←back to thread

1041 points mertbio | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.763s | source | bottom
Show context
pc86 ◴[] No.42841512[source]
> The Myth of Job Security in Germany

> Since I was working for a German entity of a company, I want to address a common myth about job security in Germany. Many people believe that it’s nearly impossible to be fired in Germany. While this is partially true for individuals who have completed their probation period, it doesn’t hold up in the context of layoffs. If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.

The author decries how he was laid off despite his contribution then - without a hint of irony - says Germany isn't as safe for employees as most people think because layoffs are legally required to take into account information completely disconnected from your contributions at work.

Of course if you have legal structures that make it harder to fire people based on what they do outside of work, you will be forced to lay off people you otherwise wouldn't.

What are the odds the author got laid off despite his contributions precisely because somebody who earned more than him and did less couldn't be fired because they happened to have children? In the US it would be approximately zero. Even if the person picking names knows you have kids - but they don't because they're usually 3-4 levels above you - they have to justify the names to their boss and "J. Doe just had their second kid so let's keep them around until next year" will absolutely not fly.

replies(3): >>42841709 #>>42842601 #>>42843079 #
bluGill ◴[] No.42841709[source]
The hard to lay off makes it harder to hire as well. Sure you get the 6 month probation period, but it is risky to hire anyone because they might make it past those 6 months before bad times come.

There is no good answer.

replies(1): >>42842137 #
pc86 ◴[] No.42842137[source]
You will have a hard time convincing me that at will employment and hire-fast-fire-fast mentality is not objectively better than whatever you might call the German-style system. (Notice I didn't say it's good, just better)

The German-style system seems to treat a job as something the employee is guaranteed, that it's their inherent right to have, rather than something the employer chooses to give them. It doesn't seem to line up with reality.

replies(3): >>42842689 #>>42843006 #>>42848085 #
1. s1mplicissimus ◴[] No.42843006[source]
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Duties and rights/freedoms are usually connected. Like you have the right to tiger arms, but that entails the duty to stash and use them responsibly. You have the right to ride your car where you want to go, but that entails the duty of obeying traffic laws. For this specific example: You have the duty to work, but that entails the right to have a job. Does it entail the right to have a job you find enjoyable or fulfilling? Hell no! (hour long commutes or jobs you are clearly overqualified for are things you'll just have to accept according to this model still. "Culture mismatch" is not in the vocabulary of social security payout offices, interestingly) To me it still sounds better than "no job? well guess bad luck for you" though. ymmv
replies(1): >>42843693 #
2. pc86 ◴[] No.42843693[source]
This just doesn't match up with reality IME.

You don't have a right to drive your car anywhere - the state can revoke it. Many states have no laws at all about how to store firearms, and the ones that do in general are pretty hostile to the idea that you have a right to bear arms in the first place. You don't have a duty to work, someone isn't morally wrong because they live off family money. And you absolutely do not have a right to a job, because a job requires someone else to pay you money. Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money.

replies(1): >>42847662 #
3. Vegenoid ◴[] No.42847662[source]
> Nobody has a right to have someone else pay them money.

In the not too distant past, you didn't need money to live. If you wanted to brave the elements, make your own shelter, grow/gather/hunt your own food, and deal with the threats on your own, you could do that. Now, you can't do that. Everything is owned. You need to have money to buy or lease land to live on. If nobody gives you money (or land), you can't make a life for yourself, because one must live on land, and all the land is owned.

Does this mean that people have a right to receive money? I'm not sure about that. I think the argument that people should have a right to be able to work and receive money has some merit, although certainly flaws too. It is at least worth considering that the world and society has changed and crystallized substantially over the last couple centuries, and the system of money is forced upon everyone.

replies(2): >>42852189 #>>42864680 #
4. bluGill ◴[] No.42852189{3}[source]
> In the not too distant past, you didn't need money to live.

Are you calling prehistory the not too distance past? From what I can tell from history most useful land was owned by someone. How it was owned varied, from tribes that kept other tribes off their land (no personal ownership), villages that kept protected the local's land, "lords" that had control of various amounts of lands.

Sometimes there were plagues and so for a short time you could find land that nobody controlled, but that didn't last long if the land was useful. It might be enough for you to establish yourself on that land, but it wasn't a constant thing.

5. pc86 ◴[] No.42864680{3}[source]
If you want to go live in the woods and live off the land there are plenty of places you can do that. Go to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, you will absolutely be able to find a place where you can do exactly this.

That you can't do it in Suffolk or Santa Clara County is not proof it's impossible.

replies(1): >>42954633 #
6. s1mplicissimus ◴[] No.42954633{4}[source]
@pc86 hi thanks for your reply! I'm not from the US so I don't understand how this works, maybe you would be kind enough to explain it to me? Like which land specifically a person could go to to live off of. Are there unowned patches of land in the regions you mentioned? One specific example where I could go tomorrow, set up a hut and live my eremite life without anyone bothering me. I certainly assume that there are places where one could sneak through, not getting noticed etc. but it seems your claim is that one could do the dropout life legally?