Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

If you operated a business, how would you feel being forced by the government to keep someone on your payroll who was not a good worker?

View on HN

That's not 'no reason'. Even for places that have pro-employee workplace laws there's often provisions for getting rid of employees who can't do what you pay them to do.

> employees who can't do what you pay them to do

What if they can do what you pay them to do, but you can no longer afford them?

That's exactly what a layoff is...the result of the fact that employing this group of people is economically unsensible.

I think the issue here is "at-will" policies in terms of firing people for no reason. Layoffs are an explicit reason.

There are different cases on "not able to afford".

In Germany cases where companies truly cannot afford the person the following rules apply:

1. there is absolutely no way for the person to conduct different work inside the company 2. the company needs to choose those that can more easily afford to be laid off. (employment duration, young, single etc) 3. the place of work has to permanently be gone

Beforehand, the company has to talk to the workers council though so they can possibly find solutions to the problem without having to fire people.

The flip side of such rules is it makes companies reluctant to hire in the first place.

Companies would be a lot more willing to take a chance on hiring someone if they know that they can let them go easily if things don't work out.

Yes. Unemployment is going to be 1-2% higher on average in Germany than in the USA. But it also doesnt fluctuate as much, which is a positive.

Again, many of these laws have provisions for redundancies for this exact situation.

It's not like that here (Australian), where you can lay someone off but it's not as simple as at will.

Simplifying a bit, you have to have attempted to help the employee meet standards, or find a suitable position. Also, if the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.

That's my general understanding as an employee.

> the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.

that seems to be beyond what an employer should have to bear. If an employee develops problems, it doesn't make sense for an employer to help them (unless it's from their job - e.g., a wine taster getting addicted to alcohol). They aint running a charity!

They aint running a charity, but they are running inside the society that these laws are trying to protect. As such they have to do their part. What that part is most countries define differently. Australia apparently defines it as seen above.

I worked in Melbourne for a year. My first day, the manager that hired me was made redundant. He had been at the company for years.

Ah yes, good point, of course there are exceptions and different circumstances for various industries and levels of employment or what have you.

My comment was intended in the context of a regular employee in the scope of "unfair dismissal"[1] which you may have a claim to if you believe your dismissal was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner." Slightly different rules for small businesses under 15 employees etc.

1. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismiss...

German here. Despite our strict employee rights laws, getting rid of bad performers is still easy.

I found it weird that a lot of people in Germany are expected to work the first 2~3 days for free, as like a trial. Is that common? I knew people who had to do that for Subway.

Most likely illegal. Its only legal if the workplace is not making you do actual work and is only keeping you there to observe. (and you can come and go as you like)

I'd feel disappointed in my hiring/interviewing practices.

What if your business wasn't doing well, or you wanted to change direction?

Then I should run my business better? And with adequate consideration of the costs of running said business.

Disclaimer: I have owned a small business (~$8MM/year revenue) with employees.

By that token, if being laid off is a terrible hardship for an employee, wouldn't one say that they should have made better financial decisions (eg, saving more)?

I'm not a Libertarian, and believe in strong labor protections as well as robust social safety nets.

You're free to make your argument though. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't agree with your sentiment.

So why do you think that anyone is entitled to have the rest of the world take care of them? Is nobody responsible for the outcome of their own actions in your worldview? Why is there no onus on individuals to save and take responsibility for their own financial well-being?

I don't see why you think being a libertarian or not has anything to do with anything, by the way.

No one is "forcing" you to keep an employee on pay roll. Just be reasonable and give them 4-6 weeks notice of termination of employment, with a valid reason of dismissal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com