4 ms·

I will embrace each of the supposedly problematic things you mentioned in your post any day. They seem rather fair to me. Do you have a different opinion? Why w

by kops 13y ago

I will embrace each of the supposedly problematic things you mentioned in your post any day. They seem rather fair to me. Do you have a different opinion? Why would you want startups to be exempt from this?

jrockway 13y ago
I think he wants to make sure people know what they're in for when they leave the US to start a company. In the US, as soon as you pay someone a salary, you basically own them. You can work them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no vacation or minimum wage. You don't have to provide benefits, and you can fire them for absolutely any reason at any time. You even own everything they do in their free time. That's simply not the case anywhere else in the world, and it may be surprising to people from the US.
- kops 13y ago
  It sounds even more surprising to me even though I have never been to US. Although I always dreamt to... Thanks for your post. I mean no disrespect, but could you please link to any references. Specially about the working hours, minimum wage and vacation etc. If it is true then I am going to do myself a favour and trash my US visa right away. I am not much of a traveller but I can always assume that grand canyon doesn't exist or that I can see it in a different life.... Edit: looks like you are right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - oijaf888 13y ago
    Not visiting the US as a tourist due to the laws on salaried employees seems a bit short sighted.
    - kops 13y ago
      I know it may sound illogical, but no decision is taken in isolation. Years ago I decided not to do anything with middle eastern countries for what they did to non-muslims, immigrants or to their own women. I still go fill gas in my car knowingly fully well how hypocritical it is, but I pray everyday for Elon Musk to succeed and for us to be off this hook. If US, a country made by immigrants, treats immigrants badly, thats enough for me to make a choice. It doesn't matter if it will have an impact or not. I really couldn't afford to care.... Having said that, if I were starving, I will go anywhere to make a living..and that really explains a lot of misery. I don't have any answers...sorry...
      - godzilla82 13y ago
        You are right, it is illogical indeed. Sorry. This is why I think every one should get a basic course in economics.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
    He's exaggerating somewhat. Bear in mind that no one is forcing the employee to accept this. You can leave a job at any time, for any reason with absolutely no notice just as easily as the employer can get rid of you. If I'm hired to work 40 hours/week for $100k year with 3 weeks vacation, I am entitled to all of that. If the employer then decides that I should work 80 hours a week and he will cut my pay to $60k/year and not let me take vacation, I can simply get up and leave and in most jurisdictions, that will be sufficient grounds for me to receive unemployment insurance while I look for my next job.
    - kops 13y ago
      > Bear in mind that no one is forcing the employee to accept this. That doesn't quite absolve the employer e.g. if I am stuck in sahara desert and bump into a man starving for days. At this time if I offer him food in return for his soul, would you consider it a fair trade? Even though the poor guy has a choice to reject my offer?
      - Symmetry 13y ago
        So, trading away one's soul might be considered short sighted and there's a whole argument to be had with regards to the state preventing us from making short sighted decisions, so lets say that the desert rescuer was demanding the starving life savings or something. It would certainly be a horrible person who would demand that much for saving a person's life. But if the only reason that this or other person was holding rescue patrols in the desert was that they were hoping to strike it rich exploiting lost souls, then as a society we either ought to allow this or use taxpayer money to fund our own rescue patrols. And remember that as a laborer you're not in anything like this situation. There's a lot of charity out there and though this won't make your life pleasant it will make you far better off than starving in the Sahara. And there is more than one potential employer out there bidding for your labor. And you can see that the system works because very few jobs only pay the minimum wage. If we were somehow to get into a situation where there was only a single employer in the country than I'd say that at that point some sort of government intervention might be called for.
- kcorbitt 13y ago
  I'm not sure that everything you said is correct, but the beauty of at-will employment is that it allows most of these problems to be solved by people looking to their own best interests. I don't know many companies that would try anything like that because their entire workforce would likely just give notice and quit. That's not in anyone's best interest, so labor conditions (at least in reasonably in-demand fields) tend to be sane. Of course, it's true that there are differences in the social contract you usually get working in the US compared to other places -- for instance, there is less expected vacation time here than in a lot of EU countries. But that's a tradeoff that people choose to make.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    The entire workforce can give notice and quit in those conditions in Europe, with better unemployment insurance, free health insurance and much more chance of being able to extricate a financial settlement from their employer for unfair treatment. I'm not saying nothing about at-will contracts filter down to benefit employees: US companies can often afford to pay higher salaries which on some occasions even correspond to higher hourly rates, and they can take more gambles on marginal job candidates. But it would be foolish to pretend it's a balanced tradeoff rather than a massive shift - fairly or otherwise - away from the interests of the median employee and towards the interests of the company.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Health insurance in Europe is not free; it's simply not managed by employers.
      - walshemj 13y ago
        For example in the uk around 11/12% of your pay is national insurance paying for social security and the NHS.
      - rbehrends 13y ago
        Free in this context usually means free at the point of purchase (with contributions being based upon ability to contribute; which, in particular, means that for the unemployed it can be entirely free). Employers contributing is actually pretty common (see e.g. Germany or the UK). The key part is that healthcare is not contingent upon employment (or being able to pay for it independently).
- tptacek 13y ago
  At-will employment and salary basis are orthogonal issues. At-will is not a feature of overtime exemption. No matter what kind of job you have, hourly or salaried, you can be severed at any time for no reason virtually anywhere in the US. At-will employment increases labor mobility and, very notably, makes entrepreneurship less risky by mitigating the problem of every termination being grounds for a lawsuit. At-will has social costs in other sectors where negotiating leverage isn't as balanced between buyers and sellers, but it is probably a significant net benefit for the tech sector. The swap that is supposed to take place for salary-basis employees is that employees exchange their right to overtime pay for an assurance of full salary payment regardless of hours worked. If you dock an exempt worker's pay for leaving early or coming in late, they revert to overtime-eligible status; that's something that came up at a company I once worked for. Obviously, the other swap that salaried employees make is higher compensation; salaried employees out-earn non-exempt employees.

by kops 13y ago

jrockway 13y ago

I think he wants to make sure people know what they're in for when they leave the US to start a company. In the US, as soon as you pay someone a salary, you basically own them. You can work them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no vacation or minimum wage. You don't have to provide benefits, and you can fire them for absolutely any reason at any time. You even own everything they do in their free time. That's simply not the case anywhere else in the world, and it may be surprising to people from the US.

kops 13y ago
It sounds even more surprising to me even though I have never been to US. Although I always dreamt to... Thanks for your post. I mean no disrespect, but could you please link to any references. Specially about the working hours, minimum wage and vacation etc. If it is true then I am going to do myself a favour and trash my US visa right away. I am not much of a traveller but I can always assume that grand canyon doesn't exist or that I can see it in a different life.... Edit: looks like you are right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- oijaf888 13y ago
  Not visiting the US as a tourist due to the laws on salaried employees seems a bit short sighted.
  - kops 13y ago
    I know it may sound illogical, but no decision is taken in isolation. Years ago I decided not to do anything with middle eastern countries for what they did to non-muslims, immigrants or to their own women. I still go fill gas in my car knowingly fully well how hypocritical it is, but I pray everyday for Elon Musk to succeed and for us to be off this hook. If US, a country made by immigrants, treats immigrants badly, thats enough for me to make a choice. It doesn't matter if it will have an impact or not. I really couldn't afford to care.... Having said that, if I were starving, I will go anywhere to make a living..and that really explains a lot of misery. I don't have any answers...sorry...
    - godzilla82 13y ago
      You are right, it is illogical indeed. Sorry. This is why I think every one should get a basic course in economics.
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  He's exaggerating somewhat. Bear in mind that no one is forcing the employee to accept this. You can leave a job at any time, for any reason with absolutely no notice just as easily as the employer can get rid of you. If I'm hired to work 40 hours/week for $100k year with 3 weeks vacation, I am entitled to all of that. If the employer then decides that I should work 80 hours a week and he will cut my pay to $60k/year and not let me take vacation, I can simply get up and leave and in most jurisdictions, that will be sufficient grounds for me to receive unemployment insurance while I look for my next job.
  - kops 13y ago
    > Bear in mind that no one is forcing the employee to accept this. That doesn't quite absolve the employer e.g. if I am stuck in sahara desert and bump into a man starving for days. At this time if I offer him food in return for his soul, would you consider it a fair trade? Even though the poor guy has a choice to reject my offer?
    - Symmetry 13y ago
      So, trading away one's soul might be considered short sighted and there's a whole argument to be had with regards to the state preventing us from making short sighted decisions, so lets say that the desert rescuer was demanding the starving life savings or something. It would certainly be a horrible person who would demand that much for saving a person's life. But if the only reason that this or other person was holding rescue patrols in the desert was that they were hoping to strike it rich exploiting lost souls, then as a society we either ought to allow this or use taxpayer money to fund our own rescue patrols. And remember that as a laborer you're not in anything like this situation. There's a lot of charity out there and though this won't make your life pleasant it will make you far better off than starving in the Sahara. And there is more than one potential employer out there bidding for your labor. And you can see that the system works because very few jobs only pay the minimum wage. If we were somehow to get into a situation where there was only a single employer in the country than I'd say that at that point some sort of government intervention might be called for.
kcorbitt 13y ago
I'm not sure that everything you said is correct, but the beauty of at-will employment is that it allows most of these problems to be solved by people looking to their own best interests. I don't know many companies that would try anything like that because their entire workforce would likely just give notice and quit. That's not in anyone's best interest, so labor conditions (at least in reasonably in-demand fields) tend to be sane. Of course, it's true that there are differences in the social contract you usually get working in the US compared to other places -- for instance, there is less expected vacation time here than in a lot of EU countries. But that's a tradeoff that people choose to make.
- notahacker 13y ago
  The entire workforce can give notice and quit in those conditions in Europe, with better unemployment insurance, free health insurance and much more chance of being able to extricate a financial settlement from their employer for unfair treatment. I'm not saying nothing about at-will contracts filter down to benefit employees: US companies can often afford to pay higher salaries which on some occasions even correspond to higher hourly rates, and they can take more gambles on marginal job candidates. But it would be foolish to pretend it's a balanced tradeoff rather than a massive shift - fairly or otherwise - away from the interests of the median employee and towards the interests of the company.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Health insurance in Europe is not free; it's simply not managed by employers.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      For example in the uk around 11/12% of your pay is national insurance paying for social security and the NHS.
    - rbehrends 13y ago
      Free in this context usually means free at the point of purchase (with contributions being based upon ability to contribute; which, in particular, means that for the unemployed it can be entirely free). Employers contributing is actually pretty common (see e.g. Germany or the UK). The key part is that healthcare is not contingent upon employment (or being able to pay for it independently).
tptacek 13y ago
At-will employment and salary basis are orthogonal issues. At-will is not a feature of overtime exemption. No matter what kind of job you have, hourly or salaried, you can be severed at any time for no reason virtually anywhere in the US. At-will employment increases labor mobility and, very notably, makes entrepreneurship less risky by mitigating the problem of every termination being grounds for a lawsuit. At-will has social costs in other sectors where negotiating leverage isn't as balanced between buyers and sellers, but it is probably a significant net benefit for the tech sector. The swap that is supposed to take place for salary-basis employees is that employees exchange their right to overtime pay for an assurance of full salary payment regardless of hours worked. If you dock an exempt worker's pay for leaving early or coming in late, they revert to overtime-eligible status; that's something that came up at a company I once worked for. Obviously, the other swap that salaried employees make is higher compensation; salaried employees out-earn non-exempt employees.