Ask HN: Why on Earth does Europe have 3 month notice periods to switch jobs? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why on Earth does Europe have 3 month notice periods to switch jobs?

39 pointshash872149 comments

I'm an American looking to hire developers in the EU for one of our business units. I've been absolutely astonished by European employment 'contracts' that require a 3 month (!) or longer (!!) notice period to quit a job. It's difficult for me to understand how this isn't indentured servitude, especially in a region known for its stronger labor protections than the US. Here in America employees customarily put in 2-3 weeks of notice, maybe 4- but it's purely a courtesy, and technically the employee could leave literally anytime they want.

A contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?) I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone- so this must greatly restrict labor mobility and hence wages. How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

View on HN

> by European employment 'contracts'

With great variations between member states. Germany has long notice periods, Greece has as short as 2 weeks notice.

> how this isn't indentured servitude

Labour law extends similar protections to employees. A long notice period simply levels the playing fields by returning some protection to employers. That's why in the EU there aren't mass layoffs like in the US right now, or riots, or mass shootings.

> (What happens if you ignore it?)

Maybe nothing, depends on how litigious the employer is. Usually a shorter notice period can be negotiated, eg. by agreeing to some un/pre-paid post-departure consulting for the previous employer.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter

It's about planning. I wouldn't want to work for an employer who is hiring in panic because they haven't foreseen labour needs. I'd be afraid that they'd let me go as easily as they have hired me.

> so this must greatly restrict labor mobility

Yes

> and hence wages

That is why you are trying to hire in Europe, aren't you?

> How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

Because it is literally the law.

1. There are layoffs in EU but they are not click worthy as those in Silicon Valley.

https://sifted.eu/articles/startup-tech-company-layoffs-2023...

At least in Sweden (and I believe Germany is similar) there are no layoffs as you see in the US. In Sweden an employer might extend an offer to buy you out of your employment contract, which you can deny and continue to be employed. If they want to do layoffs they will have to follow LAS which has a few provisions on how it should be done, including a LIFO order for who gets shafted, and any positions considered "redundant" not being able to be hired at all for a few months (I believe it's 6 months but I might be wrong).

The US also has provisions on layoffs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/10/warn-act-what-every-us-worke...

Employment contracts will prevent mass shootings?

Employment does

Unemployment rates:

USA: 3.4% Spain: 13.1% Greece: 11.6% Italy: 7.8% Cypus: 7.7% [...] Malta: 3.2% Germany: 2.9% Poland: 2.9% Czechia: 2.3%

That'll be some gymnastics.

If you are unemployed in most EU countries you are not at risk of dying because you can't afford healthcare, food and shelter. Less desperation for the unemployed is better for society.

Employment security also helps mental health, you don't need to live in pure anxiety and fear that someone else might take your job next week.

Eh, to be fair to his argument, 'unemployment' is just a survey measuring who is actively looking for new employment but can't find it. Most developed countries have a higher rate of prime-age (25-60) employment than the US. I like that metric better, you're just looking nationally at what % of adults are employed overall

Those are the official numbers after the US changed the way it counts unemployment so as to appear better.

If you go back to the way unemployment was counted before President G. W. Bush, you end up with higher rates.

The current U-6 unemployment rate in the U.S. is 6.6%. That adds back in discouraged workers, workers on long-term unemployment, and workers on part-time employment because of the economy.

European governments commit massive fraud with how they count their unemployment numbers as well, so comparisons are difficult.

USA unemployment is 7,4% [1]. Spain, Greece, Italy's unemployment is highly seasonal - in summer it drops to almost 0%, meaning the majority of the population has some (untaxed) income to keep them afloat through the entire year.

[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_u_6_unemployment_rate_unad...

> USA unemployment is 7,4%

The not commonly used U-6 is, yeah, but even your link mentions that U-3 is commonly used, and why would you compare different unemployment rates between countries? Here [1] is Destatis from December 2022 with data for all EU countries and the US for comparison.

> Spain, Greece, Italy's unemployment is highly seasonal - in summer it drops to almost 0%

In June 2022, Spain had 12.6% (2021: 15.3%), Greece had 12.3% (15.0%) and Italy 8.1% (9.4%), see [2] from Eurostat.

Is this going to turn into a session of frantic googling to find numbers that support your claim that you based upon feelings and prejudices instead of facts?

[1] https://www.destatis.de/Europa/EN/Topic/Population-Labour-So...

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/14675433/3-0...

It doesn't really matter either way. Unemployed people in most EU countries do have access to healthcare, benefits that keep them from starving, etc.

Not a paradise, but not a hellhole.

Certainly, though that typically depends on where you live, and as a general rule, social security gets better the further north you go, and that's also where unemployment is low, while the situation looks tougher in Spain, Italy or Greece.

But that's besides the point, the claim was that employment has something to do with it, not the extent of the welfare state.

Yes, that tends to be true.

On the other hand, a lot of things influence employment beyond labor protection as well.

Yes. You have less to lose.

Mass shootings happen because people get to the extreme point of disconnection where they just say "burn it all, I'm going out in a blaze..." These aren't people that feel connected to anything (coworkers, family, schoolmates, teams).

Even if other things are lacking, employment can bring connection.

In general Europe tends to provide a stronger social net. Not just labor laws but what happens when you are out of job, have disability, etc. Some might argue that the poor are less poor and the rich are less rich (less disparity) which overall contributes to a better social climate and better mental health.

Would you rather be sick and poor in the US or in a more socialist country? Of course there's nothing like being wealthy in the US but if you fall behind in the US, there's definitely less support for you and might make people more.. desperate. US also has the highest incarcerated rate in the western world for a reason.

Those are all opinions and I have nothing to quote, but it's hard to argue that there is a strong difference in how societies are structured and what support they provide to their citizens to live a better life

Better work life balance as well may I add. It isn't appreciated that you're working long hours. Clock strikes 6 and day is over.

"If something isn't done within working hours, either it wasn't meant to be and was underestimated or you're not working effectively" sort of.

> Of course there's nothing like being wealthy in the US

This is one of the interesting aspects of inequality that I've found. Do the rich in the US actually seem fabulously happy to you? Like does Elon Musk demanding that Twitter engineers add a 1000 multiplier to his popularity score seem like the actions of a happy man?

I'm sure they are happier than the poor, but it may be that massive inequality in societies actually has negative effects on those at the top as well. This is actually what Robert Sapolsky found in his studies of primate societies, and while humans might not just be any other primate society, we are that as well.

> Like does Elon Musk demanding that Twitter engineers add a 1000 multiplier to his popularity score seem like the actions of a happy man?

Not at all, but my suspicion is that you may have causality backwards there.

I suspect that Musk is driven to do what he does by his various personality issues, rather than his personality issues being caused by his wealth.

I can understand not being satisfied with mere early retirement after PayPal, but simultaneously gambling on Tesla and SpaceX is extremely unusual, and very little about Hyperloop/TBC, Neuralink, and the purchase of Twitter really makes much sense except as a desire to be seen as a modern Da Vinci.

I've heard him described as narcissistic; I'm not qualified to say if he is that clinically or merely to the extent of an actor or YouTuber, but he certainly doesn't seem like he'll ever really feel secure in his connection to others.

I'm still not sure what to make of his clear humility about the success prospects for each new rocket's first launch, vs. the apparent hubris in every other field.

It was a fairly quick example, mostly because he was at the top of the heap of wealth for at least a bit in the last couple years; I haven't spent much time examining the psychology of Musk beyond what leaks through in his actions (which is no small amount). But it does appear that some positive feedback mechanisms have a hold of him, and I don't think that's something that more wealth will help.

Social security nets probably do.

People are arguing this in the comments, but: no, obviously not, mass shootings are not directly anything to do with employment, but they are a policy choice which Europeans and Americans cannot understand each other over.

half the mass shootings are done by young/students?

South europe countries have ~ 50% youth unemployment and very little prospects however there's no mass shootings?

No mass shootings, but do look up knife crime and sexual assault statistics.

Different implements, same outcomes unfortunately.

And youth unemployment is one of the problems that Europe has that America doesn't have nearly as badly.

> No mass shootings, but do look up knife crime and sexual assault statistics.

You can be certain that has nothing to do with unemployment.

Last time I looked US gun+knife crime had far more victims than European knife crime. Even in Glasgow, former knife crime capital of Europe, which had a very successful violence reduction project.

https://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-co... : "the most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself."

US crime is high, but falling from its very high peak, more or less independently of who's President.

And otherwise insightful comment making the absolutely bizarre connection between long employment notice periods and riots and mass shootings.

More social security means more stable and less violent society, so it is an exaggeration but it is not wrong.

Are we sure it isn't just tied to the number of guns in circulation that mentally unwell people have access to?

Is that not related in a roundabout way?

Part of the reason the US has dismal social security is the same "dog eat dog" hyper individualistic mentality that is also present in people thinking it's their sacred right to own assault rifles and shit.

At least that's my impression from the outside. I never really went to the US to taste it first hand.

stable less violent right up until the revolution ..

I think for many of us outside the US, your culture of dog eat dog and I owe nothing to nobody except my sacred duty to get rich is the root of your social problems.

It's not American culture, it's that capitalist culture gets traction here first. So... brace yourselves. Maybe with kevlar.

More eloquently: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

Let me turn that around and suggest that when America finally embrace universal culture, it will understand that arming every random person with an assault rifle with extended magazine is a very, very bad idea.

I agree, but your response has little to do with my comment.

America has its fair share of problems. However, after having lived in several European countries for the better part of a decade, let us not delude ourselves to the myriad of problems, albeit different, that euro countries have.

And they're not better problems either, they're just different.

Wonderful bit of whataboutism! Now please respond to the argument.

lol i wonder where this culture of 'you must respond to my internet comment on my own terms' comes from? 'now please' explain this

Who knows. He's most likely salty that I poured cold reality on his fetishization of Europe. This happened to me a lot when I came back to America as there's a certain group of people who really do think Europe is better than America when the reality on the ground is far from it.

Last I heard, France also had a lot of riots in spite of being a staunchly socialist society.

I'm an American living in France. I get panicked messages from family all the time about this. It's incredible how much American media overstated the gravity of protests in France. Protests happen every weekend. Always registered with the police. But you often have "spoilers" who are just kids looking to break things. In rare cases, it's actually real protesters. And even then, the scope of the "rioting" is limited to one or two blocks maximum.

All the storefronts have insurance so any visible damage is quickly repaired.

I have never seen a riot in Paris and I've been here since 2020. Nor does it interfere with the lives of anyone I know here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests - French people are angry as well and they called themselves "yellow vests", both literally and figuratively, to get noticed. By people like you who don't seem notice.

It’s probably at the root of some of the US’s social problems, but perhaps a bigger factor in the US having loads of mass shootings is ready availability of guns suited to doing mass shootings with.

There have been mass shootings in many European countries, and in most cases they’ve led to heavy crackdowns on the availability of appropriate weapons, after which the mass shootings stop.

For what it's worth, one of the main contributing factors to terroristic activity is lack of economic prospects. Similar enough that it rings true to me. Also, consider that pre-Columbine, the cultural template for mass shootings was someone disgruntled about their workplace.

Hence the US phrase “going postal”.

Correlation is not causation. At least I'd ask you to entertain the thought that the same factors that make a specific individual be without economic prospects also are factors that turn him violent.

Sure, third-variable problem is absolutely appropriate. But I'm not claiming causation here, just saying that drawing the connection is far from absurd.

This is a massive derail, but mass shootings are an almost uniquely American phenomenon, and they are a policy choice - delivered by a uniquely dysfunctional politics that prizes ideology over actual outcomes. The outcome being protected here is "employers may not fire employees at zero notice", with the symmetry that this also applies to the employee.

> riots

Has this person ever been to France or Greece?

> mass shootings

In foreign countries without second amendment rights criminals just ram trucks into people instead. Since no guns are involved, these don't get reported as "mass shootings", not that it would bring any comfort to the victims and their families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack

The number of those is tiny compared to the number of mass shootings in America.

> > How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

> Because it is literally the law.

Ha, fair enough. I believe OP meant to ask and should have asked something along the lines of: "How is this the law in the famously pro-labor EU?"

If you have a longer notice period for the employers, it's only fair to have the same for the employees too. After all, if your company has to search for a replacement, and the prospective candidates are currently employed with the same notice period, they have to start looking as soon as you hand in your notice...

> (What happens if you ignore it?)

In the EU country I live in employees have 30 days of notice and the employee has to pay the employer for each missing day of required notice. Employees generally don't pay anything anyway, as they mature several additional "bonuses" (13th and 14th month, severance pay) during their employment and the missing notice payment can be detracted from those.

Most people don't want to be labor mobile, they want to be labor secure.

Generally you can agree with your employer to waive the notice period. Often people will also take their accumulated vacation days at that time. Some collective labor agreements also specify that employees can take so many days off a month to look for a new job.

> Most people don't want to be labor mobile, they want to be labor secure.

I suspect that even though most individuals want to be labor secure, most people would actually be better off with more mobility instead.

You wouldn't mind being laid off if you were pretty certain you could get a new job with a similar salary within just a few days. The only reason being laid off is so stressful is because there isn't sufficient mobility, and it's likely it will be many weeks or months till you find a new employer.

I'd kinda like to see an 'employer of last resort', where the government guarantees to employ anyone anytime. That should at least take away much of the fear of being laid off, even if few people actually use the service.

That's essentially what France does (and the U.S I think, to some extent with welfare?), you have a right to the "allocation chômage" which is a monthly payment from the government and your job is to find a new job.

But I don't believe in these perfectly efficient systems, like the one you describe, in which as long as we remove friction everyone can do what they want. Humans are not robots, they need emotional and social stability to thrive. A job comes with a location, social bonds, an expertise, habits ... You can't swap one for another and call it good as long as the paycheck stays the same.

One of the many myriad of problems I saw while living in Europe.

Great labor protections! Very few job openings.

There's always a flip side to the good things online Europeans like to brag about.

This is the right answer. Not everyone is a SWE with endless mobility and 1 week job searches.

I believe you will need a lot of de-astonishing if you plan to manage your EU business unit.

Three months is not "EU", it is more likely a Law of a specific country in EU.

Typically (but again it may depend on country) you can of course leave, but without an agreement on the lack of advance notice the employer may keep the equivalent of your pay for the period.

Another iteration of the ancient story: "American shocked to find rest of world operates differently in some ways".

It’s less of a shock that it’s different and more of a shock that it’s anti employee

It's not anti-employee! It's symmetrical; this is the trade off for "your employer has to give YOU three months notice".

(conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance")

Edit: yes, I think it's at-will and "right to work" is a different euphemism referring to law against "closed shop" unions.

> (conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance")

Is that an incorrect interpretation?

Are you referring to at-will employment? Right to work means it is illegal to make it required to join a union as condition of employment.

Is there any separation between the two? Because as far as I know, it was conflated into one union-and-protection busting idea.

Funnily enough, in Poland, I have been covered by Union contract without being a member of the Union. Because you can't force Union membership, but unions negotiate for all employees.

There is nothing in common between the two. They're entirely different concepts.

It's not like I'm a fan of the concept itself, but I feel like "at will" is not really a euphemism, but just a straightforward statement of the conditions under which you can quit or be fired: at will, in other words, because your employer or you say so.

It is disadvantageous to the employee, therefore it is fair to call it "anti-employee". Just because you like the policy it does not change that.

I never had a problem with extended notice periods. The companies hiring me know full well how the law operates.

It offers me no disadvantage. Only upsides.

I'm glad you've never had a problem with it. But sometimes people do leave jobs rather than simply move to a new job on good terms. I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work.

If something changes at work or in my personal life and I no longer want to work at my job, I have the right to say "goodbye", and leave immediately, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

If you've seen an American TV show where someone says "I quit!" and walks out the door, that isn't just a trope. I know people who have done that. As should be their right.

> I couldn't imagine being forced to work in a job that I no longer wanted to work.

Well, that is easier. Just show up drunk and tell your boss to fuck off. Piss on his door if his office has one.

They will terminate you immediately with just cause and you'll be free.

Otherwise just be professional and give them the proper notice period. Being professional is not hard.

If an employer ceases to be professional, reasonable, or safe, there is not a damn thing wrong with immediate termination of employment from the employee’s end.

If an employer can terminate the agreement for just cause immediately, why can’t the employee?

It restricts the ability of an employee to leave a job. Why not require an employer to give notice and let employees leave jobs they no longer want to work?

Requiring someone to work a job they don't want to work seems dystopian to me.

From the pov of european employee, no it's not - it's pro-employee, with employers generally finding it a problem and trying to weasel out.

This is literally the reality behind all those "it's hard to fire people in Europe" - you can terminate the employment, but you still need to pay for the notice period even if you suspend actual work.

Notice period being bidirectional is used to also guarantee that a leaving employee can be depended on to pass necessary training for those who remain. Effectively it forms insurance for both sides.

It's not, it provides stability for both employee and employer, not being able to be ruthlessly laid off when a ceo sees a dip in quarterly earnings and has to appease the capital class pulling the strings stabilizes employees lives. Employees understanding this and engaging in it also gives the company planning room.

You could have these protections only for the employees and not for the employers.

If you as an employer have made your business completely dependent on a single employee you haven't done your job, especially if that person decides to leave suddenly.

If it's part of European employment law that's not part of the US employment law you can be pretty certain that the employee benefits from it.

I am pretty sure it is not a benefit to be forced to work a job for 3 months that you don't want to work.

Bidirectional notice periods tend to be contract, rather than statute. That is, it exists because the country has not legislated against it, and it's by convention included in the contracts.

Depends on country - Polish employment law has "notice period" be bidirectional asa statute unless a gross abuse happened (enumerated in another section of employment law). Shortening notice period is a bidirectional contract where the employee may forfeit owed wages for shorter notice period.

What people don't seem to realize is that you absolutely CAN leave anytime that you want, without that notice period, if both you and your employeer agree on doing do. It is pro-employee policy, as it gives you time to peacefully search for other job and not be left without any wage to support yourself and your family. It also prevents employees from leaving without preparing next person that will take over their responsibilities, and gives time to the employeer to actually find your replacement if they need to.

It's not an anti-employeer, nor anti-employee policy, and it just goes to show how less of a friendly workplace USA market has.

I've never the notice period not happening. And honestly can't imagine why someone would want it (except rare cases like abuse or new salary massively better).

- Other companies are absolutely used to this period, and you already sign the contract with the start time that much ahead - there is no need to haste. - If there was a workplace conflict, most companies just give this as a "free holiday" - rather than go through the legalities of making it shorter. - Nobody expects much performance during notice period, you are not taken into long term planning, but you have ample time to give workshops or write documentation about siloed knowledge so it is cozy for both the employee and the employer.

> What people don't seem to realize is that you absolutely CAN leave anytime that you want, without that notice period, if both you and your employeer agree on doing do.

I think everybody understands this.

The ethical problem is trying to force an employee to stay and work when they want to leave. It is a basic human freedom.

> It is pro-employee policy, as it gives you time to peacefully search for other job and not be left without any wage to support yourself and your family.

Wouldn't that also be the case with a short (say two week) or even no notice period?

Simply start your job search before you tell your current employer that you want to leave.

They're talking about the other way around where the employee wants to fire the employee, but now needs to give long notice.

Hey so fun fact: three month notice periods are standard in Germany because German companies like to have runway to offload and onboard employees.

Germany is famously pro-labor, so you actually have two notice periods: one for the employer (statutory) and one for employees (contract). The two are usually aligned, and only get out of sync when the employee has been working somewhere for a long time. Let's say you have a month-long notice period in your employee contract. You work at your job for 5 years. By that time, the statutory notice period has increased to two months: if your employer wants to fire you, they have to give you two months. On the other hand, if you're the one who wants to leave, you only need to give them one month, per your contract.

Pretty neat.

3 months is reserved for mid- senior roles, and 6 months isn’t uncommon for senior management/board level (often with enforced garden leave)

as a business owner, it protects me from key employees leaving me in the shit and gives me 3 months to replace them

as an employee, it gives them security that I won’t drop them in the shit and they will have 3 months to find a job or risk not being able to pay their bills

It doesn’t seem super complicated

> contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?)

You may in theory get sued for the cost of covering for you, but in practice what happens is you lose any outstanding owed you by the employer (wages and payment for holiday not taken).

It's generally considered that this is an employee protection, because it works in the other direction as well. The employer has to give you 3 months notice to end the contract.

(it's not unheard of for people to get the "locked out of your account and building" at the point of resigning, then get paid for the 3 months. This is referred to as "gardening leave")

Yes, it’s very normal to have long notice periods. An employee absolutely can ignore their notice period if they want* but most respect them because they don’t want to burn bridges. Long notice periods are a companion to much greater worker rights, not in competition with.

Europe’s work culture is very different to America’s in that there’s mutual expectations around the commitment made by the employer and by the employee. All companies understand that to hire someone means to wait for their notice period to expire, so it’s not as if it prevents anyone from opportunities.

* in some places, an employer could pursue the ex-employee for contract violation if they didn’t respect their notice period, and the employee could incur the cost of replacing them in the short term… but it’s very rare and typically only important in the context of high-skill jobs. I’ve never seen it happen.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

Well, when they also expect 12 weeks notice in their employee contracts, they can't exactly argue when you are held to the same standard in your current employment can they?

Are you saying that you can find, hire and onboard a new employee in less than 3 months? Seems unlikely, but if so, what's the problem? The employee quit, it's highly unlikely they want to stick around for another 3 months, so if you don't want them around for those 3 months it wouldn't be hard to come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

Both times I quit my job, my employer gave me a multi-month contract to finish my current work and/or to help onboard my replacement. They had to pay me a lot more than my employment rate to do so. They would have been thrilled to keep me for another 3 months without having to pay extra to do so.

In Germany, the default for an employee quiting a job is a four weeks notice to the middle or the end of the month. Only if the job is subject to a collective labour agreement, this period might be shorter. A collective labour agreement might extent it, as well as an individual working contract. In all these cases, the period for the employee must not be shorter than the period for the company. However, it is possible to grant the employee a longer period.[1]

The law does not state an upper limit for the period of notice. There had once been a court ruling in a specific case that a period of three years is too long, because it violates the principle of good faith ("Treu und Glauben").[2]

A contract may be terminated earlier by mutually agreement. An employee may also simply not show up for work, but is then liable for the resulting damage. The employer bears the burden of proof for the damage incurred. So in case you really want to hire someone immediately who is not released from his contract, you can offer to take over any claims for damages that might be made by his former employer.

[1] §622 BGB, see: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__622.html (in German)

[2] https://www.hensche.de/arbeitsrecht-urteile-bag-6-azr-158-16... (in German)

> How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?

Because it's actually pro-labor.

I go into a job knowing an employer cannot simply fire me out of the blue. Meaning I have a little stability to be able to plan my life a few months in advance.

The fact that Europe has a strong labor laws, worker unions and such is the reason why I chose to migrate to Europe and disregarded the US as a destination. A decision I never came to regret, by the way.

Keep that awful "at will employment" to your side of the pond, thank you.

> Keep that awful "at will employment" to your side of the pond, thank you.

The UK has zero-hour contracts, which I think is in the same spirit.

It won't surprise me if other European countries either already have or will soon have similar arrangements. It's a sad reality, honestly.

The UK, thankfully, is not part of the EU anymore however.

I don't think labor protections are eroding however. Those tend to be very popular among the population here.

Perhaps I am wrong? Do you have more information about this?

I know that there are some leeways to avoid labor protections in some places, such as being employed as a temporary contractor, but I understand there are some limitations to this practice.

> thankfully

Lol not sure if you're an anti-UK EU member or a Brexiter. Not that it matters, really.

> I don't think labor protections are eroding however.

If you mean in the UK, then they definitely are. Zero hour contracts are more or less the worst parts of being an employee with the worst parts of being self-employed, all turned up to 11. At least that's what I've heard from a lot of people on them.

> Those tend to be very popular among the population here.

I'm not sure where 'here' means in this context but honestly I imagine the only country in the world where labour protections are impopular (are they really? no idea...) is the US.

> Do you have more information about this?

More or less anecdotal but yeah - like I said above, people on zero hours tend to have it pretty rough.

> being employed as a temporary contractor

This is me. Not to avoid labour protections, but rather to have more autonomy. I like not having a boss. I like not having to go through the yearly grind of performance reviews. I like being able to take (unpaid) time off more or less when I feel like it.

There are drawbacks but for my needs and wants I find the tradeoffs to be pretty good.

It is also worth keeping in mind that in a lot of cases these three months are greatly reduced when both the employee and the company come to an agreement. The reason is quite simple, the employee usually is eager to leave and the company does not want him to destroy the mood of his team by chatting during three month about the greener pasture he is going to.

I think it is result of labour protection law - just symmetrical. In Poland there is same notice period for employee and employer (up to 3 months).

In Poland it is popular - especially in IT - to sign B2B contract which do not have such restriction and you can agree on shorter or longer notice period to quit a job.

When it comes to developers people usually skip the notice period. Because employer doesn't want to have employee that doesn't care anymore. And employee just wants to leave. So it's not uncommon for the employer just paying for the notice period without employee doing any work or even comming into the office. Theoretically it's time to offload your workload to a different worker, but IT employers rarely appreciate benefit of controlled handover and know that wronged developer may screw them in various ways which malicious intent could be very hard to prove.

It works both ways usually. If you want to fire an employee you can not do it from one day to another without good reason.

There is also the possibility of an earlier contract end with the agreement of both parties.

What devs are you trying to hire?

"If you want to fire an employee you can not do it from one day to another without good reason."

This usually only applies for permanent employees, not freelancers.

But irrelevant. Freelancers don't have the three month notice under discussion here.

So what's a good enough reason to fire someone but not have it take 3 months?

Breaking the terms of the contract.

Abusive behaviour.

Breach of contract or gross misconduct are usually serious enough. But it has to be a reason you'd be happy defending to a court, not just the American "I don't like this guy".

Misconduct. E.g. not fulfilling your contractual duties as an employee or actively causing damage to the company. Still, a warning needs to be issued before a termination in all but the most severe cases.

(Germany)

In France it's called a "faute grave" or "faute lourde" and according to the government's website the following reasons would be acceptable, although some are more straightforward to justify than others in case of litigation:

Faute grave:

* Being drunk during work hours

* Not coming to work without a reason

* Insubordination (refusing to do work included in your contract)

* Harassment, violence, insults

* Theft on company grounds

Faute lourde:

* Keeping non-striking employees from entering company grounds

* Intentional destruction of company equipment

* Physical violence and death threats against your employer

* Kidnapping colleagues (lol)

* Stealing your employer's clients

* Divulging secret or confidential IP

Like all legal frameworks there is some room for interpretation, I'm not an expert on the matter, it's only a translation of the government website.

I've worked in a few places where occasionally a few bottles of red would be consumed during team lunch so not all companies have the same interpretation of what a fireable offense is.

Negotiated agreement with the employee.

Gross misconduct (evaluated in laws, usually things like directly acting against the company on purpose, like poaching contracts etc.)

Employee literally breaching the law (one example from Polish law would be turning up drunk or high at work)

> If you want to fire an employee you can not do it from one day to another without good reason.

And if you make a position redundant, you have to pay the employee their notice period.

So as a permanent employee, I'll need a smaller emergency fund if I know that I have three months heads-up if I need to find a new job vs one month or one week.

I think that's only the law if you've been in a company for awhile in a few countries like Germany, Belgium, or Denmark. The idea is that it works both ways - you can't be given 2 weeks notice and kicked out like in US companies.

https://madison-bridge.com/notice-periods-in-europe-are-they...

Most other places are a month - if you are senior: a manager, vice president etc then some companies may write 3 months into your contract.

Equally weird is the U.S culture of escorting leavers immediately out of the building, as if they were minded to commit untold damage...

Also, many European countries have notices much shorter than 3 months.

Sometimes, they (US-based employers) just turn off badges and ghost employees without telling them.

Employee shows up to work and wonders why they can't get on the elevator.

They've been fired, but no one told them.

Happens more so with extra-corporate-y US corporations who are more social Darwinian than most.

> A contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?)

You answered it by yourself, you just stop going to work, what are they gonna do, fire you? Worst case you will just lose some part of salary you already earned, but usually you can agree on some more reasonable notice period like one month to make both parties happy to handover the job, but of course there are employers who will tell you you don't really need to come to work during notice period to not cause more damage than good. Under absolutely extreme unrealistic circumstances employer can sue you for expenses you caused by not showing up for work during notice period, but honestly nobodyis enforcing this because it's PITA taking many years in courtrooms, so it's not worth.

This notice period by law is made mostly to protect the employees so they will have enough time to find replacement job and not end up without income within 2 weeks. Also while you are often paid by weeks in US, standard in US is to get only monthly payment. When people switch jobs the future employer is aware there might be notice period before you can join, so nobody realistic really expect you will join next day and they always ask when you can join.

Also if you have shitty employer who don't wanna deal with notice period they will give you fix term contract like for one year and then they will just decide not to extend it (you can do same) and there is no notice period at all. Of course some countries have laws against fixed term contracts, like you can have only 2-3 terms in row to avoid abusing this. Other solution is to use work agency to hire workers and not hire them directly, these are employed officially in agency, so you will just tell agency you don't want worker anymore and agency has to deal with his job assignment.

Gotta remember that just because you put something in a contract doesnt mean its legal. I could put that you must murder anyone i tell you, even if you sign that it doesnt make it legal. But thats criminal law.

I terms of the UK, realistically its still just a curtousy, but employers put it in because employees often thinnk that they have to adhere to it, they don't. If in the scenario the employee doesnt work the notice period and just immediately leaves, the employer technically could take them to civil court, make a case that they need them to finish their notice period, and the court could theoretically grant them that due to the employee's breach of contract. But i'd imagine thats almost never happened (just guessing), because that would take considerable time, effort and money to do that, and its less hassle just to let them go.

So yeah, its put in because employers can, and employees often incorrectly think they're beholden to it and comply anyway.

If all the companies have to wait it just becomes normal.

It might not the best advice in Germany, where a reference letter from your previous employer can be very important for a new job (maybe not so much for expats).

This is not just Europe. I've worked in both Hong Kong and Singapore, and in both cases I had a 3 month notice after the probation period. Mind you, in both case this is symetrical: the employer can get rid of me, provided they give me a 3 months notice, or pay for it (more likely), just like I can leave after a 3 months notice period or pay for it. However in most cases, when leaving, you can negotiate to leave early, because no company wants to retain and pay someone who doesn't care anymore: they'll just get you to do some handover and let you go.

On the other hand, I find the North-American way brutal: if my employer wants to get rid of me, I'm revenue-less in 2 weeks. That's not a lot of time for me to find a new job.

The reasons an employer might want to ditch an employee and the reasons why an employee might want to leave are not not symmetrical, so it isn't obvious that notice periods should be symmetrical.

For employees a long notice period to leave could mean not being able to take a great opportunity that comes along because it won't be available long enough.

For employers a long notice period to fire is just a short term monetary cost. For most businesses it won't affect the rest of the business. Businesses, except for very small ones, generally are not going to have to turn down some new great opportunity that comes along because they happen to still be paying someone they are in the midst of letting go.

> For employees a long notice period to leave could mean not being able to take a great opportunity that comes along because it won't be available long enough.

I think if you actually look into it, you'll find that this is not the case. In countries where long notice periods are the norm, either by law or just general culture, an employer tends to be more than willing to wait for a candidate.

The long notice period, among other things attenuates hiring sprees like we have seen this summer and the firings that followed in the winter. It requires for the ceo and hiring managers to think a little longer term than this quarter.

> especially in a region known for its stronger labor protections than the US

If the employee wants to leave, they give x months of notice (unless the employer agrees to less). If the employer wants to fire the employee, they also need to give notice, and salary during this time (unless the employee is fired for cause).

This is a strong labor protection, since it is turning an asymmetrical power relationship into a more symmetrical one.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

This is exactly what happens. I guess it makes employers more conservative on who they hire. It probably disincentivizes innovation and incentivizes social cohesion.

Pretty great tradeoff if you consider (in case of Poland) 26 vacation days, up to 180 days of sick leave with 80% of wage, 20 weeks of maternity leave, having the employer respect the same notice period.

Ignoring fact that you can't be "just" fired without any reason - it must be result of your performance, behavior, or position reduction. Employer who would fire anyone just because of a bad mood, then hire somebody else next day as a replacement, will simply loose in court.

And 3 months notice period is for employers with 3+ years in company, others have 2 weeks or 1 month.

The 3 month period is arguably pro-labor.

In the US, you can be fired and can similarly fire your employer at the drop of a hat.

French employees are protected from layoffs and employers are similarly protected from ghosting by problematic employees.

While the notice period is 3 months, employees and employers can often end the relationship in less time depending on the context. Essential employees usually don't get to leave early. There are a lot of caveats to this, so don't take it as a categorical truth.

In the UK tech industry it tends to be 1 month for rank and file employees and 3 months for seniors.

By the time you are senior enough to be at the 3 month level you will often be put on gardening leave anyway.

I'm surprised it's been flagged. It's an interesting topic so a civilized discussion wouldn't hurt, would it?

As an European all I can say it's a double-edged sword. When you are being laid off, you appreciate it doesn't happen in a Musquesque way and you have plenty of time to take care of your family and find an interesting job, not just anything. yes, not all companies are happy with it, but some will - and you can also start looking in the last moment if you feel adventurous enough.

Usually you can just get an agreement with the employer to leave sooner. Three months might be enough time to hire someone and have some limited handover, but better than no handover.

Never had longer notice period than 3 months, and I don't think people would agree to such thing. I've seen people being on notice for a year, but it was considered "garden leave". Company pays you not to take any job, so you basically forget what the product was and they move on with functionality. I once had 3 months notice period, when leaving I asked verbally if we can make it 4 weeks, they agreed and that's it.

As far as I know garden leave is a thing even in the US. A garden leave is in practice a long notice period were you do not have to show up for work. But here in Europe notice periods are usually symmetrical (i.e. you are entitled to it), while often garden leave is at the employer discretion.

Setting EU labor BS aside.

Don't hire as "permanent employees", hire them as contractors (and offer higher rate).

There are lots of people who are quite happy with this arrangement. People get more money, the cost is the same. Employer gets flexibility. Everybody is happy except the tax collector :).

> tax collector

cough IR35

Besides this being unfair to the rest of society, if your country happens to have a working social/medical system, being a contractor can be dramatically worse for an employee later on.

Part of what I saw was that anyone with means (office workers, contractors, SWEs, etc) opted instead of supplementary or entirely private health insurance. When I asked many people why they didn't use their national healthcare system, they scoffed at me and said it was great for emergency care and only that.

This was rather eye opening for me. Is it good? Probably not, but that was the reality I saw.

That's not how it works in practice.

In practice you pay 40% or more in taxes and the person who wants to get professional help, still uses private services.

Universal health care is only for the poor

Note that this also comes with very long, 3-6-9 months of probation periods in most EU countries - during which time both parties can terminate the contract instantly and without reason. After such time passes, everybody is interested in a predictable safe separation.

Think of it another way: you know that people won't up and leave (easily) leaving you only with a month (or less) to hire a replacement for their role. There will be time for the hiring process and for handover.

As an employer it has benefits as well as drawbacks.

> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone

I mean, if you extended your horizons a little beyond the next earnings report, you'd be surprised what you can plan.

Because it's a mutual beneficial agreement – employers cannot terminate employees without at least 3m compensation.

Also, this law is not optimized for industries (like tech) that have talent shortages.

In germany it's only 3 month if the employee has been in the company for 4 years. Until then it's only 1 month.

Edit: Both parties can of course negotiate a bigger time frame.

This is simply not true. At least in IT it's 3 months as soon as you're done with the probation period (which is usually 6 months). Not sure about the employer, but employees can cut this period shorter. The document is called Aufhebungsvertrag – termination agreement. I just think the employer has to agree to this.

In NL it’s one month. But regardless of that, I prefer some notice period instead of being fired on the spot while I’m on sick leave (which is also illegal in Europe)

Europeans enjoy profound worker protections literally unimaginable in the US. Naturally along with that comes profound complication, rigidity, and bureaucratic mess.

If you can adequately install and train a replacement employee with two weeks or less notice, you probably don't need them in the first place.

In Estonia the norm (in fact the default in the law) is one month notice period. So it's definitely not everywhere in the EU.

Not true, I had to give 1 after 12 years of service in the same company.

most countries are probably 1 month only

3 month could be for senior-leadership and other high level positions

I think 3 months is the norm in France for permanent employees

Typically one month in Ireland.

Atlas Shrugged really needed an editor. It's a long, yet overly pedantic novel with simplistic caricature for villains. It also manages to go head to head with Brave New World for predicting the nature of our decline. This is just one more moment where I must begrudgingly admit that Rand called this one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com