Hacker News Reader

Comment by noobiemcfoob | Hacker News Reader

> it does mean that it's quite hard to fire an underperforming dev, because how the hell do you prove they're underperforming? What metric do you use?

I think your criticism of 'at-will' employment is unfounded in this scenario. Having lower guardrails on employment means it's not as pressing to figure out performance metrics. If the company narrative is that an employee is helpful to the mission, then there isn't much cause to fret for a more perfect metric. And at-will means you can test more employees before committing to a few for longer than a couple years.

View on HN

I didn't express any direct or detailed criticism of at-will in my comment, just my gladness that we don't have it.

Why, despite the difficulties it causes me when dealing with poor performing devs, am I happy we don't have at-will?

Because at-will dramatically distorts the employer - employee social contract in favour of the employer. And employers already have a disparately large amount of power over their employees as it is. So there you go, that's my criticism of at-will employment. It puts the well being of the employer ahead of the well being of the employee.

You can have a trial period without "at-will".

Gladness you don't have it is criticism you're trying to hide behind semantics.

You and I seem to have different ideas of an employment social contract (or non-existence of one). Unless you're interested to dig into that difference, I don't think we have anywhere else to go with this thread.

Gladness: "I'm glad i don't have a million dollars to manage in my bank account, just getting the best from my small savings is stressing me out!"

Thankfully: "My bank account (thankfully) lacks a Bill Gates' sized stash of greenbacks, it does mean that it's impossible to buy a mansion though"

I'm not criticising the concept of a million dollars in either of these statements. Thankfully, as used in the original context means something quite different to the meaning you've derived.

I might still actually have a bone fide criticism of a million dollars, but that's neither here nor there in the context of either statement.

I think wrapping it up's a fair shout though so no hard feelings and all the best.

At will doesn't mean you can test out more employees. It means you don't have to pay anyone any pay when you let them go.

It has side-effects. A worker will bolt at the first better opportunity or when your company looks like they are in trouble because they have to. It also raises wages as people changes jobs more often.

> I think your criticism of 'at-will' employment

There was no criticism of at-will employment in the parent post.

That's a hair trigger you've got yourself there fella.

> In my country, which (thankfully) lacks America's "at-will" employment contract

I'm sorry, is that not obviously criticism? My parser must be busted again.

Looks like it is criticism of America's "at-will" labor laws to me too.

No, it's not. Which is why I made my post.

Ah, noted. Thanks for the education.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com