[wolvoleo]

Those things are as designed. This is good. We don't want "at-will" employment like in the US. We want to have rights as employees. We want to have social welfare. We want our free healthcare.

It's not a bug it's a feature. We don't want an American-style society. Current developments should be enough reason to understand why (and the understanding that Trump's backers are part of a huge group of people on the low side of the wealth gap). If anything we have too much of that already hence the rise of extreme right here too. It's a result of the austerity movements after the 2007 crash.

But this new regulation doesn't invalidate employee rights no. It's just about registration and incorporation.

[galangalalgol]

Free healthcare and social welfare I'm in agreement on. But why does at will employment need to conflict with that? The problems of wage values, food and shelter, and healthcare can be handled completely independently of employment. If someone feels it is too easy to do nothing without requiring employment to gain some of those benefits, you can have the government as an employer of last resort. But making it easy for anyone and everyone to start and maintain a business is a societal good. We are asking why doesn't a person have guaranteed employment, when we should ask why do they need it. If a person was let go and could with empty pockets be assured of food shelter and healthcare, and also be able to start their own company on the way home from being let go, that is the society I'd want to live in.

[wolvoleo]

At will employment is something we'll never accept here. We don't need the threat of having nothing from one day to the next.

It's good for billionaires but not for actual people that matter.

Running a business is not something everyone should have to do anyway. It's good if it's hard. That keeps the cowboys at bay.

I would never ever want to own a business. I don't need that uncertainty. I just want a stable wage.

The prevailing idea here is that the US is best at everything and its model will always win. But in reality it's been in decline for a long time and it's become a pretty toxic society I don't want to see here in Europe. Trump is only a symptom of that but not the cause. The real cause is a top layer (which many HN commenters are part of) that is getting ever richer and a huge disadvantaged mass that is stagnant or declining. Their anger is what drives MAGA. Also called late stage capitalism. Going even more capitalist is not the way to fix or prevent that.

[galangalalgol]

I agree with everything you said except for the cowboys bit. I don't think business owners should be a separate class of people. It shouldn't be unusual to meet people that own their business. I don't want to do it, it would stress me. But we can let random people try random ideas without having to start out wealthy, and we shouldn't have the failure of that business and the loss of those employees' jobs, risk the health and well-being of those let go. If getting fired just meant you had to do with fewer luxuries until you found another, we wouldn't need to protect those jobs to the detriment of a business. By tying employment to safety and well-being, we complicate the whole matter.

[tick_tock_tick]

Most people in the US own stocks the USA is "fixing" this by making everyone part of the owner class. Especially now with childhood investment accounts by the federal government (the "trump accounts").

[wolvoleo]

By cowboys I mean the people starting businesses left right and center and just collapsing them when they don't get the desired result straight away. E.g. US venture capitalism. I think it's a really good thing that we don't have that here in Europe. Sure it prevents the googles and metas but those would never have made it that big here anyway because we regulate big businesses before they become uncontrollable. And now that we are breaking off ties with the US we will have to build our own anyway, just with sustainable and fair business models.

Sure we can get society to pick up the tab but the problem is that those cowboys are even more incentivised to be risky then. There should be a penalty for them when it goes wrong.

[ragall]

Various places in Europe already have what amounts to at-will employment. There are exemptions for companies under a certain number of employees (e.g. 25 in Italy). There's a wide use of fixed-term contracts (6/12 months). Many work through agencies, which means they can be "fired" with a few weeks' notice.

[embedding-shape]

Depends a lot on what country, but I think you'll find that the ratio of full-time employee vs contractor/at-will employee in most European countries will look very different from how that ratio looks like in the US (or other similar countries).

[ragall]

Sure, but that's very different from saying that Europeans have would never accept it. It's already happening quite extensively, though not as much as in the US. Europe seems to be 20-40 years behind the US in various economic and social developments, but it's not immune from them.

[embedding-shape]

I don't read "we'll never accept here" as "it's be impossible", more like "we won't base our entire economy on that, it's not what the average person wants", because obviously Europe has various staffing companies already, and if you add a tiny bit of nuance into what they said, I'd agree with it too.

> Europe seems to be 20-40 years behind the US in various economic and social developments

That's one perspective, another is that US is 20-40 years behind Europe because the average person can barely afford to stay alive in the US right now, which is much less of a problem in Europe. But it all depends on what you value, I'm not gonna say one is more "correct" than the other, we all have our preferences and so on.

[wolvoleo]

Not really. Fixed-term contracts can not be used indefinitely. A worker must be permanently hired after the first extension. Agencies can not be used indefinitely, and also, the agency is required to support the employee after the client lets them go. So the company just pays to shift that responsibility but the responsibility towards the employee is there. A company is also not allowed to make an employee 'self-employed' by making them start their own company. They must always have multiple clients, if they have just one the government will consider it permanent employment with all strings attached and will apply all relevant restrictions and taxation retroactively.

I'm just talking about holland here but all over europe the conditions are similar.

All the exceptions you mention were just sly ways the companies have tried to circumvent their responsibilities and the law has caught up with regulations to make those impossible or at least impractical.

And there are some exceptions yes. But those are mostly for in-between gig jobs. Not for stuff people make a career out of.

Of course there are also exceptions with easy firing for things like gross negligence. Though the employee always has the ability to countersue.

[ragall]

> A worker must be permanently hired after the first extension.

After the first extension the worker will not be hired again.

> Agencies can not be used indefinitely

Yes they can.

> A company is also not allowed to make an employee 'self-employed' by making them start their own company.

Wrong. I've seen this happening personally.

> I'm just talking about holland here but all over europe the conditions are similar.

You're talking about what you think is happening in Netherlands, and the conditions in many places in the rest of Europe are not like that.

> But those are mostly for in-between gig jobs. Not for stuff people make a career out of.

Not yet.

[tick_tock_tick]

> The prevailing idea here is that the US is best at everything and its model will always win. But in reality it's been in decline for a long time and it's become a pretty toxic society I don't want to see here in Europe.

If the USA is in decline you must consider Europe a failed state at this point then? Nearly every wealth inequality issue is worse in Europe then the USA. Youth unemployment has become a permanent fixture of society, your housing affordability crisis makes the USA look really good, most of your nations can't afford to keep social services at current levels and will be cutting them over the next decade, and you need to actually spend on military now that's just going to happen faster.

It's kinda funny by trying to avoid "late stage capitalism" the EU is going to force themselves into it as quality of life and global relevance continue to fade.

[wolvoleo]

The EU is not a state.

And no, wealth inequality is much higher in the US: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-in... . And those are averages, we don't have people making 100.000x more than others.

We also have wayyy less violent crime: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-c... , and much less people in prison per capita

LGBTQ+ rights are way better covered here (with the exception of a couple countries that should really be booted out of the EU). Also really important for me.

We're doing pretty good, we will have some challenges going forward but that's always the case. Military equipment is something that we're now buying a lot from the US where prices are really high, and once we move that to European vendors we can get a lot more for the same money (this is similar to how Russia manages to have so much military power on a country with a GDP similar to Italy: they make it themselves with their own purchasing power).

The one challenge to the EU is not to fall into the austerity trap as they did in 2007 though. And we don't need so much. I don't need or want a car, a big TV, daily takeaway coffees etc. Less consumerism is also a good thing.

[tick_tock_tick]

> And no, wealth inequality is much higher in the US

Absolute numbers don't matter as I was saying the issues caused by wealth inequality such as housing crisis are much worse in the EU.

> We also have wayyy less violent crime

Fair but I will say ours is very concentrated to specific areas / demographics so the average person rarely has to deal with that.

> LGBTQ+ rights are way better covered here (with the exception of a couple countries that should really be booted out of the EU). Also really important for me.

So they are worse?

> Military equipment is something that we're now buying a lot from the US where prices are really high, and once we move that to European vendors we can get a lot more for the same money

That's a two decade plus plan that hasn't even started and is already running into issues. Doesn't help that the EU needs weapons now not in 20 years.

> And we don't need so much. I don't need or want a car, a big TV, daily takeaway coffees etc.

It's one thing not to want it's another to not to be able to have.

[galangalalgol]

It really matters which state you look at. Wealth inequality, gdp per capita, and median wage are all better in several eu members than in the US, and that still holds if you factor in housing and cpi in general. There are other states where that is really not the case. Its mostly the Scandinavian countries outperforming the us on these metrics and they are relatively low population in comparison so its kind of an odd one to make. If the goal is total gdp, who cares about the median wage, then the us/china plan does make more sense, but neither of those plans work without the other existing and cooperating.

[WarmWash]

The EU has a borderline stagnant economy, couldn't defend itself from Russia, facing population collapse, totally whiffed on the tech scene explosion in the last 25 years, now also missing out on AI. European social obligations are expensive, yet nobody seems to really want to stress about creating new sources of wealth.

At some point Europeans need to look in the mirror, and understand that the last 30 years has been a vacation, and even worse, there is now a whole generation who was born on vacation and thinks it's the norm.

[wolvoleo]

We can defend ourselves, it's just that the US didn't want a too-powerful Europe until trump. In particular nuclear. They heavily pushed against that.

We'll have to scale this up now but it is not a big problem.

Population collapse is a good thing. We already have too many people in this world, causing environmental and housing issues. We can't keep ever growing as humanity, stabilisation or even a reduction is very good. It'll cause some short term cash flow and elderly care issues but we'll deal with that.

And AI so far is more of a hollow promise and hype. It's not a race, the way America is approaching it it's inevitably going to lead to a bubble collapse.

[codingcodingboy]

"In particular nuclear. They heavily pushed against that."

Saw this yesterday related to nuclear deterrence in Italy.

https://x.com/NichoConcu/status/2012882747434426605

[sbacic]

> Population collapse is a good thing.

Unless your welfare state depends on a growing population. Which is the case in many EU states.

I'd also argue that overpopulation is not a problem in Europe.

[pbhjpbhj]

We should definitely go all in on a perpetually growing population, what could possibly go wrong.

It's going to hurt, but that's what happens when people don't look to the future and do everything out of greed. The sooner we stop population growth the better.

[sbacic]

This "greed" and lack of foresight underpins a lot of the welfare states of Europe. Many member states are doing nothing at all to account for this population shrinkage, much less plan for a world with less people.

[WarmWash]

Europe didn't want a too powerful Europe until Trump.

Are you going to look me in the eyes and say that you, and your general Euro brethren, have been pushing for a greater defense budget at the expense of greater social program spending for the last 30 years.

Please, please make that statement. C'mon...

This is the same Europe that thought it would be a good idea to buy gas from Russia, the same Europe that thought it would be a good idea to have a fully American tech stack, and the same Europe (whose largest company is an automotive one) that is importing cheap Chinese cars.

Anything to avoid having to leave their 30 year vacation.

[wolvoleo]

No, but back then the US was a trusted partner. They wanted to provide military protection in return for geopolitical influence. Both are gone now of course.

However I don't think we need a huge military in terms of boots on the ground. We just need a nuclear umbrella to avoid the likes of Putin to roll into europe. Most of our foreign military adventures were requested by the US and only about oil, not safety related. Even the nato article 5 afghanistan trip was completely useless (bin laden wasn't even there, afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks and since everyone pulled out things are 100% back the way they were).

And yeah we bought too much American tech and chinese manufacturing (but so does America obviously). Cars aren't that important to single out, a lot of us don't even have one.

And Europe was a lot more socialist > 30 years ago. It's the last decades that the neoliberalists (including the EU itself which has strong neoliberal underpinnings) have been hollowing out social protections in favour of business.

This is what I mean when I say the US model isn't necessarily the best. Americans are often completely convinced of that, that there is no other way than ultracapitalism and heartless social policies. I absolutely don't agree there. The US is best at making some people insane amounts of money but it's not great for social cohesion and a decent life for everyone.

[usrnm]

Refusal to learn and change, even if it means learning from people you disagree with, is simply arrogant and stupid. The US is the biggest economy in the world with the strongest tech sector in the world, they are obviously doing something right. And many personal accounts from people doing business in the EU in this thread show that the EU is doing at least some things wrong.

[wolvoleo]

We don't care only about money. We're doing pretty great, we have some issues like housing cost but the US has those too. I'm happy with my life and I don't feel like there's something missing that having more money would fix. Less employment and welfare rights would cause a lot of worry and uncertainty though.

It's not all about economy and getting ever more more more like the US. I'm pretty happy living here and I would never move to the US. In fact right now I wouldn't even visit it but hopefully the status quo doesn't last forever.

And it's not all about business. But about people, the employees.

[thewebguyd]

> And it's not all about business. But about people, the employees.

Everyone here is missing this critical point.

The USA does not value human life as having value itself outside of what someone can contribute economically. Everyone talking about GDP, and "missing out" on AI, tech, etc.

Life has value outside of economic contributions. It's not a matter of "missing out" it's different priorities and philosophies of how to structure a human society.

Endless growth is not sustainable, and the late stage capitalism happening in the US right now is not sustainable. Why would anyone want to model themselves after it, seeing all of its failures and the enormous wealth gap it has created?

[ExoticPearTree]

> We don't want "at-will" employment like in the US.

Only lazy people want to be employed for life somewhere. All the benefits, no responsibility.

[wolvoleo]

No, we still work. Just want some continuity. Not working for a company without direction chasing the latest fad and dumping everyone if it doesn't work out, but a good company with a decent business plan.

[cowl]

Is someone forcing you to work at a company chasing the latest fad? You go and choose the type of company you want. The keyword here being "Choice".

There are plenty of workers that would not mind carring a little more risk in those companies for better pay, and those companies could offer better pay if not made to jump through loops.

Classic Example is the "Consultant" contracts.

Companies are paying through their nose to hire "consultants" because it's the easiest way they can try a new idea that might not work.

Company A pays Company B 1k/day for that "consultant", Company B does not have enough capacity so gets that "Consultant" from Company C for 700/day. Company C does the same and gets the consultant from Company D for 500/Day. Company D actually employs the consultant and pays him 200/Day. In this whole useless chain build to avoid the "can not fire even if your projects doesn't work" Both Company A and the actual Employee are losing big, Both would be much better having a direct contract for 500/day with the understading that this might not work after all.

Notice that for that Employee, stability is not there even now. yes he continues to be employed by Company D When Company A stops the contract but he is effectivly moved to another Contract with Company X. he is effectivly changing Jobs, new reposnsabilities, new collegues, new rules etc. only in the eyes of the state he is not changing jobs.

[mlunar]

You are thinking of the continuity of work, colleagues, and responsibilities. Those are of course good to have, especially from the perspective of the company.

But from the perspective of the individual worker, a much more important continuity is the one of salary, insurance, and pension. This is the stability that the employee continues getting at Company D.

[cowl]

No, What i'm thinking is Having the option to choose Salary Stability or Salary Risk. In that scenario if the employee is fired after just 2 years (worse case) because the project does not work, he is still financially better (compared to what he was getting at the "stable salary") even if it takes him 2 full years to find another job (something very unlikely if there is a dynamic employment market).

in the current scenario of contract works, the employee is getting all the negative effects of changing a job without any upside.

of course I am not talking about complete US style firing, but something in the middle. The option to fire with adequate notice let's say 3 months and adequate compensation, let's say 3 months of compensation after finishing your time. This way, the employee has 6 months of job Hunting, (I think that is a sweet spot to make it reasonable for both the company and the employee)

[mlunar]

You are free to choose opening a consultancy yourself and take on the salary risk as well as reap the rewards.

Companies also currently aren't completely banned from firing people. If and when they do, it can look like you described, with adequate notice and compensation.

[ExoticPearTree]

Then go be an entrepreneur and create a company with no risk of failing. And let us know how that works out for you.

[wolvoleo]

I don't want to be an entrepreneur. And it doesn't have to be riskless. Just to have a good business (plan).

But this is the status quo in Europe. Companies are forced to take failure into account before they dive in deep, because it will cost them. Provide benefits for their employees, etc. This is good. Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.

I just don't understand the desire to turn the EU into the US. If you like how business in the US works, just start your business there, not here. Meanwhile I as a worker would never consider moving there. This way we can both get what we want.

[xvokcarts]

> Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.

I think it's safe to say that the one who starts something has the privilege to make the call on its purpose. And I'd bet most if not all people who start companies do so in order to make money for themselves, and providing jobs is a means to that end.

So, if a company could make profit without employing a single person, it would still serve its purpose.

[socksy]

Good thing then that there's a range of options between being let go immediately for no reason and companies being forced to employ bad employees for life.

[wolvoleo]

Yes and that's basically what we have in most of Europe.

Only France really has a bit of the latter.

You can get rid of employees. You just have to show to the court that is necessary. Circumstances depend on whether it's individual performance or business need etc.

But the at will is very harsh and we don't want this here.

[anonzzzies]

In NL I guess that is similar to France; in our case we always started a binder on a new employee so after their trial period/temp contract, we continue collecting info. If that person just waited for the trial to be over to just do nothing, we go to the court with the binder and get them out. We stopped after a certain period depending on what we collected so far: most binders are empty anyway. Also, you can fire someone without that if you have economic cause (which should be the reason for firing someone good) or you can fire them without that by paying them some months in the future.

The most annoying people, which we didnt have many but still a few, are the ones who, right after the trial period, or when they smell a rat, will go 'oh no, i feel something behind my eye and in my wrist, your work made me ill' and then go home. you would have to pay them and be nice about it (not threaten them with a beating).

[joe_mamba]

AUstria (and especially Switzerland) has virtually at-will employment. No need to show anything to any court, just the notice period. Job security is virtually non existent.