←back to thread

How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

(www.tofugu.com)
178 points rawgabbit | 8 comments | 18 Nov 24 04:02 UTC | HN request time: 1.628s | source | bottom
Show context
infotainment ◴[18 Nov 24 04:44 UTC] No.42169771[source]▶
> "I can't quit the job. If I say I'm going to quit, I'll be threatened that I will have to pay damages for quitting."

Interestingly, this is actually possible under Japanese law/legal precedent. If an employee, for example, decides to put in notice and then half-ass their job until their departure date, a company could actually sue the employee and win.

Other Japan-labor-law fun fact: if you are a contract worker, it is literally illegal for you to quit prior to your contract expiry date. Hope you like that job you signed onto!

Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL

replies(10): >>42169791 #>>42169816 #>>42169829 #>>42169851 #>>42169890 #>>42169984 #>>42170138 #>>42170924 #>>42171672 #>>42172099 #
jandrewrogers ◴[18 Nov 24 05:04 UTC] No.42169851[source]▶
The majority of developed countries have subtle versions of this. I was naive about this before I worked outside the US and saw the practical impact. The chains go both ways and have real downsides.

Having seen the perverse incentives this creates and the various ways in which it can be abused, I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers. No one should discount the value of having the power to tell your employer to fuck off at a moment’s notice with no practical repercussions. No one should be required to stay in an abusive relationship a moment longer than they wish to.

replies(12): >>42169861 #>>42169916 #>>42169958 #>>42169989 #>>42170221 #>>42170290 #>>42170379 #>>42170469 #>>42170570 #>>42170636 #>>42170815 #>>42172640 #
croes ◴[18 Nov 24 05:22 UTC] No.42169916[source]▶
I wouldn’t call losing your source of income and maybe your health insurance no practical repercussions.

I don’t know in which countries you worked but I didn’t have any problems getting out of a contract.

replies(3): >>42169939 #>>42169996 #>>42170697 #
jayd16 ◴[18 Nov 24 05:27 UTC] No.42169939[source]▶
Inexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.
replies(3): >>42170299 #>>42170391 #>>42170739 #
1. WalterBright ◴[18 Nov 24 07:00 UTC] No.42170391[source]▶
The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. Therefore, employers include it as a way to increase total compensation at a lower cost.

The origin of the practice was in WW2, when Roosevelt froze wages. To attract more and better employees, the companies threw in health insurance as a way around the restrictions.

replies(3): >>42170930 #>>42172322 #>>42191267 #
2. ponow ◴[18 Nov 24 09:18 UTC] No.42170930[source]▶
Thanks for reminding us that state intervention is the source of the problem.

Stop linking medical insurance to employment via this tax bigotry. Buy it on the open market instead, or subsidize it if you're a leftist, but don't put that burden on jobs, you'll only get fewer jobs with greater hassle. People can agree to the arrangements they prefer, and it's not for us to second guess that. If there are people who end up coming up short, then you can help them yourself, or force the whole society to chip in (again, if you're a leftist), but don't force such considerations on the fragile links among private individuals and businesses.

3. KptMarchewa ◴[18 Nov 24 13:59 UTC] No.42172322[source]▶
>The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not.

It would be very easy to reverse, if literally anyone was willing to.

replies(1): >>42173435 #
4. jayd16 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:43 UTC] No.42173435[source]▶
Hillary was for single payer. Trump ran on repealing even the ACA. I don't think it's as simple as literally anyone.
replies(1): >>42173733 #
5. KptMarchewa ◴[18 Nov 24 16:09 UTC] No.42173733{3}[source]▶
I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.
replies(1): >>42174019 #
6. consteval ◴[18 Nov 24 16:33 UTC] No.42174019{4}[source]▶
Right, but we're currently at a point politically where we're heavily considering regressions in healthcare and insurance, not progressions. We're talking about bringing back denying coverage for existing conditions and allowing insurance to deny medication on grounds of religious reasons.

Changing the tax deduction status would harm businesses, and therefore I can't see a conservative administration ever letting that fly.

replies(1): >>42174184 #
7. KptMarchewa ◴[18 Nov 24 16:47 UTC] No.42174184{5}[source]▶
Which goes again to my original point.
8. kelnos ◴[20 Nov 24 06:24 UTC] No.42191267[source]▶
Sure, but the inexplicable bit is that there's no actual reason it has to be that way.

There's no reason why a law cannot be passed amending the tax code to make health insurance premiums paid by an individual tax deductible.

I'm not saying it would be easy to get such a law passed, but that doesn't change the fact that it's stupid to have health insurance tied to your employer.

(At any rate, health insurance premiums are tax deductible, but the rules are annoying and require that your healthcare spending be a certain percentage of your income.)