Then how would a company replace low performers?
I can speak based on Netherlands where I work now. If an employee is performing below expectations, then a conversation needs to be had(documented), given a chance to improve or change course. If after an extended period of attempt, the decision to let that employee go still holds, then they may.
However, the above reasoning cannot be made for several employees at once (like the layoffs that occurred).
To do an American style layoff, the government will insist on the company to document the reasons why, and in most cases, take away the choice for the company to choose which employee they can let go. Which makes it very unattractive. So, if a company wants to let go of several people at once, they typically offer good severance packages and request the employees to quit.
First, there is the initial probation period. 80% of the people who won't perform, won't perform in the initial months. You just need a veto system or objective managers and it's easy to let slackers go. A lot of managers are soft on their employees and let them pass probation even if their performance is somewhat poor and, frankly, sometimes it's obvious it will continue to be poor. This is a mistake. So long as the company doesn't make these mistakes, this solves 80% of the matter.
Secondly, employees can be put on probation again, or on personal improvement plans. Yes, it can be done for actual performance reasons, not only Google-style. They can then fail these periods if their performance doesn't improve. But once again, this needs to be done with a clear head and accountability. This solves another 10% of the matter.
Thirdly, you can demote employees so that their pay matches their effort. This probably needs some foresight as demotion requires consent from the employee, if I recall. But if that consent is given as part of the employment contract, it's another way to make things just. You pay someone who underperforms less, you use that cash to hire people who perform. This option mitigates the perceived problem in firing under-performers even more.
In short, so long as there is good evidence that the employee was underperforming, it's not a problem. There are small peculiarities around dealing with this and not exposing the company legally beyond reason. But that's true for everything. Just don't be a clueless asshole about firing employees, do it when there really is a good reason, and it will all be fine.
There are, of course, employees who are vindictive or abuse these laws. But then again, a vindictive employee or one willing to abuse the company into keeping them around is a global problem. Some small % of people will just do these things everywhere - labour protections or not.
Unless by “low performers” you mean the supposedly weakest pawn in some “feelings-based” CEO’s desperate attempt to increase profits. And when that overpaid asshole realizes that he doesn’t actually have any ideas or other ways of impressing the board (which conveniently also consist of overpaid CEOs that think that desperately squeezing employees is the only way forward), shuffling around employees whose jobs he doesn’t understand in the slightest, becomes the way to seem actionable.
It’s far easier to get rid of an employee not doing their job, than it is to get rid of a delusional billionaire CEO or boardmember.
The real question is how do we get rid of these abysmal, low performing CEOs/boardmembers who hide behind idiotic ideas that fuck around with their employees lives or depend on exploiting people from poorer countries, to cover up their own ineptitude?
(And no, “shareholders” are just an effigy, conjured to represent private equity and geriatric pension funds, represented by a handful of investment bankers. It’s by definition a dysfunctional market, because the number of actors are tiny, and contained within the same industry. I mean, Adam Smith literally warned us about this…)