> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily.
Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring?
> In Europe where firing is almost impossible
It is called "job security" - if you hired somebody, you "promised" them to pay a wage. If they are not needed anymore, you need to keep on promise and pay a wage. For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time.
So it is not impossible in Europe. It is expensive at most because it only looks reasonable.
> Companies are big and look financially stable
Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? All the Scandinavian startups? And etc.?
Most industries would deserve less barriers of entry and less legal protections, it would favor the little ones.
Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !)
If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways
> If there is an economic crisis and you forbid firing, the only solution is to close companies. Societe re organizes itself at each crisis, so the people laid off need to find new ways
Firing isn't entirely forbidden for a start.
Secondly, if companies know that firing has a cost they're more likely to grow their headcount in line with what they're able to support. Making firing cheap only serves to encourage the type of behaviour that leads to instability in an economic crisis.
> Of course employment is an exchange of promises between employer and employees to bring stability for less money and less risks. But if the exchange benefits both sides, there is no reason to forbid both parties to negotiate whatever they prefer. In Europe there are too many legal hurdles (called "protection" of course they're going to choose a positive word !)
The vast majority of employee/employer relationships have a power balance that's vastly in favour of the employer. Even for those of us lucky enough to be in tech, we've seen that employers are more than willing to secretly conspire in order to drive employee wages below what would have been the market rate.
> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time.
I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company.
My plan was always to use where I worked as a stepping stone for my next job. I spent my first two years saving money and building my resume. I have spent most of my career “with my running shoes on”. Meaning I’m always prepared for a layoff or to leave when the pay/bullshit ratio is going in the wrong direction.
My employer owes me nothing besides to pay me for the hours I worked. When that arrangement isn’t working for either of us, we both have agency and the ability to terminate that arrangement.
> Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring?
I lived through both the 2000 crash and 2008-2011. The 2000 crash wasn’t bad if you had both skills and was working in many major cities in the US as just a regular old enterprise developer working for profitable non tech companies.
2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.
> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company.
You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.
I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active.
> In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today".
I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day.
> Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else"
Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.
No I didn’t misinterpret you. I agree healthcare in the US is a shit show and the idea of tying your health care to your employer is asinine.
I’m taking that same opinion to its logical conclusion. We already have employer funded state controlled unemployment insurance. Increase that, have companies pay more if necessary and along with untying health care from your employer, we are there.
I misunderstood you.
This is not that different to what happens where I am (except the taxes come from both the employer and the employee), though both need to be increased to improve unemployment benefits and healthcare.
> I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company.
If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances?
> 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.
The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.
> If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances?
If society thinks there should be a safety net, and I agree, then society should take responsibility in the form of insuring that safety net is available. I have no problem with company funded, state run unemployment insurance, I think that the idea of your health insurance being tied to your job is asinine, etc.
But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day?
But why should it be on the company?
> The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.
And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?
> But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day?
It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities.
Personally I'd like to reach a point where society provides enough for a comfortable existence e.g. shelter, food, safety, healthcare, and a small disposable income for hobbies/leisure. At that point I think most people would be in a position where walking away from abusive employer is an actual option and not a punishing risk.
> But why should it be on the company?
It wouldn't need to be if social safety nets were strong enough. As it stands, losing your job has a much bigger impact on an employee than the employer.
Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially.
> And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?
I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated. The employer/employee relationship is nominally one where the employee accepts a reduction in risk in exchange for giving up some of the value of your labour. Bankruptcy law in many places doesn't seem to respect this.
> Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially.
In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force. As far as financially, I don’t have any moral objection to unemployment insurance being higher if we as a society choose for it to be higher.
> I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated
The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.
Don’t get me wrong, this was 2012 and everyone from developers to tech support found a job quickly and we had plenty of warning.
The eventual acquirer laid almost everyone off immediately with a 1 month severance pay.
> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force
Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.
> The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.
Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors.
If there were unpaid wages, then at some point the people running that company continued requiring their employees' labour despite knowing they couldn't keep their end of the contract. Some exceptions might be justifiable for smaller companies but I think we're far too lenient on people who knowingly steal from employees.
Most tech workers can deal with unpaid wages but I've seen it happen to bar and restaurant workers that aren't in as secure a position. The owners wind down the company and leave wages unpaid while immediately creating a new one in the same unit.
> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.
Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?
> Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors
A software companies only
assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.
Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.
> Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?
Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason.
If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit.
> A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.
There's also IP but I think that's missing the point. Getting paid something is better than nothing and many companies do have assets that would cover some/all of their outstanding payroll. At the moment, as far as I'm aware, employee payroll is fairly far down the list of creditors. I believe it should be first.
> Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.
I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.
> Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason
It’s not a good reason that “we don’t have the money” or “we decided that our horse and buggy manufacturing division is no longer the direction we are going”?
A company is not a charity. The purpose of a company is to sell things at profit and they hire you with an understanding of exchanging labor for money.
> I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.
So are you going to force investors to keep funding companies when they run out of money?
> Because everything costs less and it costs less to expand your business.
What's become cheaper in the current economic crisis?
There are by definition, fewer jobs available in total during an economic crisis. More competition for those positions also makes it likely that living standards will decrease.
> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily.
If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse.
> It is called "job security"
An outdated concept of the XX century. No such thing in the post-industrial society.
> Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean?
They are closing by thousands now, like in every other economic crisis. And Scandinavian startups — what Scandinavian startups? (Finland and Estonia are not Scandinavian countries, they have somewhat more business-friendly environment).
> If there is another economic crisis and nobody is hiring, preventing companies to fire people will make the crisis even worse.
Companies that know firing is difficult will hire less aggressively. They are also more likely to accept a deeper reduction in profits before laying people off. The result is a higher threshold of economic instability before the company lets people go. The US approach is like playing speed Jenga, you build something that will inevitably collapse.
Mass layoffs only serve to deepen an economic crisis. You remove a huge sum of disposable income from the economy which only contributes to more closures/layoffs. The result is an increased concentration of assets in the hands of those with the most access to capital during the crisis.
This is why there are so few growth-oriented startups in Europe, and so few chances to compete with large companies who can afford absorbing such losses. And (at least in tech) such low salaries, compared to US-based companies.
European economic model simply cannot compete. US domination in tech is growing each year.
Frankly I don't think the US model is something we should be competing with for the same reasons I don't think we should be emulating sweatshops in China or India. Based on recent stock trends their value is largely hypothetical and based on both hype and the assumption that they're able to grow indefinitely. I'd be happier to exclude them from our markets entirely.
The growth-oriented model that's become popular in the US looks increasingly like a cancer that only serves to concentrate wealth. There were a few early successes but it seems far more common that these startups "succeed" by distorting a functioning market with external capital and destroying sustainable businesses operating in the sector through price dumping.
Once they've captured enough of the market they'll IPO and either collapse entirely when their business model proves to be entirely unsustainable without infinite VC funds or limp along providing inferior service and labour conditions to those available beforehand. Either way harm is caused.
The model is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fair and healthy competition and ultimately makes success a function of who has the most money to burn.
It's helpful to think of the USA as a gigantic factory that produces billionaires. The manufacturing process runs off of energy ("money") provided by banks, investors and government, and the raw materials that get consumed and discarded are the lives and livelihoods of workers, and the end product that pops off the assembly line is "wealthy people".
The options aren't limited to authoritarian dictatorship and capitalist oligopoly.
In the same vein it isn't communist to suggest that billionaires should maybe remain slightly smaller billionaires in order to provide workers a decent quality of life.
Until fairly recently you could support a household on one income in most western countries. We're now seeing people struggling on two after decades of tax cuts and historically low tax burdens on the extremely wealthy.
“Minimum wage” is fiction. There are many countries (including European countries) that do not have minimum wage. It doesn’t have any base in reality, and people should not accept such ridiculous salaries. That’s what unions and labor negotiations are for.
Why is job security outdated? The ‘gig economy’ with flexible arrangements seems to suit exploitative employers great. Workers peeing in bottles and the workplace culture in such jobs seems Dickensian.
What is the point of a job? To me the point is to look after people (from both the employer and employee’s perspective).
Because the entire economic structure that supported “jobs” has deteriorated and became unsustainable. It was only working in industrial society with tangible outputs. “Jobs” were a temporary development only suitable for a particular social structure: industrial capitalism. Now we still have capitalism, but no more industrial society.
See Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave” for more detailed treatment.
> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily.
Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring?
> In Europe where firing is almost impossible
It is called "job security" - if you hired somebody, you "promised" them to pay a wage. If they are not needed anymore, you need to keep on promise and pay a wage. For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time.
So it is not impossible in Europe. It is expensive at most because it only looks reasonable.
> Companies are big and look financially stable
Unless you count all the mom and pop cafes all over the Mediterranean? All the Scandinavian startups? And etc.?