Termination with “cause” has special meaning in employment law. It usually means getting fired for theft, fraud, harassment, causing irreparable harm to the company, etc.
One consequence of getting fired with cause is you don’t get severance or most other protections you’re normally entitled to by law. So, the bar for this kind of termination is (rightfully) very high.
Poor performance or even not showing up for work at all generally don’t meet the requirements for “cause”, so I dunno if making it illegal to let people go for anything other than straight up committing illegal or harmful acts makes sense.
Welcome to europe. Poor performance, unless evidently on purpose, coming late (unless regularly) isnt cause here either and it is illegal to let anyone outside of 6 month probation go without cause.
The US system is shit and one reason for suicide rates, poverty and overt greed of large companies. Its disgusting.
What happens if a business is losing money and can’t afford to employ its whole staff? Do they have to shut the whole business down instead of letting a certain percentage of underperformers go without cause? How is that handled in Europe?
I am genuinely asking because I have only ever experienced American employment.
It depends on the country but in germany, below 10 employees you have at will employment. Everyone else is only allowed to employ as many employees as they can afford. If your company is in crisis, you can ask the government for an emergency exemption to lay off a certain amount of people while making sure that they get new jobs asap (the employment agency works with them to qualify laid off employees so they find new employment fast).
The important part is that there is always a reason why someone is underperformant. If its not on purpose, the employer must make a case or find agreement with the employee which is often done.
Its really no big deal and the giant german corporations that compete internationally are evidence that it works.
The difference is that the employer is not godlike as they apparently are in the US.
Well it doesn’t help that our health insurance is directly tied to our employment. So if you get laid off then need a prescription you’re right fucked.
Yeah that’s an absolutely grotesque situation. I’m in Canada though so it’s a bit different.
In practice people also don’t get fired here on a an employer’s whim. Not because it’s not allowed by law but because fired employees can sue for wrongful dismissal, and for most employers it’s not worth the risk, so there’s usually a long HR process for firing someone for poor performance.
Ok so if you read the second thing I said, it’s that it should be illegal to lay off some people while giving raises to others.
The idea is, sometimes, you don’t have profit and do have to lay people off. And that can be ok. If you have enough revenue to somehow still give your executive raises, that is fucked up.
Termination with “cause” has special meaning in employment law. It usually means getting fired for theft, fraud, harassment, causing irreparable harm to the company, etc.
One consequence of getting fired with cause is you don’t get severance or most other protections you’re normally entitled to by law. So, the bar for this kind of termination is (rightfully) very high.
Poor performance or even not showing up for work at all generally don’t meet the requirements for “cause”, so I dunno if making it illegal to let people go for anything other than straight up committing illegal or harmful acts makes sense.
Welcome to europe. Poor performance, unless evidently on purpose, coming late (unless regularly) isnt cause here either and it is illegal to let anyone outside of 6 month probation go without cause.
The US system is shit and one reason for suicide rates, poverty and overt greed of large companies. Its disgusting.
What happens if a business is losing money and can’t afford to employ its whole staff? Do they have to shut the whole business down instead of letting a certain percentage of underperformers go without cause? How is that handled in Europe?
I am genuinely asking because I have only ever experienced American employment.
It depends on the country but in germany, below 10 employees you have at will employment. Everyone else is only allowed to employ as many employees as they can afford. If your company is in crisis, you can ask the government for an emergency exemption to lay off a certain amount of people while making sure that they get new jobs asap (the employment agency works with them to qualify laid off employees so they find new employment fast).
The important part is that there is always a reason why someone is underperformant. If its not on purpose, the employer must make a case or find agreement with the employee which is often done.
Its really no big deal and the giant german corporations that compete internationally are evidence that it works.
The difference is that the employer is not godlike as they apparently are in the US.
Edit: source: I worked for the employment agency.
If a business can’t afford its staff it shouldn’t exist at all
Yeah rather than laying off a portion of the people it makes more sense to lay off everyone!
Well it doesn’t help that our health insurance is directly tied to our employment. So if you get laid off then need a prescription you’re right fucked.
Yeah that’s an absolutely grotesque situation. I’m in Canada though so it’s a bit different.
In practice people also don’t get fired here on a an employer’s whim. Not because it’s not allowed by law but because fired employees can sue for wrongful dismissal, and for most employers it’s not worth the risk, so there’s usually a long HR process for firing someone for poor performance.
The US system is stacked completely against the employee and akin to mild slavery imo.
Yeah we are basically serfs here.
What is a serf?
A farm worker in the feudal system, usually “owned” by the property for which they worked.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serf
That is very accurate then. :)
Ok so if you read the second thing I said, it’s that it should be illegal to lay off some people while giving raises to others.
The idea is, sometimes, you don’t have profit and do have to lay people off. And that can be ok. If you have enough revenue to somehow still give your executive raises, that is fucked up.
You angrily agreed with me.