←back to thread

A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work

(mertbulan.com)
1041 points mertbio | 2 comments | 27 Jan 25 08:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.43s | source
Show context
pc86 ◴[27 Jan 25 14:35 UTC] 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 #
Eridrus ◴[27 Jan 25 16:10 UTC] No.42842601[source]▶
I had the same reaction. This sort of law makes it very expensive to keep ambitious young folk like the author in a layoff.

I am very confused about how this works in practice though. Presumably you're not expected to keep an old accountant with a family over a young childless developer, but where is that line actually drawn? Can you make such a distinction between teams, or are you expected to reassign people from a team that is being disbanded? What if they don't have some experience you would like, are you expected to train them?

replies(1): >>42845396 #
1. jjmarr ◴[27 Jan 25 20:40 UTC] No.42845396[source]▶
From this article by a German lawyer, "the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.":

https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl

> Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG provides four criteria that have to be taken into account in the selection decision: Length of service, age, statutory maintenance obligations and the employee's severe disability.

> The employer must first determine which employees work at the same level in the company and can therefore be replaced. The group of employees determined in this way is what is known as a horizontal comparability. Social selection is then carried out in this group on the basis of the legally prescribed criteria. The members of the respective group are then ranked according to their need for social protection.

> Older employees are more in need of protection than younger ones. A longer period of employment also increases the need for protection, as does the existence of statutory maintenance obligations and the presence of a severe disability.

> Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG does not indicate how the social aspects mentioned are to be put in relation to each other, which is why each of the four criteria is to be given equal importance.

> When reducing staff, employers often make use of point schemes through which points are assigned to the individual social criteria. It also gives information through which the need for social protection of the employees in the comparison group can be assessed.

> All employees who are interchangeable must be included in the social selection. Criteria that can be used in this examination are the vocational training as well as the practical experience and knowledge that the respective employees have. If there is comparability, these workers are horizontally interchangeable. In practice, the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.

replies(1): >>42852453 #
2. pc86 ◴[28 Jan 25 14:09 UTC] No.42852453[source]▶
It seems pretty obvious to me that this makes it much harder for people with severe disabilities to get hired in the first place, especially for progressive degenerative diseases.

If I'm a company that is expanding at the edge of my capability, I'm not going to hire anyone with any "need for protection" that I'm able to suss out during the application or interview process because if I need to reduce staff I'm stuck with them whether they're the best or not.