Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sneak

Why is that insane? A job this week is no guarantee, legally or practically, of a job next week.

To assume otherwise is foolish and naive. That’s simply not how employment works.

View on HN

> A job this week is no guarantee, legally or practically, of a job next week.

It is in Europe - one or three months are the standard notice periods I believe?

I would expect that in this case it would go even beyond that. In many European countries there are protections against unjustified layoffs. I could imagine the law and judges in various countries to be rather unsympathetic towards "yeah we just hired you but we're now laying off 80% of staff because fuck you that's why".

Especially in cases where there is any evidence that the layoffs were planned before the contract was signed - wouldn't that be problematic even in the US?

In some European countries protection is even stronger. If a position becomes unnecessary, you first have to try to find another position within a company that requires a comparable level of education. You can only fire people for grave negligence or for violating rules, or lay them off e.g. if your company has to in order to survive.

From what I have heard (but IANAL), Germany has weaker protections (which is relevant here). Also, typically people sign away their rights, trading them for a good payout + a good recommendation for a next job.

Germany has a 6 month probation period for new hires in which both sides can terminate the contract with 2 week notice. After that, it is one month, two months after 3 years going up to 7 months after 20 years.

Hiring senior employees sounds like it requires crystal ball level planning. Are there any tricks to make growth easier?

The trick that most startups seem to use is to simply operate in a different country.

(I write this comment from Berlin, where I wish it were much much easier and simpler to start and operate a business.)

The trick I see the most is actually hiring consultants. They're basically like employees but it's not you who hire them, it's the consultancy company. So you can have them working for your startup in short contracts of a few months (which can be prolongued and without much trouble even terminated early). But normally, they also have clauses against trying to hire the consultants directly, so if they are really good and write a good chunk of your stuff, when they leave you might be left in a bit of trouble.

The time that counts is when the employee is at the company, not their total employment time.

Komoot was located in Germany. Workers' rights are a bit better over here.

I agree that insane isn't exactly the right word for this. More like "assholish" -- this person has just switched jobs, and now they have to go through all this stress over again. This could have been easily avoided.

> A job this week is no guarantee, legally or practically, of a job next week.

If this is the case, I'm just gonna sit on my ass this week and take my paycheck. If there is no long term assurance, why should I even try?

You’re technically right. But it’s disappointing that that’s the normal state of affairs.

Why?

Because in Europe we believe that with ownership also come responsibilities. For instance to care about your employees, prevent destruction of nature, etc. Things you can wrap in insane complex laws or just manage through a social contract between the tarif partners (employees and employers).

We all lose if this contract is broken.

Don't presume to speak for "Europe". It's a big place with a wide diversity of viewpoints.

We all lose when employers have a paternalistic relationship with employees. It's better for everyone to keep things strictly transactional.

It's not an equal transaction - it's like a child negotiating with an evil sorcerer.

The reality is that you have little to no power or leverage in labor relationships. You may think you do, because it is very valuable to the other party for you to believe as such. But you do not.

Things being purely transaction can work when it's a fair transaction. When your life is on the line and the other party is risk fuck-all, it's not a fair transaction. When you have a few sheckles at your disposal and the other party has billions, it's not a fair transaction. When you don't know shit about their decision making but the other party knows as much as possible as they can about you, it's not a fair transaction.

The reality is that if you equate a typical employer with an "evil sorcerer" you're so disconnected from reality that you have nothing of value to contribute here.

That's not what I did, please read more carefully.

The power dynamic and information dynamic is that of a child compared to a sorcerer. The sorcerer knows all, and does not need the child. They can turn the child into a frog, and the child cannot perform any magic in retaliation.

You must realize your leverage is close to non-existant in negotiations. You are, frankly, irrelevant, and of the negotiations you can attempt you must do so with just a tiny fraction of the information required.

You hold none of the cards. I'm not even sure how this could be controversial - its just plainly true. Denying reality is one thing, aspiring to something that harms you is another.

Why do people with families to feed and 20-30 year mortgages desire more than a week of job stability when it can take months to find work again? Is this a serious question?

It's a serious question. I have a family to feed and a 30-year mortgage, and I would much rather live in a place where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job. A dynamic economy benefits everyone.

> "A dynamic economy benefits everyone"

Everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others. It benefits people who are highly skilled, clever, healthy, wealthy, young, with market-desirable skills in a market-desirable area, with no external family or life problems or responsibilities, and those who own and run companies, more than 95% of everyone else.

> "where I can be laid off with zero notice (and I have been a couple times). This makes it faster and easier to find a new job."

I don't see that follows; jobs can have probationary periods where employers can reject new hires quickly, while still having notice periods.

There's no need for either designated probationary periods or notice periods. Social safety nets are a good thing in general but should be provided directly by governments rather than by private employers obeying government mandates. Imposing any requirements on employers beyond basic health and safety rules slows down economic growth and hurts everyone in the long run.

Risk of having your life upended by someone else's whim causes stress, chronic stress on a population has a long term health cost. Imposing requirements on employers reduces stress and helps everyone in the long run.

Define health and safety rules, and then define the basic ones that are a subset of the entire ruleset.

lol

Yes, absolutely. If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly.

Nobody should be expecting their employer (or any second party, really) to be their income stream’s low pass filter. That’s what your savings account is for.

If you can’t support your family and mortgage through 6-9 months (minimum) out of savings, you shouldn’t have them because you can’t afford them.

(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it. I would venture a guess that most 30 year mortgages end by being paid off at sale in less than 30 years. A 30 year mortgage doesn’t mean 30 years of mandatory payments, you can sell the place and move and pay off the mortgage at any time.)

The best part about living under the Sword of Damocles is that when it falls on someone else I can lecture them about how they deserved it. I can't imagine it would ever fall on me, because I don't deserve it.

> "you’re acting irresponsibly"

If things were arranged so that you didn't need the savings to cover the constant worry of being fired, then not having the savings wouldn't be acting irresponsibly. Americans need health insurance, not having health insurance is irresponsible. In countries where healthcare is free at the point of use, not having health insurance is not irresponsible. You're arguing a logical tautology.

> "(Also, mortgage term is irrelevant here, I’m not sure why you mention it."

As an example illustration that people do not live life in 1-day or 1-week increments, but in decades. People want to - and do - put down roots and settle in for a long time.

So what. People want a lot of things. Employers aren't responsible for providing those things.

Okay. Why not? This isn't an argument. You aren't making any argument.

Because, to me, this sounds good. Okay, so let's do it. Seems pretty simple and straightforward.

I mean, I want a 401K. Employers should provide that. Okay, then let's do that. They... aren't responsible? Don't we make the laws? Let's just force them to be responsible. Problem solved. I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy.

Do you, like, aspire to be exploited? Why are you advocating against your own best interests? Is this selflessness, or some strange form of self-harm I haven't been exposed to?

I aspire to be paid for my labor. Forcing employers to handle things like health insurance and retirement plans is just stupid. It's a waste of resources, detracts from their core mission, and slows down economic growth. I would prefer to handle those things myself without an employer getting involved.

> "slows down economic growth"

Is this a problem? Can I eat economic growth? I'd be pretty happy to have fewer cars in city and town centers, which would reduce things like death, injury, lung cancer, sleep disruption, and make foot journeys shorter and more pleasant, make biking easier. It would involve making and selling fewer cars and less executive compensation for the CEO of Ford, but that's about the worst reason to argue against it.

The problem is you're not explaining how this would be a preferable situation. Youre mistakenly assuming that if employers don't provide things like 401K match or whatever that instead you would pocket that money.

I have no reason to believe that to be the case. In fact, everything I've seen in my life makes me confident that is not the case. This reads like self-sabotage.

> If you have a family and a mortgage without first having enough savings to support those things through anomalies, you’re acting irresponsibly.

Or maybe it’s the collective us acting irresponsibly because how you get young people to start families if it’s irresponsible until biologically too late?

This presupposes the value of families and reproduction, especially those by young people who can’t afford them.

Tail is wagging the dog.

It's people who make the economy; if the economy makes it so there are no new people, it crumbles under its own weight - see every developed nation in the next 20-30 years when the social security system collapses, and the economy will follow soon after.

The nihilist take here would be that nothing matters, but money is more fake than people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com