from a team that is being disbanded? What if they don't have some experience you would like, are you expected to train them?

jjmarr 2y ago
From this article by a German lawyer, "the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.": https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl > Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG provides four criteria that have to be taken into account in the selection decision: Length of service, age, statutory maintenance obligations and the employee's severe disability. > The employer must first determine which employees work at the same level in the company and can therefore be replaced. The group of employees determined in this way is what is known as a horizontal comparability. Social selection is then carried out in this group on the basis of the legally prescribed criteria. The members of the respective group are then ranked according to their need for social protection. > Older employees are more in need of protection than younger ones. A longer period of employment also increases the need for protection, as does the existence of statutory maintenance obligations and the presence of a severe disability. > Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG does not indicate how the social aspects mentioned are to be put in relation to each other, which is why each of the four criteria is to be given equal importance. > When reducing staff, employers often make use of point schemes through which points are assigned to the individual social criteria. It also gives information through which the need for social protection of the employees in the comparison group can be assessed. > All employees who are interchangeable must be included in the social selection. Criteria that can be used in this examination are the vocational training as well as the practical experience and knowledge that the respective employees have. If there is comparability, these workers are horizontally interchangeable. In practice, the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.

pgorczak 2y ago

> If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. At least this part is partially wrong. There is an entire law about how lay offs are only allowed if they are “socially justified” with definitions of acceptable circumstances. An employer can not fire you “at will” in Germany.