[rjzzleep]

A lot of German institutions work this way. There are a lot of problems with this. But one of the biggest is the following:

When you notice that someone that brings zero value to the company gets the same salary as you one of two things happens:

1. you either loose any incentive to do anything

2. or you quit.

In time all what you're left with is the people you don't want.

[trowawee]

Ok, but that's not really my problem. That's bad management, because they're apparently carrying around a bunch of dead weight and not doing anything to correct that problem.

[dmitrygr]

firing someone in EU isn't easy, no matter how useless they are.

[yorwba]

I'm not sure why you think that. At least in Germany, if an employee can't do the work they are obligated to do by their employment contract, they are in violation. After they have been notified of the violation (or if it is obvious, e.g. because they didn't even go to work), it is their duty to correct that. If the employee is unable to satisfy the requirements, they can be terminated with an appropriate notice period.

(Termination protection does not apply if the behavior of the employee is the reason: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kschg/__1.html)

The process may not be fast, but for a useless employee, it would be difficult to claim that the termination was unjustified, so the outcome is essentially guaranteed. I would call that easy (as opposed to simple).

[Pyxl101]

Yes ... and this is a major drain on EU companies that make them less competitive than companies with "at will" employment. They can't fire low-performers easily, and they can't afford to take a gamble on people since firing them is so difficult if they don't work out.

[walshemj]

That's mostly propaganda and the fear of "socialist" Europe its actually quite easy to remove people for poor performance assuming it is really poor performance or trying to avoid redundancy.

If its so easy to fire in the USA why is hr so paranoid about it

[DanBC]

In the UK you can be fired within the first two years without reason (unless it's connected to a protected characteristic). After two years you can still be fired - the company just has to follow a simple procedure of giving you some warnings before firing you.

Employer tribunals are not free and are intimidating to use, so many people who are wrongfully dismissed don't seek justice.

[bshimmin]

Having had to fire someone who had been at a company for more than two years, I can say it was anything but a simple procedure: it involved a performance improvement plan which lasted interminably (and actually sapped a really surprisingly large amount of my own time...) and it became an awful lot more complicated when it turned out the guy was on anti-depressants. In the end, HR suggested I take the guy to the pub for lunch and they told me a series of things I could say to encourage him to quit but which couldn't possibly be construed as constructive dismissal; thankfully over lunch he told me he'd got another job offer, and I walked him out of the office the following day with a great sense of relief.

[ascorbic]

It's not specifically an EU issue. The UK is a lot more like the US in that respect, as is Ireland.

[dx034]

That's not a problem with equal salaries. Even if salaries are opaque, underperforming or lazy colleagues lower morale. Incentives can still be given by allowing people to quickly move up the ranks if they perform well.

[tom_mellior]

All that is true regardless of the other person's salary.