←back to thread

How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

(www.tofugu.com)
178 points rawgabbit | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 04:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.897s | source
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 #
specproc ◴[18 Nov 24 06:41 UTC] No.42170299[source]▶
I can spell it out, if it helps. In a country with exorbitant healthcare costs, it means that leaving your job means that you (and often your family) don't get healthcare.
replies(2): >>42170364 #>>42170394 #
kirkules ◴[18 Nov 24 07:02 UTC] No.42170394[source]▶
I'm thinking you misinterpreted the comment you responded to? I read it as saying that you don't necessarily have to have employment linked healthcare just because you have at-will employment.

The "inexplicably" being a commentary on the wisdom/sanity/compassion of linking healthcare to employment, rather than a claim that the parent comment had made an inexplicable leap of logic

replies(3): >>42170476 #>>42170891 #>>42172670 #
1. happymellon ◴[18 Nov 24 09:09 UTC] No.42170891[source]▶
But the discussion wasn't about "generic at-will" employment. It started as "American at-will" employment.

> > I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers

It may seem like you can just walk away from a job but realistically most people can't.

replies(1): >>42171314 #
2. Amezarak ◴[18 Nov 24 10:52 UTC] No.42171314[source]▶
"Most people" are not dependent on health insurance for their average needs, except in the long-term or unexpectedly.

Then of course, being unemployed, you have the option of COBRA (you probably don't want that though), and if it does not make you immediately eligible for Medicaid in your state (40 of 50 have Medicaid expansion), it would make you eligible for the ACA subsidized plans. NB: more than one-third of employer-sponsored plans are HDHPs, meaning employees have deductibles in the thousands of dollars anyway.

It's certainly a disruption, and it's one more thing to consider, but the idea that "most Americans" are one job loss away from being killed by lack of health care is not remotely true - most people don't need health care that regularly, unemployed people have insurance options, and at a last resort, for the most part, you can accrue unlimited medical debt in most places with few real-world consequences.

replies(1): >>42172897 #
3. smugma ◴[18 Nov 24 15:00 UTC] No.42172897[source]▶
My wife was once a day light on her birth control. Nine months later, she delivered a boy.

For most women of child bearing age, between birth control and annual visits, healthcare is pretty important.

replies(1): >>42177741 #
4. Amezarak ◴[18 Nov 24 22:21 UTC] No.42177741{3}[source]▶
Birth control is available over the counter in the US. If you have specific need, it’s very cheap and your doctor will almost always just call in refills without charging you. The meds themselves are not expensive.

Annual visits are also not actually that important. They’re perfunctory. They can certainly be put off for a few months in a ok except a few one in a million cases.

And at any rate, as I said, losing your job in the US means your insurance is disrupted, not that you are now uninsured. Pregnancy even in states without Medicaid expansion will get the mother and child on Medicaid.

Of course, at the risk of being silly, it’s also true that missing a day of birth control is not what got your wife pregnant. ;) it’s pretty surprising to me how many people (now with children) thought birth control meant they wouldn’t get pregnant. There definitely needs to be better education on this. Taking birth control, even regularly, even with an IUD, is more like a backstop and should not be relied on for your primary protection. The odds are low but when you play them a few times a week for ten years…