←back to thread

How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

(www.tofugu.com)
178 points rawgabbit | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 04:02 UTC | HN request time: 3.781s | 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 #
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 #
1. 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.)