2 ms·
If you make it harder and more costly (on average) to fire people, companies will be more reluctant to hire. This goes for employees in general, and subgroups
by gojomo 13y ago
If you make it harder and more costly (on average) to fire people, companies will be more reluctant to hire.
This goes for employees in general, and subgroups ("protected classes") that public policy may be trying to help.
Housing anti-discrimination law can backfire in a similar way.
- rabino 13y agoNot really. Companies need to hire to make money, and that's a hell of a good motivator to hire anyway.
- gojomo 13y agoMore precisely, they want to make profits. Increasing the cost of new employees – compared to, say, overtime, outsourcing, automation, or other kinds of employees – decreases the hiring of the more-costly employees.
- troebr 13y agoIn France it's very hard to fire. What ends up happening is that consulting companies are popping up left and right, the result is that salaries are lower for employees (less leverage when negociating, no room for promotion, company cut, smaller term contracts, terrible perks), and for the company "renting" the consultant: higher costs and less commitment. It's tough to find the right balance: at will employment can lead to unfair situations for the employee, and strong regulations can lead to people abusing the system (like that guy I worked with who had been there for so long that he was cheaper to pay than to fire).