6 ms·

Well, in many countries it is illegal. I'm not really looking to debate the rights or wrongs of at will employment, but it's pretty common in Europe that sacki

Well, in many countries it is illegal. I'm not really looking to debate the rights or wrongs of at will employment, but it's pretty common in Europe that sacking a worker requires going through a lot of legal hoops (broadly speaking, unless they've committed gross misconduct, you have to show that you've made efforts to help them improve, that you've provided guidance, and that you've given clear and explicit warnings). Laying them off in Zynga's circumstances involves statutory redundancy regulations (including minimum redundancy payouts according to length of service etc etc). So I think that it is somewhat unfair to say that their position is fundamentally juvenile or under-informed - agree with it or not, laws based on the principle that you can't sack employees at will are very well entrenched and popular in a number of countries.

cremnob 14y ago
And this is one of the reasons unemployment in certain Eurozone countries is so high. It's better not to hire when you're unsure about future demand because you're sure as hell not going to be able to fire them.
- mweibel 14y ago
  This is plain wrong. Unemployment in Eurozone is so high because of a lot of other Problems. Switzerland has also quite a lot of laws which protect employees and the rate is lower than in a lot of countries.
  - cmccabe 14y ago
    Please read what economists have written before you add your opinion. One analysis of Europe's inflexible labor market is here, by the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/06/soltwede.htm http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/06/soltwede.h... Europe's ridiculous labor regulations do more to strangle startups in the crib than almost anything else. Zynga may have done some unethical things, but firing employees they didn't need was not one of them.
    - objclxt 14y ago
      "Europe's ridiculous labor regulations do more to strangle startups in the crib than almost anything else" Or alternatively, and this is just my opinion here, you could say that Europe's labor regulations help protect employees from unscrupulous employers seeking to take advantage. I just don't buy the argument that EU labour laws "strangle startups". Firstly, the actual laws vary from country to country. Secondly, most labour restrictions are phased in over the course of employment. For example, in the UK employees can be dismissed without reason for up two years from the date of hiring. I doubt this is "strangling" start-ups, especially when you consider that in the start-up space many people work less than two years per company. Perhaps you personally have had some bad experiences, but I don't go to meet-ups around Europe and hear people saying "if only we had a labor market that favoured employers more, then I could get my start-up off the ground!" Let me put it another way: last month, the UK government put forward some proposals that would drastically reduce employee rights in exchange for companies offering employees small (£2-10k) amounts of equity when they joined. If what you say is true, you would expect companies to jump at the chance. However, the CBI (the main lobby group for British industry) was very luke-warm towards the proposals. They felt that labor laws in the UK were not "strangling" business in the UK, and were in fact an issue of secondary importance when compared to tax incentives and other financial matters.
      - cmccabe 14y ago
        It's difficult to make generalizations about "Europe" because each country has its own set of labor laws. From what I hear, Britain has a pretty heavy tax situation. This leads to multi-national companies setting up "dutch sandwiches" and other ridiculous tax schemes. They end up paying very little; small and medium-sized businesses pay the full amount. I'm not surprised that various business interests felt that tax reform should be high up on the government's agenda. I don't see how it in any way invalidates the need for other reforms. I also don't see why making people ridiculously hard to fire is "favoring employees." Maybe it just disadvantages employees who are actually good at their jobs, but didn't manage to get in the door before the incompetent or unsuitable ones? I've been fired before. It's part of life, like breaking up with a significant other. Relationships that have gone bad shouldn't be forced to fester. For an extreme example of "pro-employee" (but not really) regulations gone bad, check out Spain. More than half of young people under 25 cannot get a job, because of the gold-plated employment contracts their elders negotiated years ago. The unemployment rate for the country as a whole is at least 25% now. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/europe-youth-unemployment-opportunity-abroad_n_1727251.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/europe-youth-unempl.... Spain has a two-tier labor market where temporary employees are treated very poorly, and usually fired before various "magic dates" kick in when they would automatically get benefits. In the meantime, full-time employees are virtually unsackable and coddled. The older generation, like vampires, are living off the young. Entrepreneurs in France are also having problems: http://www.economist.com/node/21564609 http://www.economist.com/node/21564609
- matthewowen 14y ago
  I don't have the data or expertise to determine whether or not the increased stability provided by said employment laws (and by the differing approaches to unemployment benefits / 'the social safety net' which go hand in hand with them) provides consumer confidence that (at least in principle) increases demand to an extent that offsets the economic disadvantages of making companies more cautious about growth. It's also hard to determine whether there are social benefits to such policies that outweigh possible economic disadvantages. Of course, this is rather a side-issue: many countries have a concept of 'temporary' vs 'permanent' employees, which introduces different dynamics and problems into the system. It is an interesting topic. I suspect it won't be resolved in a comment thread on HN.
  - davidw 14y ago
    > I suspect it won't be resolved in a comment thread on HN. Nor will Anonymous hacking some company whose employees, in the grand scheme of things, are pretty well off.
Deestan 14y ago
> it's pretty common in Europe that sacking a worker requires going through a lot of legal hoops If the position is truly superfluous (1) and you can't use the employee in another position (2), sacking is entirely hassle-free. (1) This implies that you cannot hire into this position for 1 year, without offering it to the previously sacked employee first. (2) Considering reasonable retraining and acceptable skillset.

cremnob 14y ago

And this is one of the reasons unemployment in certain Eurozone countries is so high. It's better not to hire when you're unsure about future demand because you're sure as hell not going to be able to fire them.

mweibel 14y ago
This is plain wrong. Unemployment in Eurozone is so high because of a lot of other Problems. Switzerland has also quite a lot of laws which protect employees and the rate is lower than in a lot of countries.
- cmccabe 14y ago
  Please read what economists have written before you add your opinion. One analysis of Europe's inflexible labor market is here, by the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/06/soltwede.htm http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/06/soltwede.h... Europe's ridiculous labor regulations do more to strangle startups in the crib than almost anything else. Zynga may have done some unethical things, but firing employees they didn't need was not one of them.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    "Europe's ridiculous labor regulations do more to strangle startups in the crib than almost anything else" Or alternatively, and this is just my opinion here, you could say that Europe's labor regulations help protect employees from unscrupulous employers seeking to take advantage. I just don't buy the argument that EU labour laws "strangle startups". Firstly, the actual laws vary from country to country. Secondly, most labour restrictions are phased in over the course of employment. For example, in the UK employees can be dismissed without reason for up two years from the date of hiring. I doubt this is "strangling" start-ups, especially when you consider that in the start-up space many people work less than two years per company. Perhaps you personally have had some bad experiences, but I don't go to meet-ups around Europe and hear people saying "if only we had a labor market that favoured employers more, then I could get my start-up off the ground!" Let me put it another way: last month, the UK government put forward some proposals that would drastically reduce employee rights in exchange for companies offering employees small (£2-10k) amounts of equity when they joined. If what you say is true, you would expect companies to jump at the chance. However, the CBI (the main lobby group for British industry) was very luke-warm towards the proposals. They felt that labor laws in the UK were not "strangling" business in the UK, and were in fact an issue of secondary importance when compared to tax incentives and other financial matters.
    - cmccabe 14y ago
      It's difficult to make generalizations about "Europe" because each country has its own set of labor laws. From what I hear, Britain has a pretty heavy tax situation. This leads to multi-national companies setting up "dutch sandwiches" and other ridiculous tax schemes. They end up paying very little; small and medium-sized businesses pay the full amount. I'm not surprised that various business interests felt that tax reform should be high up on the government's agenda. I don't see how it in any way invalidates the need for other reforms. I also don't see why making people ridiculously hard to fire is "favoring employees." Maybe it just disadvantages employees who are actually good at their jobs, but didn't manage to get in the door before the incompetent or unsuitable ones? I've been fired before. It's part of life, like breaking up with a significant other. Relationships that have gone bad shouldn't be forced to fester. For an extreme example of "pro-employee" (but not really) regulations gone bad, check out Spain. More than half of young people under 25 cannot get a job, because of the gold-plated employment contracts their elders negotiated years ago. The unemployment rate for the country as a whole is at least 25% now. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/europe-youth-unemployment-opportunity-abroad_n_1727251.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/europe-youth-unempl.... Spain has a two-tier labor market where temporary employees are treated very poorly, and usually fired before various "magic dates" kick in when they would automatically get benefits. In the meantime, full-time employees are virtually unsackable and coddled. The older generation, like vampires, are living off the young. Entrepreneurs in France are also having problems: http://www.economist.com/node/21564609 http://www.economist.com/node/21564609
matthewowen 14y ago
I don't have the data or expertise to determine whether or not the increased stability provided by said employment laws (and by the differing approaches to unemployment benefits / 'the social safety net' which go hand in hand with them) provides consumer confidence that (at least in principle) increases demand to an extent that offsets the economic disadvantages of making companies more cautious about growth. It's also hard to determine whether there are social benefits to such policies that outweigh possible economic disadvantages. Of course, this is rather a side-issue: many countries have a concept of 'temporary' vs 'permanent' employees, which introduces different dynamics and problems into the system. It is an interesting topic. I suspect it won't be resolved in a comment thread on HN.
- davidw 14y ago
  > I suspect it won't be resolved in a comment thread on HN. Nor will Anonymous hacking some company whose employees, in the grand scheme of things, are pretty well off.

Deestan 14y ago

> it's pretty common in Europe that sacking a worker requires going through a lot of legal hoops If the position is truly superfluous (1) and you can't use the employee in another position (2), sacking is entirely hassle-free. (1) This implies that you cannot hire into this position for 1 year, without offering it to the previously sacked employee first. (2) Considering reasonable retraining and acceptable skillset.