Hacker News Reader

Comment by forward1 | Hacker News Reader

Employees are equally free to "screw over" companies by terminating their employment at any time; at-will is a two-way street. That seems like a fair and faithful manifestation of a free market.

Health care and insurance is also available without an employer, at least in the US.

View on HN

Yup individual employees are definitely on equal footing with companies and health care is very affordable when purchased individually. The free market is very good and fair and everything is going just fine!

You are free to create your own asymmetrically powerful business entity to rebalance the odds, if you find them unfair.

Translation: a union.

Do you read your own writing?

Individuals are also responsible for their own reading comprehension skills.

> Employees are equally free to "screw over" companies by terminating their employment at any time; at-will is a two-way street.

Wow. I guess that might seem like a convincing argument if you totally ignore the power imbalance between a terminated employee who loses the ability to pay for basic necessities vs a company that loses the labor of a single person.

The inability for an individual to guarantee payment for necessities cannot be the fault of any company. Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves in this world.

Nah I’m pretty comfortable blaming a company for jerking around a new hire, thereby putting their financial status and healthcare needs at risk. That’s shit behavior and deserves to be called out.

Of course, even most free-market types don't belive this. After all, we collectively pay for things like national defense because it very obviously makes more economic sense than each individual trying to defend against a foreign adversary.

No, the "Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves" is only trotted out against things a free-market ideologue doesn't like. It's a nonsense argument, and they know it.

You're welcome to make a counter-argument for why an individual is entitled to something in this world, and I would welcome reading it.

And you're welcome to address what I just wrote, instead of trying to dictate that I use an argument you find more convenient for your position.

Frankly, it is difficult to "address" a subjective opinion without having been given the criteria for a satisfactory answer. But I will try: being a responsible adult includes contributing to national defense.

Your original statement, that "Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves in this world," is a subjective opinion--unless you meant it merely in the sense of a truism--and you did not give me any criteria for a satisfactory "counter-argument".

Regarding this: >being a responsible adult includes contributing to national defense

you are equivocating between two separate definitions of the word "responsible." Being a responsible adult is not the same as being an adult who is responsible for their own defense or healthcare, for example. They can be correlated, but they have different meanings.

But honestly, this form of internet debating you started that derails from the topic and gets into quasi-logical nitpicking is uninteresting and makes me feel like I'm in a high school, so this will be my last comment. Please feel free to reply, and I will read it. But please make the reply have some substance.

I believe it is you making the false equivalence.

> you did not give me any criteria for a satisfactory "counter-argument".

I had. Many times. I asked for examples of ethical businesses. None were materialized. Therefore my assertion remains unchallenged and likely true.

In, say, Germany, are employees bound to stay with a company until the conclusion of some contract, or are they free to move at will while the employer must retain them?

I think most people in the US arguing for employee protections are assuming the latter, but I'm curious how it actually works in Europe.

In Finland there are fixed-term and permanent contracts. Fixed-term ones are extremely hard to terminate one sidely for both parties (excluding separate terms in the contract like probation period). Permanent contracts require certain amount of notice by default. Employees notice period is 14 days if contract has lasted less than 5 years, 1 month otherwise. Employer's notice period are: 14 days if contract has lasted less than a year, 1 month for 1-4 years, 2 months for 4-8 years, 4 months for 8-12 years and 6 months for over 12 years.

Contract and CBA can affect these. The only restrictions law has is that employee's notice period cannot be longer than employer's and that the maximum is 6 months, but CBA can set minimums. The CBAs that I have read set those law's default notice periods as the minimum. Vast majority (I believe about 80-85%) of employees in Finland are covered by some CBA.

Genuine question: Do you think that people in countries with strong labour laws are signing up to be literal slaves?

I used to work in the UK. I once worked for a company that had a salesperson that wanted to quit. He was forced to do a non-sales job for thirty days stacking boxes and sorting old files before he was allowed to leave and he hated every minute of it.

So yes, sometimes strong labor laws have a hint of slavery to them, but certainly not equivalence to real slavery.

That unusual. He’d only be obliged to continuing his job during his notice period. Not a different job. Sounds like he didn’t know his rights.

Most UK contracts will also include a clause allowing the company to end the employment immediately as long as they still pay out what the employee would have earned during their notice period.

Having been through a few roles in the uk myself, the obligation on the company to give me adequate notice (and pay) has always benefited me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com