[happytoexplain]

The imbalance of power is simply too great. Even for high-value positions, and even in times of high job availability, employers can always afford (by every conceivable definition of "afford") to harm employees more than employees can afford to harm employers.

Edit: A healthy society is a high-trust society where the employee-employer relationship is more balanced due to the regular old humanity that you would expect by default from humans, rather than pure economics. You can't regulate the fundamentals of societal health. When people have less and less cultural attachment to each other and to the societies in which they operate; and less and less respect for the idea of plain humanity; this is the result. The US seems to have been historically above average in this regard, but is coming down fast. A few European countries seem to be at the top of this (highly subjective) ranking.

[lukev]

Unless employees unionize.

[lnsru]

I can repeat as long as one needs. I work in Germany. Every big company is unionized. And guess what!? Bosses told, that 20% of the company will be laid off and it was ok for all union members. Packages were offered in few rounds. Home office forbidden. I didn’t got package, I left for a company with liberal home office ruling. Unions are beautiful cosmetics. When layoff happens it happens just like that.

[Tainnor]

Even for non-unionised people, labour protection laws in Germany are completely incomparable to the US:

1. Mandatory notice periods (3 months is customary, mimumum 1 month)

2. "Social selection", i.e. you're not allowed to lay off a pregnant person etc. unless you have demonstrated that there were no other people you could have let go instead

3. There needs to be cause. Downsizing can still mean you get laid off, but you can't just fire a team or an individual because you don't like them etc.

Of course, if you left a company because you didn't agree to their rules instead of being laid off, none of these protections apply to you - why would they?

[The_Colonel]

Yeah, employees are kinda unfirable which has good sides and bad sides. People don't have to worry about their existencr, but that also means you don't need to do more than the bare minimum. Which many do, and in some way it's a comfortable lifestyle. OTOH you won't find any German companies paying close to what Netflix pays.

[lnsru]

Not completely true. It depends on company size. Big ones have always good lawyers for these times

[Tainnor]

The law is incredibly clear on these things, lawyers can't help you. The only thing they can do is confuse people who don't actually know the law and their legal rights - that does sometimes happen, but I'd say a small company is just as likely to do so.

[itsoktocry]

Everyone loves unions during layoffs. But when times are flush they don't want their bonus hindered or to "protect bad apples" or "lazy workers".

Being in a union involves give and take.

[vasco]

I was curious so I went to see what is there in terms of data and found:

1. "Firms and Layoffs: The Impact of Unionization on Involuntary Job Loss" - (2003 with data from 1997) https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html

> Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates.

Does anyone have anything more recent about this?

[anamexis]

Point number 2 in particular strikes me as circular - unions did not impact layoff rates except in industries where the unions protected against layoffs.

[lukewrites]

This understanding of unions is as common as it is wrong. A union allows workers to negotiate contracts, meaning workers can have a say in how performance is assessed and how things like bonuses are handed out.

I am in a non-union workspace. There's no transparency on how bonuses or stock refreshers are handed out. A union contract could codify it.

The owner class wants workers to think unions will hurt our earnings because when workers are structurally unable to shape company policy the bosses can do whatever they want...and what they want is to maximize profits. (Like Elon Musk said: You don't need a union, I'll put in an soft serve machine for you.)

[outworlder]

There's been a lot of effort to demonize unions. Many employees won't even try because they think "unions are bad" without ever been in one.

[withinboredom]

Exactly. Unions exist for exactly this purpose and have legal powers no employee will ever have.

[happytoexplain]

Yes, though it really only helps so much with the broader problem.

[OkayPhysicist]

It's the main building block of any broader solution. You need to have large, pro-worker organizations in play in order to fight for large scale change, whether that's in a figurative sense in the courts and legislature, or in a literal sense, in the streets of Krakow or Barcelona.

[jessehorne]

Let's do it. My contact information is in my description.

[toomuchtodo]

https://code-cwa.org/

https://code-cwa.org/organize

[pizzafeelsright]

I think the power balance is fine compared to what once was or even could be.

Do you give Netflix 180 days notice or additional payments when you quit their service?

I am a W2/FTE and I have a job that I can leave with zero notice or consequence. If I was to get laid off I would imagine I would get some type of severance - even if only two weeks as that would be more than agreed upon.

There is no whip if I fail. No debt incurred if I fail to deliver on my "promises". I could definitely harm my employer with substantial consequences and I think the worst they could do is report my activities to the authorities.

[Findeton]

Unless employees save up money, then you are always prepared.

[vineyardmike]

Still harms the employee.

Preparation isn’t free, and even if you’re prepared, you’re still harmed. This isn’t some moral lesson on independence and discipline. Companies don’t need any single employee as much as that employee needs their job.

[Findeton]

You think you are harmed but if you recognized the alternative you wouldn’t be saying that. Countries with higher protections for employees have WAY lower salaries for everyone.

[toomuchtodo]

What if I told you salaries could go up if shareholder profits and management pay packages went down? You're operating from the idea that people with outsized pay packages are exceptional, when more often then not, they are lucky people benefiting from a dysfunctional system. Certainly, skill is involved, but you are weighing it too much from an outcome perspective.

I am a lucky person, but I see it for what it is, not that I am special or exceptional. A lottery ticket is not something you can base broad policy on, most especially considering the aggregate harm being incurred.

If you are not interested in a union, that is fine, it only takes a majority to win a union and 30% to hold a vote. Do you think 51% are making outsized comp and vote no? I'm interested to find out too as someone very curious.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections

https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-...

[Findeton]

Sorry I don’t like the current concept of unions that use coercion either through the state law or demonstrations. I’d rather they used private agreements instead of state law.

[toomuchtodo]

You might have to find a jurisdiction more to your liking then. Conversely, I don't like the current brutalist labor environment and do like these government and regulatory levers that can be pulled. Private agreements are worthless based on available evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share. Consider non competes (private agreements) being invalidated, and the evidence they are a detriment to workers and innovation.

[withinboredom]

This is true, but at least you get what you pay for. I moved out of the US for a lower salary, but a waaaay higher total package. I have actual high speed trains that get me to my destination measurably faster than driving, my employer and I each have to give at least a 6 week notice for either of us to be dismissed, I have actual paid vacation that I can trade for cash (instead of magical “unlimited” vacation), affordable housing right on the water, an actual pension instead of playing a risky, slow moving, stock market game, nobody calls me on the weekends, ever. And so many other things.

So yeah, my bank account might be lower, but I don’t need nearly as much as I did in the US so it feels like I actually have more.

[Findeton]

@toomuchtodo I would say that salaries don’t depend on shareholders at all but on the demand/offer balance of workers for a given job.

[hotpotamus]

At some point I'm going to need a surgery that costs maybe $50K (and maybe a lot more if there are complications). How many people have that saved up plus living expenses?

I'd like to have "fuck you" (or even "screw you") money, but the healthcare system makes it pretty tough.

[ycdxvjp]

Tech that works over time is supposed to reduce the Price of a good or service.

Tech workers and their lifestyles are not sustainable if the Tech actually does that.