[perlgeek]

BTW in Germany, if a company decides to lay off people just to save money, they have to coordinate with some government agency -- and if the company doesn't have financial trouble, those layoffs can be blocked.

This happened to Alphabet/Google when they wanted to lay off 6% of their workforce, but were wildly profitable. They couldn't in Germany.

(This probably wouldn't have applied in the Twitter case, because Twitter wasn't profitable, but it illustrates that there are processes and rules around employment that might seem very unusual to others).

[pembrook]

I know the subtext of this comment is "European labor laws are good."

But it seems you've cited an example of something ironically very anti-labor. This means your government has codified into law the false idea that all human employees are undifferentiated commodities (like cattle). So as an employer, if there's no ability to remove underperformers every year, you've turned employment into a market for lemons, and created a classic adverse selection problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

A market for lemons 1) suppresses prices [wages in this context] 2) decreases price variance and 3) creates inefficiencies. As 50% of workers are actually above average (statistics!), you've created a negative feedback loop hurting workers wages and ultimately growth in the economy.

[VonGallifrey]

> But it seems you've cited an example of something ironically very anti-labor. This means your government has codified into law the false idea that all human employees are undifferentiated commodities (like cattle). So as an employer, if there's no ability to remove underperformers every year

No, that is not the case. You can still fire people and you can do so especially if they are underperforming. You just can't do it as a mass layoff.

If you fire someone then you need a reason to do so. If you fire people because of a layoff then you need to show that the layoff is legitimate.

You can not just group underperformers and let them go as a layoff because you are circumventing labor law. You can not lie about the reason why you are letting someone go.

No one would care if you fired 99% of your company IF you are prepared to show they were underperforming and that was the official reason given.

[CrimsonRain]

You say a lot of things which companies can't actually do in reality.

Show me examples of firing a few underperformers easily from a company.

[VonGallifrey]

I was easy enough to fire for my former employers.

You would probably say that it isn't EASY because in the US it is much easier to do. You might not be able to do it immediately without notice period unless the employee does something really stupid or illegal.

You can however fire someone any time when you give them the notice period defined in the employment contract. You might need to give them a warning that they are underperforming first so that they can fix it before you fire them, but after that, you can just fire them.

This happens ALL THE TIME, but it isn't done as a mass/group action. If you have a problem with an individual then the individual gets fired.

Also, in the first 6 months, you don't need any reason and the notice period is shortened to 2 weeks.

[johnnyanmac]

you need to define "easily". No, you cannot just one day walk to an employee and say "you're fired, effective now".

But it's not some multi-year ordeal just to let go of one employee in the EU. Maybe in Asia, but different culture, different sentiments.

[sebazzz]

> So as an employer, if there's no ability to remove underperformers every year, you've turned employment into a market for lemons

You can fire someone, but not on a whim*. You need to build a file, build history, give chances for one to improve their behaviour and performance.

*in some cases you can, like grave errors, like ignoring safety regulations, endangering others, etc.

[johnnyanmac]

>This means your government has codified into law the false idea that all human employees are undifferentiated commodities (like cattle). So as an employer

If layoffs only affected "underperformers" you may have a point. laying off 6% of your workforce despite a profitable year betrays the basic idea of "underperforming".

All that aside, if your worst employee is still generating a profit for the company then there's little ground to say they are "underperforming".

[2716057]

German here. I would be very interested in the government agency you are alluding to.

There are laws regulating layoffs due to operating conditions (Kuendigungsschutzgesetz). But these laws do not allow the government to intervene directly in company affairs - that would be communism! If a company wants to restructure "for internal reasons" (rationalizations are specifically mentioned) it is allowed to do so. This includes offshoring, moving workload to contractors, or simply getting rid of a department.

However: many of the large companies (eg. SAP, BASF, carmakers,...) have collective labor agreements. These agreements often exclude layoffs due to operational conditions within a certain period. Under very special circumstances layoffs are still possible in such arrangements, but the companies have to prove their economic hardship and the layoffs often end with a sort of golden handshake. If they happen at all :)

[perlgeek]

I've read up a bit on it, and it seems I was wrong. I was under the impression that some kind of regulatory body that told Google that they don't have a good enough reason to lay off people, but it might have been their own council.

To lay off somebody, a company needs a reason, and the bar for being laid off because of redundancy is pretty high. You have to be able to proof that either the economic situation is bad enough that other measures don't help, or that their labor had been automated away, or other possible reasons that don't apply here (like seasons for seasonal workers).

[paulddraper]

This is a great way to cement inefficiencies and create pencil pushers.

[rapsey]

Germany in a nutshell.