←back to thread

178 points rawgabbit | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
infotainment ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.42169939[source]
Inexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.
replies(3): >>42170299 #>>42170391 #>>42170739 #
WalterBright ◴[] 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 #
KptMarchewa ◴[] 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 #
jayd16 ◴[] 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 #
1. KptMarchewa ◴[] No.42173733{3}[source]
I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.
replies(1): >>42174019 #
2. consteval ◴[] No.42174019[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 #
3. KptMarchewa ◴[] No.42174184[source]
Which goes again to my original point.