5 ms·

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 Ger

by 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.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      What social cost? You should not be so invested in your job that getting layoffs would have any social costs. There might be economic costs, but there are many ways to handle that so they don't become social costs.
s1mplicissimus 2y ago
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Duties and rights/freedoms are usually connected. Like you have the right to tiger arms, but that entails the duty to stash and use them responsibly. You have the right to ride your car where you want to go, but that entails the duty of obeying traffic laws. For this specific example: You have the duty to work, but that entails the right to have a job. Does it entail the right to have a job you find enjoyable or fulfilling? Hell no! (hour long commutes or jobs you are clearly overqualified for are things you'll just have to accept according to this model still. "Culture mismatch" is not in the vocabulary of social security payout offices, interestingly) To me it still sounds better than "no job? well guess bad luck for you" though. ymmv
- pc86 2y ago
  This just doesn't match up with reality IME. You don't have a right to drive your car anywhere - the state can revoke it. Many states have no laws at all about how to store firearms, and the ones that do in general are pretty hostile to the idea that you have a right to bear arms in the first place. You don't have a duty to work, someone isn't morally wrong because they live off family money. And you absolutely do not have a right to a job, because a job requires someone else to pay you money. Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    > Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money. In the not too distant past, you didn't need money to live. If you wanted to brave the elements, make your own shelter, grow/gather/hunt your own food, and deal with the threats on your own, you could do that. Now, you can't do that. Everything is owned. You need to have money to buy or lease land to live on. If nobody gives you money (or land), you can't make a life for yourself, because one must live on land, and all the land is owned. Does this mean that people have a right to receive money? I'm not sure about that. I think the argument that people should have a right to be able to work and receive money has some merit, although certainly flaws too. It is at least worth considering that the world and society has changed and crystallized substantially over the last couple centuries, and the system of money is forced upon everyone.
__turbobrew__ 2y ago
At will employment means it is lower risk to pay employees high salaries. People in US tech clear $500k/year because if you are worth the $500k/yr the business keeps you as the arrangement is mutually beneficial and if you are not worth the $500k/yr you are gone. You cannot have it both ways. Either high salaries and easy to fire or low salaries and hard to fire. For me personally, at will employment has been beneficial. I make around 4x as much money as my European peers and I aggressively save. At this point I could be out of a job for 10 years and still be ahead of those working in Europe.

by pc86 2y ago

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.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    What social cost? You should not be so invested in your job that getting layoffs would have any social costs. There might be economic costs, but there are many ways to handle that so they don't become social costs.

s1mplicissimus 2y ago

I guess it's a matter of perspective. Duties and rights/freedoms are usually connected. Like you have the right to tiger arms, but that entails the duty to stash and use them responsibly. You have the right to ride your car where you want to go, but that entails the duty of obeying traffic laws. For this specific example: You have the duty to work, but that entails the right to have a job. Does it entail the right to have a job you find enjoyable or fulfilling? Hell no! (hour long commutes or jobs you are clearly overqualified for are things you'll just have to accept according to this model still. "Culture mismatch" is not in the vocabulary of social security payout offices, interestingly) To me it still sounds better than "no job? well guess bad luck for you" though. ymmv

pc86 2y ago
This just doesn't match up with reality IME. You don't have a right to drive your car anywhere - the state can revoke it. Many states have no laws at all about how to store firearms, and the ones that do in general are pretty hostile to the idea that you have a right to bear arms in the first place. You don't have a duty to work, someone isn't morally wrong because they live off family money. And you absolutely do not have a right to a job, because a job requires someone else to pay you money. Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  > Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money. In the not too distant past, you didn't need money to live. If you wanted to brave the elements, make your own shelter, grow/gather/hunt your own food, and deal with the threats on your own, you could do that. Now, you can't do that. Everything is owned. You need to have money to buy or lease land to live on. If nobody gives you money (or land), you can't make a life for yourself, because one must live on land, and all the land is owned. Does this mean that people have a right to receive money? I'm not sure about that. I think the argument that people should have a right to be able to work and receive money has some merit, although certainly flaws too. It is at least worth considering that the world and society has changed and crystallized substantially over the last couple centuries, and the system of money is forced upon everyone.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago

At will employment means it is lower risk to pay employees high salaries. People in US tech clear $500k/year because if you are worth the $500k/yr the business keeps you as the arrangement is mutually beneficial and if you are not worth the $500k/yr you are gone. You cannot have it both ways. Either high salaries and easy to fire or low salaries and hard to fire. For me personally, at will employment has been beneficial. I make around 4x as much money as my European peers and I aggressively save. At this point I could be out of a job for 10 years and still be ahead of those working in Europe.