[HN Gopher] Dutch employee fired by U.S. firm for shutting off w...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch employee fired by U.S. firm for shutting off webcam awarded
EUR75K in court
Author : stoeckley
Score : 497 points
Date : 2022-10-09 10:52 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nltimes.nl)
(TXT) w3m dump (nltimes.nl)
| graderjs wrote:
| That's what I like about europe: legal protections. I have the
| feeling there's no way that would ever happen in East Asia
| (excepting maaaybe Japan). Tho it would probably happen in parts
| of SE Asia, Indonesia etc, informed by a cultural and political
| impetus to slough off the perceived historical yoke of Western
| colonial exploitation. But other places (like Ph, and Thailand, I
| guess) this would never happen, I think as they need their
| Western manufacturing contracts too dearly... I think.
| O__________O wrote:
| From Glassdoor for related employer:
|
| https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Chetu-Reviews-E231082.htm
|
| >> Review: "You'll discover during training week that the the
| company will watch over you all day, even long tenured employees
| are watched via their WebCam."
|
| >> "Glassdoor Alert: Attempt to Inflate Reviews -- We have
| evidence that someone has taken steps to artificially inflate the
| rating for this employer with positive reviews posted in
| violation of our Community Guidelines. We have removed these
| reviews. Please exercise your best judgment when evaluating this
| employer. Learn more about Glassdoor Alerts:
|
| https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/Glassdoor-Alerts-Badge-...
|
| _________________
|
| From related company's homepage:
|
| >> "We are proud to employ over 2,800 in-house developers with a
| variety of software development experience in an array of
| industries."
|
| https://www.chetu.com/
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Between this, and them shuttering any official EU accounts or
| presence after the award, I really foubt they will pay the
| award, and it seems unlikely they were contributing or
| collecting any taxes related to the employment.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| jupp0r wrote:
| IANAL, but the person terminated would probably have some
| pretty good arguments in a US based lawsuit. More money to be
| awarded by the court in case he wins too.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Way more expensive legal fees though, and a much slower
| "justice" system.
|
| In the Netherlands court, the legal fees were sub 1k, and
| the decision happened less than 2 months from the filing.
| gnicholas wrote:
| How can the legal fees be less than a thousand dollars?
| It would take at least a few hours to research the law
| and write a brief, let alone prepare for court and make
| an appearance. Even if a lawyer was paid only $150/hr, it
| seems hard to come in under $1k.
|
| Regardless, it would certainly be much more expensive in
| the US, where decent lawyers are hundreds or thousands an
| hour.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I can't imagine what they would sue for in a US court. Most
| states are at will and refusal to comply with company
| policy and procedures is a one-way ticket out
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Instead of re-litigating the employment issues couldn't
| they just sue to enforce the fact that they didn't pay
| their bill in the other suite? Also unless they have zero
| assets in the EU wouldn't other member states potentially
| be an option to seize said assets?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think that the trial decision in a foreign court
| is binding in US courts. The US court will not enforce
| them because they are completely different jurisdictions
| jedberg wrote:
| I'm not 100% sure but I think one of our treaties with
| the Netherlands is that we enforce each other's
| laws/court judgements.
| peyton wrote:
| Think the US famously never signs treaties like that. Our
| courts decide.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Looks like it comes down to a each state to determine how
| and if they will honor decisions for other Nations.
|
| Here is some information I could find[1].
|
| Obviously, there is a lot of variability here, and I
| don't there are blanket agreements to enforce judgements.
| It is hard to imagine the Netherlands forcing payment for
| an abortion damages judgement from a Texas court .
|
| https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-
| content/uploads/documents/publ...
| sverhagen wrote:
| Most states are at will, but he wasn't employed in "most
| states", now was he?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida
| is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a
| foreign court judgement instead, but it is notoriously
| difficult to collect judgments, even us Court judgments,
| if the other party stonewalls you
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's not how choice of law works. If you are operating
| a business in jurisdiction A and open a branch in
| jurisdiction B, you have a nexus to jurisdiction B and
| can't say your branch exists under the legal umbrella of
| jurisdiction A. Of course, you can assert that your
| customer and employment contracts are under the law of
| jurisdiction A, but such assertions don't magically trump
| statutory law. Contractual provisions can often be
| dismissed as unenforceable.
| stefan_ wrote:
| This is an employment action. There is a good chance it
| pierces the corporate veil. So yes, they can avoid paying, if
| their directors never want to enter the EU again.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Why would this pierce the veil? That's a pretty high bar,
| and I don't remember learning that employment actions are
| much more likely to satisfy the requirements.
| xwdv wrote:
| Some employers want to be able to take random photos to ensure
| remote workers are working at their computer during business
| hours.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| The employee argued they had access to their computer screen at
| all time and could fully monitor their laptop which should be
| enough. The court agreed.
| xwdv wrote:
| That should be MORE than enough. IMO an employers access to
| the screen and keystrokes should be zero.
| GoToRO wrote:
| It's always something toxic when it comes to US companies. I had
| to do multiple background checks. In Romania they are unheard of.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| Funny. Most US companies behave much better than companies
| outside the US. That's why Romanians looking to be hired by US
| companies and not vice versa (no attempt to offend you or any
| other Romanian, just stating a fact). This company sounds like
| a shitty one, the US of course has those like any other
| country, but it's usually the US ones that get more publicity
| when things like this happen.(also when good things happen, it
| goes both ways)
| bogdangrigg wrote:
| If by "behave better" you mean "pay more"... it's probably be
| correct.
|
| But when comparing overall US & EU working conditions, it's a
| very lopsided contest. US employees seem to be abused by
| European standards: at-will employment, no maternity leave,
| workplace surveillance, unpaid overtime for salaried
| employees are illegal pretty much everywhere - even Romania.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > Most US companies behave much better than companies outside
| the US. That's why Romanians looking to be hired by US
| companies
|
| No. The reason is compensation.
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| I personally would take better comp over benefits any day.
| dqpb wrote:
| Doubly so for Florida.
| trasz wrote:
| This reminds me when I was contracted by a certain huge US
| company to write a driver for their new hardware. They...
| wanted me to take a drug test. It took them three months of me
| silently ignoring their emails (they had a deadline to meet) to
| figure it out.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Were the background checks for a remote job? That would makes
| sense. Employing someone several thousands miles away in a
| foreign country requires a certain amount of due diligence,
| especially to keep the (tax) authorities happy.
| GoToRO wrote:
| Customer was from US, my company was from Romania. They were
| forced to do what the customer wanted.
| Raydovsky wrote:
| It's hardly a US company. Most people working there are from
| India.
| christophilus wrote:
| I've never had a background check for any US job I've had,
| other than a government contractor, so this is not universal. I
| don't even think it's normal. Maybe my sample size of 15 or so
| is just non-representative, though. I don't tend to apply to
| the sorts of firms that specialize in bureaucracy.
| matwood wrote:
| I would be surprised if you worked at a financial or
| healthcare company and did not have a basic background check
| done. It could just be the type of jobs you gravitate
| towards. It's not really bureaucracy, but a financial company
| doesn't want to hire someone who already has a financial
| crime conviction.
| ghaff wrote:
| >I've never had a background check for any US job I've had
|
| How would you know? That said, I suspect I have not as the
| first one was out of school and the few other jobs I've had
| were all from people I knew.
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| I signed a release when the employer did a background check
| on me. And was provided a copy of it. The latter I think is
| state law here, the former I think is also law but I'm not
| 100% sure.
| ghaff wrote:
| I can believe it's a state law--or even a company just
| doing it as a matter of CYA policy. I assume it's pretty
| easy to run a background check without someone knowing
| though. And of course it's quite common to provide
| reference although I don't know how commonly companies
| contact them--I suspect not often.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Same here. Discovery channel made me sign a release. It's
| like whatever, free way for me to check myself as they're
| required to give you a copy.
| 0xHenry wrote:
| durnygbur wrote:
| This company's website, offer, and videos gives me such creepy
| vibes... American-business-software kind. Everyone are so proud,
| fulfilled, trained, and friendly. Have one shameful few months
| long episode at a similar one in Czechia... CREEPY.
| 0xHenry wrote:
| yrgulation wrote:
| "worker had been present in the office being observed by
| management"
|
| And yet there are people who prefer working on site and "being
| observed by management".
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| You might be surprised to know that there are workplaces where
| you don't get "observed by management" which is why people love
| going there on site.
|
| Or that there are jobs where you don't have the choice of WFH
| so you have to show up to the office whether you like it or not
| if you want to afford food and rent.
|
| Or lack of silence, space, amenities at home, or the multiple
| other reasons why some people to go to the office.
|
| Why be judgemental about it? Let people do what they want and
| you do what you want.
| yrgulation wrote:
| You are right in the sense that mechanics, construction
| workers, medics, cant really work from home.
|
| But to say that in tech, which thrives due to remote
| customers, people must work on site is misguided. People cant
| afford the "luxuries" you mentioned because they need to be
| in the proximity of their office. Some are so traumatised by
| the experience that they cant fathom the notion that it is
| possible to own a place of your own, moreover, a place that
| can provide quietness and space. Such people need reminding
| that yes it is possible. If a company demand remote customers
| then employees can demand remote work.
|
| Those that despite having the space and the option of working
| form home yet chose onsite are welcome to do so. But i will
| remind folks that that is unnatural for human beings. Farming
| cattle is bad enough let alone people.
| mlindner wrote:
| Sounds like this company is a software farm for cheap contract
| work.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The CEO of this company seems very deep into 'hype capitalism' -
| all his recent writing is about the metaverse, NFTs etc. The fact
| that the Dutch subsidiary of this company tried to de-register
| itself within days of firing the employee suggests to me that its
| business models are extractive rather than productive.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > shut down on 2 September
|
| That seems unfortunate; the employee's best chance for collecting
| is if the employer continues to have business operations in the
| Netherlands.
| ianai wrote:
| Unfortunately this is well within corporate "go away" money.
| They'll gladly dish over 75k to get a threat off their books.
| It's the corporate equivalent to stuffing 20 bucks in your pocket
| in case you're held up while out on a run and don't carry your
| wallet. Add a zero to make it 750k if you want corporations to
| think about it deeper.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| most people i know don't keep cash even in their wallet. Do
| people even want credit cards or IDs? Even phones track
| themselves and turn off. What do muggers take these days?
| nerdponx wrote:
| Debit cards and cash, for one. They also will just take the
| entire wallet and figure out what's valuable later.
|
| Also historically there have been ways to unlock stolen
| phones so they can be resold "cleanly" later. I don't know
| what current iPhones are like, but I wouldn't be surprised if
| it was possible with Android phones.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >Less than a week after the plaintiff was fired, the Rijswijk
| branch of Chetu Inc. was deregistered from the Chamber of
| Commerce and shut down on 2 September, records show. The branch
| was first registered in the Netherlands on 1 June 2013 with the
| capital declared at 10 million euros.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| That doesn't mean they won't pay him. Only that they don't
| plan to hire in the Netherland anymore. It would be pretty
| stupid to not pay to be honest. It's not that much money,
| would mean keeping an open case in the UE and it's highly
| likely they would end up paying anyway though one of the
| collection mechanisms in place for this kind of case.
| ianai wrote:
| Or they're telling an entire country to "go away" and
| that's a big enough indictment against their practices
| itself. And market power.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Hmmm. The advantage to Chetu of not paying is that other
| staff get the message that Chetu doesn't pay out, even if
| you win.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Keep in mind that this is not about punishment but about
| damages. 75k goes a long way for an individual and afaik we
| don't have this system of punitive damages. The state might
| collect punitive money in a criminal case (not a civil case).
|
| Sometimes I feel like it might be good to meet in the middle
| (i.e. some amount of punishment awarded to the plaintiff, also
| as compensation for having had to take a corporation to court
| and presumably spending months in stress), but then I'm not
| sure where the line should be. Or perhaps a criminal case
| should be joined onto this, where the same judge (already
| familiar with all the details) also decides on a punitive
| amount going to the state.
| chrischen wrote:
| It sounds like the company is really paranoid about their remote
| workers being actually subcontracted to a cheaper locale or
| something.
| sebazzz wrote:
| I love it when US companies meet Dutch labor laws.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| American companies are not as innovative as they think- they
| just want to turn back the clock to the 19th century.
| Xelynega wrote:
| You're telling me it's not innovative to run psychological
| experiments on children without any approval from an ethics
| board? Sounds pretty innovative to me
| brightball wrote:
| You say that, but stories like this will just mean US companies
| hire fewer Dutch remotes.
|
| I've already seen it happen, after legal claims using "lines of
| code" to assert ownership of the code base.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| My impression is that the Dutch labour laws are mostly
| designed for working-class employees, and they actually work
| fairly well _for that_ , but once you move up in the pay
| range it starts breaking down. I've worked at several
| businesses that had expensive "unfirable" employees, and if
| people decide to be difficult they can draw out the firing
| process for _years_.
|
| I've been let go earlier this year in spite of good
| performance reviews because they thought I'd _probably_ do
| fine, but weren 't _100% sure_ and they didn 't want to take
| the financial risk of being "stuck" with me.
| [deleted]
| CalRobert wrote:
| Or basically any labour laws. "You mean you can't just be on
| call with a 5 minute SLA for 14 days straight non-stop?
| daenney wrote:
| "Hey so the way we do on-call is violating labour laws for
| all EU employees". I've had very fun conversations with HR
| and Legal about this.
|
| There's so many fun things. Mandatory rest periods, on-call
| on weekends in some countries requiring additional work,
| having to actually pay people, needing to provide them with
| the equipment to be on-call (phone and subscription) and on
| it goes.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| While quality of life in Europe is still great, EU GDP share of
| the world going down is starting to effect European people more
| (especially now with the proxy war between US and Russia).
|
| I wish Europeans were a bit more business savy and corporate,
| and not see businesses as just bad things that are part of
| life, but of course when I'm in US I see the other extreme
| where businesses want to extract all value from me all the
| time, and it gets tiring.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > I wish Europeans were a bit more business savy and
| corporate
|
| Seeing how well that worked for the US, no thanks.
|
| The only reason European GDP is going down is because of
| 10-year-long trade war that was started circa 2005 by the US.
| It started with tariffs back then, moved onto trying to push
| NAFTA-like 'trade deals' via TTIP etc, and when all failed,
| they just blew the pipeline.
|
| Judging from what was done to Japan with 'Plaza Accords',
| there is no guilt or responsibility of the targeted country
| and their people in this. Japanese were and still are the
| most sacrificing, hardworking workers. And yet, after
| accepting the terms that the US forced on them with those
| accords, Japanese economy is still in ruins.
| myko wrote:
| > especially now with the proxy war between US and Russia
|
| This is not a proxy war between the US and Russia. Ukraine
| nor Russia started this conflict at the behest or instigation
| of the US. The US (and NATO, the entire western world really)
| are supportive of Ukraine but it's important to note that
| Ukraine is not a puppet of the US and that Putin started this
| conflict.
| trasz wrote:
| It could be argued it's a proxy war between NATO and
| some... unknown world power, with Russia as a proxy.
| Although I don't think Chinese would be able to pull it
| off.
| whoooooo123 wrote:
| The war is "between" Russia and Ukraine but the US is
| funding and arming Ukraine because the US wants to hurt
| Russia. How is that not the dictionary definition of a
| "proxy war"?
|
| Swap the US and Russia and replace "Ukraine" with "North
| Vietnam" and you have a historical conflict which everyone
| agrees was a proxy war. How is this different?
| watwut wrote:
| EU countries are funding and arming Ukraine too. Baltic
| states and Poland are the ones pushing the most for
| support for Ukraine.
|
| And obviously, all actual fighting and dying is done by
| Ukrainians. They are the ones being tortured and
| oppressed on occupied territories too. If Russia won, all
| Ukrainians would be oppressed by Russia.
| foepys wrote:
| Basically all of Europe is arming Ukraine because Europe
| knows that if Russia takes Ukraine, Russia will
| eventually want to annex all other ex-USSR states as
| well. If not more.
| m000 wrote:
| > Russia will eventually want to annex all other ex-USSR
| states as well
|
| I don't know how people buy such uninformed BS. First, a
| lot of ex-USSR states are already NATO members. So, no
| game.
|
| Further, USSR was a political construct. Their whole
| expansionism was based on that. Russia on the other hand
| is a nation state. They are not capable of annexing any
| region where there is no Russian-speaking + Russia-
| aligned population. Putin knows that very well.
|
| As put by people who probably know better [1]:
| One obvious difference between the Soviet Union and
| Russia is that the Soviet governing elite embraced
| Marxism-Leninism and its objective of world revolution.
| Today's Russia is not a messianic power.
|
| [1] https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-not-
| soviet-union...
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > because the US wants to hurt Russia
|
| You seem to forget Ukraine in this equation entirely, you
| know, the country that is the victim of Russian
| aggression including murder of civilians, rape, and
| theft.
|
| They are constantly begging for help to fight the
| invaders. Is it remotely possible that's why the US is
| helping for this reason and to stop Russian aggression?
|
| Any "hurt" Russia receives is entirely self inflicted.
| This is a war of their choice.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Is it just the US that's doing this only to hurt Russia?
| What about the countries that are facing very real
| consequences to join them? And the countries that have
| abandoned their long-standing neutrality in order to do
| so? Could it actually be that all of these countries
| including the US just actually find it deeply offensive
| that Russia has decided it's ok to invade a country and
| commit atrocities all so that they can tell a free people
| that, no, you are not allowed to be a free people.
| brabel wrote:
| Quite honestly, if anything, I think we (and I truly mean
| nearly everyone here) in the EU have far more than necessary
| to have a decent life and doing anything more "business savy"
| would not have any positive effect on our lives at all. Yes,
| maybe we could make a little bit more money by being more
| business crazy, but what's the point if you get nothing you
| actually desire in return?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| This is one of the culture differences between the US and
| EU for alot of people (though this is changing in the US)
|
| Personally I value my "work". That is not to say I value my
| efforts for my employer which makes this hard to explain.
|
| I do not find value is laying around, vacationing, sports,
| or any other traditional "leisure" activity. I like to work
|
| So even when I am not "working" for pay for my employer, I
| am still working. I am going a personal coding project, or
| working on my home, or working on my car, or working in
| some other way.
|
| I work... weather it is for pay, for my own personal
| pleasure.
| maxwell wrote:
| https://www.hellahealth.com/blog/wellness/regrets-old-age
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Most of their regrets revolved around their family and
| how they wish relationships, usually either with their
| children or between their children
|
| I am willing to bet, that if you met many of these people
| in the 40's and 50;'s (where I am today) they would have
| the same statements.
|
| I too sometimes regret I am not closer with family, or
| have more "friends" but at the same time I do not have
| the desire to change that reality at all...
|
| It is complex psychological problem for me I have always
| since my teens been a "loner", I do not have the mental
| stamina to be around people for long periods of time.
| Once of the reasons I would attracted to computer
| programming, even when working in a "team" you work alone
| for large periods of time.
|
| To be clear I am not really a introvert or rather I am
| both an introvert and an extrovert when the situation
| requires it, I can carry a conversion, I can be "the life
| the room" but I find it mentally draining and exhausting
| to the point where if I am at a conference for example, I
| need a few days completely alone after to decompress.
|
| So sure I sometimes regret that was not born with the
| mental gift of being able form these close continual
| bonds with people... but at the same time I dont have the
| desire to change that element of myself... if that makes
| any sense at all.
| arlort wrote:
| > I am going a personal coding project, or working on my
| home, or working on my car, or working in some other way
|
| That's not working, that's having hobbies (and it's a
| good thing)
| watwut wrote:
| Oh please. EU countries have more stakes in that conflict
| considering some of them would be next to be attacked if
| Russia won in Ukraine.
|
| The Russia is an actual threat for EU countries. Which is why
| the biggest hawks in that conflict are EU countries.
| google234123 wrote:
| The biggest hawks are former soviet counties - the big EU
| countries to the West have not done their part. Germany has
| supported Russia for years.
| unity1001 wrote:
| No they aren't. Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal are staying
| away from it as much as possible. Many central European
| countries, the same. This is an Anglosaxon + Germanic
| project, with the addition of Poland. Its their war.
|
| ...
|
| There can be no bigger enemy than the country that blew up
| European pipelines to sink European industry.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-09/european
| -...
| m000 wrote:
| I'm not sure how much of a Germany's war is this. From
| what I gather, if we had _any_ kind of deal to stop the
| war tomorrow, they would be more than happy and eager to
| start discussing (energy) business again.
|
| Also, Greece is not staying as away as you may think.
| First EU country to send military supplies to Ukraine.
| Supplies were complete junk btw, so you can even call it
| a lose-lose gesture. Worse, the only external country who
| has a PM stupid enough to say in an interview "we are at
| war with Russia" [1].
|
| [1] https://www.tovima.gr/2022/09/22/international/mitsot
| akis-de...
| canacrypto wrote:
| A first glance, this may sound like a case of a bad US company
| meeting reasonable labor laws, but Euro laws of often
| unreasonably restrictive. Companies choose to leave entirely,
| as happened here. How many people lost their jobs so this one
| person could have their payout? This company definitely sucks,
| but still unfortunate for others caught in the crossfire.
| tmnvdb wrote:
| I think we will be okay without this kind of company, given
| employment rate is one of the highest in the world and a main
| problem at the moment is labor shortages... But thanks for
| your "concern"
| geek_at wrote:
| European in general. My wife works for a biotech company in
| Austria which was recently aquired by an american company and
| it's so funny to hear about their efforts to adapt to EU law
| and culture. Most of their training material is still unchanged
| from their US branch so there are things they list as benefits
| for all employees like
|
| - 3 Weeks paid vacation (we get 5 by law)
|
| - Health insurance (you know the drill)
|
| - 3 weeks parental leave (we get 1 year for 80% pay, first 6
| months full pay, then 5 years protection against dismissal)
|
| - 5 days paid care leave for when your kid is sick (we get 12)
|
| So their benefits which makes them think make them attactive
| are all below basic EU law that even store clerks get
| nalaz wrote:
| phpisthebest wrote:
| bernulli wrote:
| There's a simple word for people with that attitude:
| freeloader. It's pretty easy to understand:
|
| > I can not image the extra amount of work that get places
| on people that do not have children...
|
| What you're forgetting is the amount of work required to
| raise children. That's an externality that is only covered
| through a social contract, where everyone contributes to a
| next generation. Why should parents put in the extra work
| to raise children that, god forbid, would ever do something
| you benefit from?
|
| What you want is someone else doing the work so that you
| can just reap the benefits. You're a freeloader, plain and
| simple (other, less favorable words come to mind).
|
| Unless, of course, you will never in your life use the
| services or inventions of anyone younger than you. But,
| somehow, I doubt that - am I right? You just expect those
| cohorts to just appear out od thin air to your benefit.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| I think there's a lot of people that want things to be
| fair at the individual level ("that person gets time off
| for a child, but that other, childless person works the
| whole time")... but don't see the greater "benefit to
| society overall" part of it. It's not necessarily that
| they're being greedy; it may not even be something that
| would benefit them directly. They just never consider
| that they're paying a cost for the greater good, because
| it's not in their view of the world.
| bernulli wrote:
| It really is a tragedy of the commons with a changing
| demographic, where DINK are more prevalent that, say, 50
| years ago, where most tried to contribute to raising the
| next generation. But the amount of entitlement still
| baffles me - where do these people think everyone younger
| than them comes from? How much time and money do they
| think it costs to train a human being to be a member of
| society, of benefit to them!, and why do they just assume
| it is someone else's duty to provide this to them, free
| of charge to them?
| jen20 wrote:
| > DINK are more prevalent that, say, 50 years ago
|
| A good standard of living was possible with a single
| income 50 years ago (just). It's barely possible today
| with two average incomes in much of the US.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >why do they just assume it is someone else's duty to
| provide this to them, free of charge to them?
|
| Why do you assume I would think it is someone else's duty
| to provide anything to me? This seems to be a bit of
| projection.
| yibg wrote:
| In some cases it's probably legitimately "unfair". Me for
| example am probably at the more unfair end. I
|
| - have high income so pay a large % into taxes
|
| - not a citizen so don't enjoy some of the benefits of
| military protection
|
| - wasn't raised here so didn't use any of the earlier
| year services
|
| - likely won't retire here so won't use those either
|
| Most of my tax dollars goes to fund others in the
| country. But as a society there is no good way to account
| for all that. To try to do so the tax calculation will be
| crazy. So I'll grumble about the taxes I pay, but end of
| the day I also don't really have a better solution.
| bernulli wrote:
| But you still benefit even from the mere _existence_ of
| human beings younger than you are (e.g. service,
| manufacturing, research, medical, etc.). If you think you
| don't, think about the fraction of people you will
| interact with in 20 or 40 years that are younger than you
| will be, or about the innovations you will be using in 20
| or 40 years that were developed by people younger than
| you. Those human beings have to come from somewhere - why
| do you insist it my obligation to make you that gift, at
| exorbitant expense of my time and money?
| jen20 wrote:
| > not a citizen so don't enjoy some of the benefits of
| military protection
|
| Can you explain what you mean by this part?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Presumably you're not paying taxes to <whereever you will
| retire to>, but you reap the benefits of the people that
| did pay taxes there during this time. So it works out in
| the end. It's the same thing, just at a global level
| instead of a national level. Admittedly, the rules aren't
| the same everywhere.
|
| Plus, as noted elsewhere, you are getting benefits from
| the taxes you're paying now, only just on some of it.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Uh... Weren't you a kid at some point? And weren't all your
| coworkers children at some point? Seems like you would
| benefit from the policy no matter how badly you don't want
| to participate in the task of childrearing.
| drakonka wrote:
| I will also not have a child and live in an EU country
| where parents get a lot of paid parental leave. I think
| it's great. Why wouldn't I want to work alongside happy,
| less stressed coworkers who aren't constantly _extra_ sleep
| and energy deprived from worrying about having to
| unsustainably juggle work and kids? Companies are well
| aware of the laws and know they need to staff
| appropriately. In addition, it is a good thing that parents
| get to prioritize their children because it makes for well
| adjusted children for us all to live with as they grow.
|
| As a person without kids I do sometimes wish childfree
| people got benefits in ways that have more _immediate_
| applications for us as well. But that doesn't mean parents
| shouldn't keep getting generous leave allowances to care
| for their children.
| isodev wrote:
| For you, there will be no impact beyond having to sign the
| "Congratulations!" card for your colleague!
|
| A company (an employer) rents the time and skills of
| employees for a particular task. It's not a pool of work
| that employees must struggle to achieve regardless of
| circumstances - it's the employer's responsibility to hire
| enough staff.
|
| For example, my paternity leave (20 days or 40 half days)
| would not impact my colleagues. Some of them can opt into
| overtime, but the same labor laws also define how overtime
| works - as an employer, you can't order someone to work
| extra hours unless described in their contract (and limited
| to the maximum specified by law, with mandatory regular
| breaks). Overtime is also paid at 150% or 200% of your
| regular pay, depending on the day of the week and hour of
| the day (e.g., weekends and nights obviously cost more than
| daytime rates). Very few jobs are even allowed to work on
| Sundays.
| Alan_Dillman wrote:
| That's similar to how it works in my Canadian workplace.
| My employer has a pool of workers, and when a project is
| coming up, the manager phones around and fills his or her
| labour requirements. Lots of us work secondary jobs too,
| and this is both reasonable and understood, and a "no" or
| even a series of noes to an offer won't put you on the
| street, though it may lower you on a particular manager's
| call list.
|
| Its like renting yourself out. You don't feel owned, and
| nobody feels they own you. Its great.
| yibg wrote:
| Taxation is pooling resources and in this case some people
| will put in more or less than their "fair" share. If we
| account for every penny (some how) of how much everyone
| puts in and everyone gets out of their tax dollars it's not
| going to be 1:1 for everyone. This is ok and by design to
| some degree (wealth redistribution). For better or worse,
| we as a society has taken the stance that people with more
| wealth should contribute more. Unfortunately this won't
| work if it's an opt out system.
| bbbobbb wrote:
| sorry what extra work? you know the company is able to hire
| more people right?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| You know companies have budgets right? you can not just
| "hire more people" and remain profitable, no profit no
| company.
|
| Companies are not charities created to employ people.
|
| So sure if only 1 person is off on leave most likely
| another person could be hired
|
| But 5 years of protected leave..... What percentage of
| the work force is going to be out on that? Also since it
| is very hard to terminate someone in the EU, what happens
| to the employees that are "filling" the positions of
| those people out on 5 years of leave? can they be
| terminate or do you have to keep them employed even after
| the original employee returns?
|
| If you can be terminated would you take a job knowing the
| second the parent returns you will be terminated
|
| Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If
| you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the
| work force and then return...,.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > What percentage of the work force is going to be out on
| that?
|
| Its the workforce who votes for those laws. The workforce
| in Europe are not propagandized fools to the extent that
| they vote against their interests.
| mjan22640 wrote:
| > Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years.
|
| slavery ended thousands years ago
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| You are misunderstanding what the 5 years is: it's a
| protection against being fired. You know as retaliation
| against actually having priorities that trump your
| employers emergency-through-incompetence-while-planning.
|
| The actual leave time is typically around a year. Which
| is roughly where you can give children over without them
| crying. But yeah the workload of that parent will have to
| be picked up by additional staff
| flippinburgers wrote:
| Not five years of leave. Five years of protection that
| one wont be fired due to having taken leave is the way I
| read it.
|
| Also in the system I work under, all employees pay a
| government tax that is used to pay for the parental
| leave. That is, the money isn't coming out of the
| companies pocket, but coming out of a national bucket
| designated for the purpose. The company pays nothing when
| the employee is taking this time.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Well, not "nothing", just not money directly. They still
| have to pay the loss in productivity during ramp up
| times. It's less of a big deal, but it's not nothing.
| benj111 wrote:
| >Companies are not charities created to employ people.
|
| And employees aren't charities required to do things
| unpaid because there isn't the budget.
|
| It works both ways
| bbbobbb wrote:
| For one thing, most companies have hard time keeping
| employees working for them so this 'we have hired too
| many good workers and now we have to get rid of them'
| does not happen nearly as often. As others have pointed
| out, it's not a 5 year leave. Assuming it one to two
| years and assuming you simply cannot afford to have more
| people on payroll it's completely OK to hire somebody
| specifically for a year or two. Not all work contracts
| are indefinite.
|
| I have no kids, don't plan on having any but it's kind of
| crazy how 'hail corporate' some cultures are. We're
| humans after all. Let people spend some time with their
| newborns instead of forcing them to make more money for
| somebody 3 weeks after giving birth.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| if the companies are unhappy with those terms then
| they're free to go elsewhere. under those terms companies
| hire people, so your assessment that such terms must
| break companies is clearly wrong.
| isodev wrote:
| > Companies are not charities created to employ people.
|
| And employees are not charities for their employers! If
| you can't afford the staff needed for a given task,
| perhaps you should pivot to something else.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Right you are paid X currency for X labor.
|
| How is paying employees to sit at home not working
| anything other than charity/
| lagadu wrote:
| Those are operational costs. They are part of the costs
| the company has to support in order to have access to
| that country's labour market. If the company is unable to
| compete in that market they are, of course, most welcome
| to leave this market and go operate in some other lawless
| country.
| mopsi wrote:
| > _How is paying employees to sit at home not working
| anything other than charity_
|
| They are not sitting at home doing nothing, they are
| raising children. Helping them to do that is companies'
| share of investment into the workforce of tomorrow. Your
| utilitarian "fair" worldview doesn't account for the fact
| that having kids is insanely profitable to the economy.
| In modern economies, every kid is worth at least a
| million bucks over lifetime.
|
| If you choose not to have kids and not contribute in this
| way, then who's going to foot the $1M or $2M bill for
| you?
| isodev wrote:
| It's because when you hire employees they come with the
| aspect of being "people". People work to live, they don't
| live to work.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| This has the very very close connotation to "from each
| according to ability to each according to need"
|
| I live a very frugle life, my expenses are low, I have no
| kids, I dont take expensive vacations, drive a fancy car,
| etc...
|
| So should that mean I do not get time off, or high
| raises, etc simply because my "needs" are not the same as
| a co-worker?
|
| Why should a co-workers personal life choices (i.e the
| choice to have 1 or more children) be a factor in the
| terms of their employment?
|
| I think employment policies should be agnostic to the
| personal life choices and situations of employee's infact
| the employer should not even know if you have kids or
| not, let alone provide you with "extra" because you do
|
| Sounds like you would support a policy of income based on
| your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5 kids
| make more than the programmer with no kids simply because
| the programmer with kids has more expenses?
| niels8472 wrote:
| Considering having children is beneficial to society and
| the economy (e.g. it's advantageous for employers since
| they still want to be able to hire people in n years and
| surely they'd like there to still be customers) one could
| argue that the programmer with five kids should get some
| "compensation" for this service, and as we know some
| countries do either directly or via employers.
| HowTheStoryEnds wrote:
| > Sounds like you would support a policy of income based
| on your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5
| kids make more than the programmer with no kids simply
| because the programmer with kids has more expenses?
|
| First time in Europe? That's pretty much a given here,
| more kids = bigger tax break = more netto pay.
| lagadu wrote:
| > Should the programmer with 5 kids make more than the
| programmer with no kids simply because the programmer
| with kids has more expenses?
|
| The programmer with 5 kids does make more than the one
| with no kids because he pays fewer income taxes. So the
| answer to your question is yes: it's how it already
| works.
| therouwboat wrote:
| Maybe you should talk to your boss and ask for more,
| instead complaining about others.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I am in the US and I do pick my employers based on these
| kinds of policies because their is no government mandate.
| Qem wrote:
| Where do new employees came from? Do they materialize
| adult and fully educated out of thin air? Society-wise
| new workers are born and raised from preexisting workers.
| If corporations don't bear some of this burden in minting
| new employees, they are free-riding.
| smcl wrote:
| Well you're actually paid a _fraction_ of every X dollars
| of value you produce
| speedgoose wrote:
| What you suggest is not a good government policy in my
| opinion. A government wants educated people to not be
| scared to have kids. Leaving a job to be at home a few
| months and look a for a new job after is extremely
| stressful and risky, and it can destroy a career.
|
| And long parental leaves are just normal and common in
| some countries. A medium to large company has no issues
| dealing with them. It's part of the management work to
| deal with that.
|
| Moreover it's better for a company that their employees
| don't leave.
| webstrand wrote:
| On the other hand, it sounds like it might be viable to
| have a kid there. Two parents working full-time in the US
| struggle when they have a kid, due to the loss of income.
| Our system worked a lot better when both parents were not
| expected to work, it's kind of broken now.
| em-bee wrote:
| which is exactly the point. birthrate is already bad
| enough as it is. for the moment this is compensated with
| immigration, but eventually support for parenting may
| have to increase even further if we want to keep the
| birthrate up.
| marvin wrote:
| Wouldn't it also work to just make everything cheaper for
| everyone?
|
| Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be
| surprised that just having housing back to 1980s price
| levels would give most families enough breathing room
| with just unpaid leave.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Of course that would work, but that requires the economy
| to not adapt itself to the new prices, which requires
| politicians to step in and prevent the richer people from
| buying up things which makes would-be families feel too
| uneasy about starting a family.
|
| It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where
| most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little
| is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign
| most politicians aren't winning votes with.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >> which requires politicians to step in
|
| Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest
| reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing
| new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies
| and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive
| inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains,
| irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from
| growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways
| "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the
| process making everyone worse off
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| _Bad regulations_ by a _slow, bureaucratic_ government do
| that, yes. Meanwhile, the free market people always claim
| will solve everything? That same free market "solved"
| mobility by pushing car usage through the roof, resulting
| in extremely inefficient space usage now that population
| demands are changing.
|
| Neither bad regulations nor the free market are going to
| solve a lack of foresight. Worse, those regulations are
| largely devised by politicians in power voted by a
| majority of homeowners and a few ultra rich lobbyists.
| You might as well make a "always has been" meme out of
| it.
|
| Same goes for every other of your points. If free market
| capitalism would solve it, it already would have.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| The problem here is what you identify as problems the
| market (thus people) do not agree are problems
|
| For example you decry the " inefficient space usage " of
| modern housing, and suburbs, however many people clearly
| prefer to have single family structures on plots of land
| over living in densely populated area's
|
| I am one of those people, I would never choose to
| voluntary live in a dense city like NYC or even LA
|
| I can think of nothing more nightmarish then living in a
| multistory apartment building. I lived in a 3 story
| building once, and got out of there as fast as I possibly
| could. Today I live in a typical suburban neighborhood,
| with homes on 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots and about 40-100 foot
| separation between home even that is far too tightly
| packed for me, and would prefer even greater separation.
|
| Governments attempt to control sprawl and force more
| density is in part what is driving the massive increase
| in cost for Single Family homes.
|
| So it is not a correct statement to proclaim the free
| market is not solving problems, it is that people that
| guide the market reject your proposed problems and the
| solutions you desire for the problems, in that rejection
| the only way to do it is to impose government regulations
| by force.
| em-bee wrote:
| _I can think of nothing more nightmarish then living in a
| multistory apartment building_
|
| why is that? bad neighbors?
|
| maybe the problem is our culture of selfishness and lack
| of tolerance and respect? (and by that i mean your
| neighbors that are causing you trouble, not asking you to
| tolerate that trouble)
|
| i have lived in multi story buildings all my life in
| different countries. and never had issues with neighbors.
| i hardly ever see them. really, the only difference
| between an apartment and a single family house to me was
| access to a garden. and in a single family house i have
| to deal with neighbors too. so i really don't understand
| what your problem is there.
|
| people have preferences. sure. my preference is to live
| close to shopping and culture, and my friends, and access
| to public transport without needing a car to go anywhere.
|
| if i wanted to get away from neighbors i would move to
| the countryside where the next neighbor is a mile away.
| but that is no longer a city. suburban life to me is the
| worst of both worlds. (and i have lived that too, so i
| speak from experience on both)
|
| the reason the free market does not solve problems is
| that the free market is not fair. in a free market the
| strong have an advantage at the expense of the weak.
|
| slums are caused by a free market. to eliminate poverty,
| intervention is necessary. if an intervention fails then
| that's because maybe it is the wrong kind of
| intervention. and with that we are at the problem of
| figuring out how to make life better for everyone, which
| is a question of education, the will to make things
| better for others, and again respect and tolerance and
| giving everyone a voice, aka democracy.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| What government is trying to force more density? Please
| let me know so I can move there.
|
| The closest I can think of is Tokyo, where the zoning
| laws are basically set by the national government. In the
| USA, the local landed gentry can easily block any new
| development/increase in density, which is a big part of
| the reason we have so much sprawl*. In Japan, all you can
| do is shake your fist and write an angry letter to your
| congressman while developers throw up a 4 story apartment
| complex next door.
|
| The result is that you can get a job as a janitor in the
| heart of downtown, and comfortably afford an apartment
| nearby. A tiny apartment within 10 minutes, or a larger
| and more spacious one 20-30 minutes away, or a house if
| you're willing to put up with a 90 minute commute.
|
| * Yes, I know that a lot of the sprawl comes from people
| wanting houses, but a lot of people just want a place to
| live close to their job, where they can change out their
| sink or repaint their walls without asking some rich
| prick for permission
| hhmc wrote:
| You're presenting an incredibly contentious opinion as
| fact..
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| Better yet, shouldn't we just make everything free for
| everyone? Housing costs are outrageous. It would be great
| if houses were free. And food too. And cars and clothing.
| I guess the only problem is then everyone's wage would
| have to be $0 as well.
| mjan22640 wrote:
| The automation is going to bring that relatively soon.
| jacooper wrote:
| Yup Automation is going to push humans out of Capitalism
| to the point it where Capitalism ends it self.
| em-bee wrote:
| i don't see why zero wages would be a problem in that
| case. it would be a money-less society like in star trek.
| whether that's realistic is another discussion.
|
| but how about universal basic income instead?
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| I've been thinking about this, and I don't know if a UBI
| like people envision will ever really be viable.
|
| BUT as society gets more and more wealthy, I'll bet that
| living on the fringes of it will be more and more viable
|
| We're already at a point where you can work minimum wage
| for an hour (take home ~$7) and buy a few days' worth of
| subsistence-quality food if you have access to a kitchen.
| You can pare down your other living expenses too, and
| suddenly you have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that
| only costs a few hundred bucks a month.
|
| Right now we stigmatize "van dwellers" and couch surfers,
| but maybe that'll change in the future
| jacooper wrote:
| I am not the best in keeping up with the Socialist
| movement.
|
| But this video explains it well, people would still work,
| just not for a living.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9CFP_58mBc
| croes wrote:
| Like paying schools from taxes and never have kids, or
| paying fire fighters and your house never burns.
|
| It's called society.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire
| services monthly, like water instead of having it
| obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not
| taxation.
|
| as for schools, to the extent I support their funding
| (which is more limited than I suspect you do) it is
| generally ethically justified because I too attended
| schools paid for by taxation, so in that manner I paying
| off a debt vs paying for others. Granted it is a debt I
| did not consent to, and had no option to opt out of but
| still there is that ethical foundation
|
| None of that exist for what we are talking about here
|
| and I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
| badpun wrote:
| > for fire services monthly, like water instead of having
| it obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not
| taxation.
|
| That would have to be mandatory service though (remember,
| firemen can perform inspections, fine people etc. -
| they're not there just for fighting fires), at which
| point it's just simpler to pay for that through taxes.
| matsemann wrote:
| Well, my parents got parental leave for me and my
| brother. Which I think I benefited from.
| jen20 wrote:
| > and I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
|
| The very definition of a sociopath.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Well I would prefer they send me a bill directly for
| fire services monthly, like water instead of having it
| obfuscated in general taxation. I prefer user fees not
| taxation.
|
| As is quite common in the US, my fire services (as well
| as part of education costs--the state also contributes)
| are paid for out of my quarterly property taxes and my
| town budget is right up on the website to look at. So
| it's not really obfuscated. And I don't really want to
| get 20 different bills from my town rather than a
| quarterly property tax (and water) bill.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire
| services monthly
|
| The problem is that then some people opt out. If enough
| people do that, it's no longer financially viable to have
| a fire service.
|
| > I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
|
| Which is fine, but then don't live in the society. As a
| society, we have decided what is important for the
| benefit of the society; fire departments, law
| enforcement, schools, roads, etc. We then attempt to
| gather money from everyone in that society to pay for
| those things, because that's the only way it's realistic.
| Not everyone in the society agrees to all the details,
| but (in theory) the majority of people agree to them.
|
| It's not all that different than living in an apartment
| with a few other people. If most of the people agree that
| everyone has to split the electricity bill, but one
| person says they don't want to... then it's reasonable to
| have that person leave, and replace them with someone
| that is ok with the rules set by the group.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>The problem is that then some people opt out. If enough
| people do that, it's no longer financially viable to have
| a fire service.
|
| Aside from the fact that since most homes are covered by
| a mortgage and mortgage companies would require that as a
| condition of a loan, no where did I really say to make it
| optional. I simply said I wanted an itmized bill for the
| service
|
| I am required to have water service turned on as part of
| occupancy, I can not turn off the water service to home
| even if I wanted to live completely on bottled water, it
| would be against local ordinances. I am required to pay
| that bill monthly, if I turn it off I would get fined by
| the city, and at some point they would take my home
|
| I am also required to mow my grass, and other such
| things, I fail to see why fire services would be any
| different.
|
| >It's not all that different than living in an apartment
| with a few other people.
|
| You are correct on that front, I despise apartment living
| and I also despise HOA which is why I took great care to
| avoid both in my life.
|
| If star link or a competitor proves to be very successful
| and gets to be cost effective then Rural living may even
| be in the cards for me, one the only reasons I moved to
| where I did was because of the availability of high speed
| fiber optic service.
| davidgay wrote:
| > Like paying schools from taxes and never have kids
|
| I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people paying
| taxes for school have actually enjoyed the benefit of
| free schooling. It can be helpful to think of things that
| way... (another example: people complaining about kids
| being loud in planes, restaurants, etc - remember that
| you were that kid once too).
| kube-system wrote:
| > paying fire fighters
|
| Which the vast majority of America doesn't do either.
| trevvr wrote:
| That is not a hot take my friend? Do you pay your taxes?
| Sales taxes? Does the company you work for pay their taxes?
| Do you intend on retiring with a pension at some point?
|
| Rising tides and boats comes to mind.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Well now we are going to get into more unpopular hot
| takes, because IMO income based taxation is theft....
|
| I do not plain on retiring, and if I did I do not expect
| government social security (I am in the US) will be there
| to fund it so I do have a private retirement account that
| currently the US Monetary policy and government
| regulations/spending is doing its level best to destroy
| pasquinelli wrote:
| you'll get older and things will happen to you. at some
| point, before you die unless you die in a catastrophic
| situation, you won't be capable of working anymore. it's
| just facts of life.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Dont worry my eating habits and lack of exercise will
| likely ensure I will die in that catastrophic situation
| you speak of
| unity1001 wrote:
| > because IMO income based taxation is theft
|
| Only in the ultra far right US. Where everything works so
| perfectly because of that belief.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-
| infrastructure...
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| When I take your property by force, do you plan to hire a
| security team to get it back, and then hope that I don't
| have more money, and a bigger security team? Or are you
| one of these libertarians that suddenly sees the value in
| a government that enshrines in law the concept of
| "property rights" and implements enforcement?
| Xelynega wrote:
| > IMO income based taxation is theft....
|
| How could income based taxation be theft unless we're
| considering all profit theft? Either it's immoral for
| someone with power over you to demand part of the value
| you produce or it isn't.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Profit in a market economy is derived from a voluntary
| exchange of goods/services for currency. I buy a Ribeye
| because I obtian more value from the Ribeye than I do the
| $18 in my bank account, However if that ribeye goes to
| $25 I now value the $25 more than the Ribeye so I dont
| buy it instead I buy a Chicken Breast.
|
| These are choices I make in a free(ish) market. Companies
| offer their goods, I choose to buy or not
|
| Similar with labor, I go to the market offer my knowledge
| and labor for a Wage, if I set my price to high companies
| will refuse to hire me, if I set my price to low I am
| missing out on profit.
|
| Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like
| that, the government with the full authority to initiate
| violence injects itself with a demand that for every hour
| of labor I sell I must provide the government with a
| 10-40% cut of not only my profit from the sell but the
| gross transaction price. They do so under the threat of
| violence (aka imprisonment) if I refuse their order.
|
| The fact is that the government, like a common thief,
| says to a person: Your money, or your life...The
| government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely
| place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a
| pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the
| robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and
| it is far more dastardly and shameful.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like
| that
|
| Take a weekend off and calculate how much 'fees' you
| would have to pay for 'private defense services',
| infrastructure, judiciary, police and all the other
| things if they were made private.
|
| > The fact is that the government, like a common thief,
| says to a person: Your money, or your life
|
| What religious delirium.
|
| > But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that
| account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
|
| The dastarty act of providing military, police,
| firefighting, law, justice, social services - all the
| things that make you live in a modern society instead of
| living in the former late feudal society where you
| wouldn't even have the social rank in order to be able to
| talk against your feudal lord in public like this.
|
| There is no magical, divine, extraterrestrial or
| supernatural force that provides this modern society that
| you live in, and all the rights and freedoms that you
| have in that society. We, the people, have managed to
| make that happen through the mechanisms we invented. And
| one of those mechanisms is the state that is owned by its
| people.
| Test0129 wrote:
| > The dastarty act of providing military, police,
| firefighting, law, justice, social services - all the
| things that make you live in a modern society instead of
| living in the former late feudal society where you
| wouldn't even have the social rank in order to be able to
| talk against your feudal lord in public like this.
|
| If I don't support these things, or wish to take away
| their funding due to my displeasure with the service
| received I could do that if they were private. I cannot
| do that when every year the government puts a gun to my
| head and tells me to pay them 30% of my gross.
|
| You've fallen into the classic socialist false dichotomy.
| Either you support taxes or you will be a serf.
|
| The truth is taxes are the payment you're giving your
| lord (the government). You don't even own your own
| property. Try not paying your property tax (maybe it's
| too expensive?) and they take it away. Try not paying
| your taxes and they will start to take everything you
| own. This is the definition of theft. Coercing someone to
| part with their property through threats of violence.
|
| All taxes are evil. A good compromise is the ability to
| take 5 extra minutes on my 1040 to put percentages where
| I want my money to go. I dont care if this
| overcomplicates the situation. We take in trillions in
| taxes a year and yet the only people who seem to benefit
| are the Nancy Pelosis. Somehow despite being a public
| servant is worth more than many top-tier entertainers. If
| I could put most of my money into school, hospitals,
| firefighters, and EMTs I would. Why would I fund police
| who drive around in veritable APCs treating every honest
| hard working American as a potential "insurgent" in their
| own land? Why are my tax dollars being shipped overseas
| to Ukraine when there's uncountable suffering here?
| Because we don't control it, our money is stolen, and the
| ill gotten gains are used to do whatever the kings and
| queens in congress decide. We are serfs, they've just
| managed to hide it.
|
| Ask yourself do you feel good about where your taxes go?
|
| >What religious delirium.
|
| Like all socialists, you are the delirious one. It's just
| socialist indoctrination has better tasting koolaid with
| less assumption of responsibility.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > If I don't support these things, or wish to take away
| their funding due to my displeasure with the service
| received I could do that if they were private
|
| Yeah, you could just 'take away its funding' and just do
| away with the military in a private environment. Which
| brings us to...
|
| > Like all socialists, you are the delirious one
|
| ...the delirium of thinking that you would be able to
| keep your freedom and agency at the moment which you lose
| that socially-funded, democratically controlled military
| after you take its funding away in a private market
| environment. Which will make you immediately a subject of
| the richest man who did not take away the funding of the
| military outfit he supports.
|
| > All taxes are evil.
|
| The people from the country that kills its people when
| they cant pay for healthcare is telling us that all taxes
| are evil, even as their very infrastructure collapses.
|
| THAT is delirium. Nothing else.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >Take a weekend off and calculate how much 'fees' you
| would have to pay for 'private defense services',
| infrastructure, judiciary, police and all the other
| things if they were made private.
|
| This assumes alot of things, like that I reject all forms
| of taxation which I dont just income based. You know this
| because you already replied to a comment where I layout
| my preferred public finance model which you also ignored
| in that comment in favor of a semantic logical fallacy
| debate. so i question if you actually want to have an
| honest conversation
|
| Also it assumes that the cost to private those services
| would be the exact same under a more private / direct
| model then our current system (for which my point of view
| would the the US model). I find that highly suspect and
| the few times were we have direct attempts at it has
| proven the current US model has inherent fraud,
| corruption, and waste that often raises the cost of
| providing these services by 2x or more.
|
| >What religious delirium.
|
| That is a bit of projection there. Like an adherent to a
| theocratic religion proclaiming Atheism is a religion. If
| anything Statism is more akin to a religion than being
| anti-state or libertarian.
|
| Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher power",
| in your case this higher power is "the state" having
| replaced a god or gods
|
| >ll the things that make you live in a modern society
| instead of living in the former late feudal society
|
| False dilemma fallacy, as if the only option is a extreme
| over bearing high taxation state or feudalism...
|
| > force that provides this modern society that you live
| in
|
| Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free
| individuals, not government.
|
| > all the rights and freedoms that you have
|
| neither rights nor freedom is provided by government, the
| entire US model of government is build on the fact that
| freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM government,
| the US Constitution is document to ensure government does
| not infringe upon the people as our founder knew that a
| government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous
| master.
|
| Government is to be subservient to the people, not a
| master of them. At all times the people need to be
| suspect of government power, and keep very tight control
| upon it.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > This assumes alot of things, like that I reject all
| forms of taxation which I dont just income based. You
| know this because you already replied to a comment where
| I layout my preferred public finance model which you also
| ignored in that comment in favor of a semantic logical
| fallacy debate. so i question if you actually want to
| have an honest conversation
|
| If non-income based taxation worked, societies would be
| using it. Every single form of taxation was tried
| throughout history. This is the one that works.
|
| > That is a bit of projection there.
|
| No. The ones who BELIEVE that things will 'just' be
| 'okay' if they just leave things to 'the market' are
| repeating the Christianity's format of faith. That there
| is a 'good god' that will just make everything 'okay'.
| That's why it is faith.
|
| > Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher
| power", in your case this higher power is "the state"
| having replaced a god or gods
|
| Organized, well equipped and trained authoritarian forces
| do not give zit about the rejection of their authority by
| the individual people. The moment you lose the guarantor
| of your freedom and rights - the democratically owned and
| controlled society - is the moment you are a subject of
| the strongest armed bunch nearby.
|
| > Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free
| individuals, not government.
|
| The modern society was built by literally the organized
| French Revolutionaries deposing the aristocracy, making
| everyone equal and creating a social and legal system
| that ensured that. There hasn't been any 'voluntary
| exchange' of power on the side of armed, organized
| minority tyrants.
|
| Neither the society was formed in American Wild West,
| where if you were upset with your local environment, you
| could just kill some more Indians and steal their land
| and prop yourself up on the stolen land in the most
| libertarian fashion.
|
| Such philosophy is great while there is free land to
| take. The moment the free land runs out, things change.
| Just like how it happened at the end of 19th century in
| the US.
|
| > the entire US model of government is build on the fact
| that freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM
| government
|
| Yes. And that's why the US is in knee-deep sh*t. Becaue
| large slaveowners who had gigantic amount of land, wanted
| to protect their land from redistribution like how it was
| done to the deposed English nobility. Hence you got
| 'checks and balances' to prevent the democratic majority
| from asserting their will, with an openly declared
| intention by the architect of your constitution, John
| Adams, that the 'opulent' (rich) must be protected from
| the 'tyranny of the majority' (the people).
|
| And as a result, you are killing your people when they
| cant pay for healthcare, 42 million working families are
| suffering hunger, you are still paying the $4 trillion
| Iraqi war debt that you accrued for the privilege of
| murdering 1 million Iraqis, and your infrastructure is
| failing.
|
| But hey - the rich are far richer. So that is 'okay'.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >If non-income based taxation worked, societies would be
| using it.
|
| They do, very successfully and most of the government
| services you and others have aurgued with me about income
| tax providing are not infact provided for by income taxes
| in the US. Roads, Schools, Police, Fire, etc almost none
| of that is funded by Income Taxes, it is funded by
| Property Taxes, Sales Taxes,and excise taxes.
|
| In the US income Taxation is used for 4 main things.
| Social programs, National Defense, Science (Nasa, etc)
| and Administration / regulation
|
| >the democratically owned and controlled society
|
| Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves and
| a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner. This
| idea that democracy "provides" rights is laughable for
| anyone that understands anything about history which
| clearly you do not
|
| >you are still paying the $4 trillion Iraqi war debt that
| you accrued for the privilege of murdering 1 million
| Iraqis, and your infrastructure is failing.
|
| It si very ironic that you defend income based taxation,
| most likely because your socialist mind believes that is
| the way to "eat the rich" never realizing that income
| based taxation is the fuel for the engine of the war
| machine, and absent income based taxation the government
| would not have the ability to use the war machine in that
| manner. You are defending the very tool they use to
| murder people but you are soo blinded by your jealousy of
| the rich you believe would get ahead under a non-income
| based system you fail to understand that the rich WANT an
| income based system of taxation, that income based
| taxation is regressive (not progressive like proponents
| of the so called progressive income tax claim), and that
| a single tax system could be used to create universal
| income, and would actually help reduce income inequality
|
| Smash the State, Eat the Rich[1]. The freed market,
| without all the distortions and giveaways by the state
| such as price and wage controls, licensing and safety
| requirements, limited liability, costly regulation,
| capitalization requirements, quantitative easing,
| financial regulation, zoning requirements, protectionist
| trade policy, intellectual property laws, and various
| other barriers to entry all promote centralization and
| cartelization, is truly an equalizing force
|
| [1]https://c4ss.org/content/30085
| unity1001 wrote:
| > They do, very successfully and most of the government
| services you and others have aurgued with me about income
| tax providing are not infact provided for by income taxes
| in the US. Roads, Schools, Police, Fire, etc almost none
| of that is funded by Income Taxes, it is funded by
| Property Taxes, Sales Taxes,and excise taxes.
|
| US police is not an example of anything. They are
| literally fining people to fill their quotas to support
| the budget, leave aside their murderous practices.
| American schools neither are - the quality of American
| education has gone downhill since state-subsidized
| education was done for. Your roads are literally
| disintegrating, brigdges are falling down as people drive
| on it.
|
| No. Those schemes just do not work. They never worked in
| history for any society, and they don't seem like working
| in the US.
|
| > Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves
| and a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner.
|
| That's your endemic American problem thanks to your two
| party system due to FPTP and your anti-government
| indoctrination. Government and democracy pretty much work
| well anywhere else in the world.
|
| > the rich WANT an income based system of taxation
|
| The rich don't want any taxation. The rich want the late
| 19th century environment in which they could just buy and
| own anything. The only way that they were reined in was
| after T. Roosevelt brought all those pesky antitrust
| regulations and FDR piled up the taxes and social
| programs. Otherwise it was a Dickensian world.
|
| > is truly an equalizing force
|
| The free market handed over ENTIRE US to ~12 robber
| barons to own when it was as free as possible in the late
| 1800s.
|
| Randian 'free cities' and environments ended up in
| hellholes.
|
| https://www.gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-
| now-...
|
| The decline of central state allowed local feudal lords
| to rise and own everything and everyone toward the end of
| Roman empire.
|
| Chinese history is full of examples repeating the same,
| the 'free' market giving way to warlords who stomped down
| people like you when they had the chance.
|
| We have been there, done that. And yet here you are,
| still PREACHING the same thing from a country that KILLS
| its people if they cant pay for healthcare.
|
| That's why it is called a belief, a religion. For there
| isn't anything other than your faith backing it.
| croes wrote:
| Taxes are the membership fee of society
| phpisthebest wrote:
| There are many public finance options to fund society in
| more equal way than taking a persons labor. If there is
| anything akin to "wage slavery" in modern times it is
| more because of income tax than anything else
|
| Personal I am supporter of the Henry George Single Tax
| model to fund society instead of income based taxation
| unity1001 wrote:
| > If there is anything akin to "wage slavery" in modern
| times it is more because of income tax than anything else
|
| Don't invent stuff to make an argument. Wage slavery is
| what happens in the 'free market'. The very invention of
| wage slavery was to make conditions of slavery happen
| after slavery was abolished so that former slaveowners
| wouldnt go bankrupt. It was implemented in post civil war
| US, then it was copied by Brazilian slaveowners when
| slavery was abolished in Brazil.
| Jochim wrote:
| Personally I think the only problem with current taxes is
| the primitive nature of the bands in most cases and that
| non-labour income is often taxed far less heavily.
|
| Progressive taxation is our most effective tool for
| ensuring that a few people don't end up owning
| everything. For those of us who end up wealthier than the
| rest it's the price you pay for society providing you
| with a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads etc.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Well that leads to another problem, because I do not
| equate government with "society" nor do I believe
| government is the only, or best way for society to
| provide " a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads
| etc. "
|
| In fact history shows that government is generally pretty
| poor at providing any of those things
| cpsns wrote:
| More of a hostage situation given one can't opt out of
| said society nor has a choice in joining it.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Grey mass is a huge problem in most of Europe and we do
| realize most people want children and not break their back
| trying to fund them.
|
| There are better solutions (teaching individuals to be more
| financially responsible and kicking overly rich capitalists
| to the curb, for one) but that's preaching to the choir.
| phaer wrote:
| All true, but it might be worth mentioning that most of those
| benefits are still Austrian law, not European law. So while
| they generally better than the US, other EU states might lack
| some of those law.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Many countries go further, but the EU does require a
| minimum.
|
| - 4 weeks paid holiday
|
| - 4 months unpaid parental leave, 14 weeks paid for the
| mother
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_labour_law is the
| best overview I can find.
| warent wrote:
| For what it's worth I'm pretty sure there are systems in
| place in these countries which actually make it possible.
| right?
|
| Like, there are insurances and government assistance
| programs that businesses use to pay for things like
| parental leave.
|
| US businesses get no such help. So what is often
| attributed to US business greed is actually political
| greed, while businesses are just casualties.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| That would be a fair point if US businesses weren't
| donating to the GoP en masse.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes at least when I'm sick or on parental leave it's not
| the _company_ paying the parental leave money. The law
| makes it a requirement for my employer to let me take my
| parental leave, i.e they can't refuse or not have my job
| there when I return. So while that's a cost to them, of
| course they don't _pay_ me my 80% salary when I'm gone
| 6-12 months. Tax money does. My employer can use my
| salary money to pay for my replacement.
| enedil wrote:
| When I'm on sick leave in Poland, first two weeks are
| covered by the employer (80%) and only after that it's
| covered by tax money.
| lock-the-spock wrote:
| Your statement does not make much sense. As you correctly
| say, there are obligatory schemes to pay into in Europe.
| The companies could easily keep the same amounts at hand
| and pay them out at the same conditions - no difference
| whatsoever except corporate greed/lack of obligation.
| pastage wrote:
| Must suck being a father and not being able to take leave
| with your kids. We get 10 days when the baby is born.
| Plus lots of days until the child is X years, I think 11
| years.
| brnt wrote:
| To be fair, it used to be two days (!) up until 5 years
| ago in the Netherlands. We're still the worst place for
| young parents and fathers in particular in western
| Europe.
| enedil wrote:
| I'm not sure how it's counted, but in Poland we initially
| get 20 days and 26 after you work several years. Maybe
| the 4 weeks include national holidays, which don't count
| into the limit I mentioned.
| fsw wrote:
| 20 days are 4 weeks if you work 5 days per week.
| sebazzz wrote:
| I got indeed 20 by law and 14 on top of that for a total
| of 34, but the latter is the exception.
|
| In IT 26-28 days are common.
| em-bee wrote:
| that's funny considering how someone else here is arguing
| that labor protection in austria is worse than other
| european countries.
| tpm wrote:
| Well there are certainly differences. How about 3 years
| parental leave in Slovakia.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Which is why you make 50% less by the way. Not dumping on the
| laws, which I think are great, and are probably worth it
| overall, but there is a cost.
| tmnvdb wrote:
| The median Dutch person makes more per working hour than the
| median American. They just work around 400hrs per year less.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > Which is why you make 50% less by the way
|
| They make 50% less. And they don't have to pay $1000 per head
| for private insurance, more for other insurance, $3000/month
| for being able to be a roommate in a 30 m2 apartment. Also
| they have disability, reasonable retirement, paid vacations
| and everything that are pretty much nonexistent for American
| employees.
| malshe wrote:
| If you use some extreme examples then sure living in the US
| can be very expensive. But for most of us the things are
| not this bad. I am a professor and even with the academic
| pay I save about 30% of my salary even after paying all the
| expenses. The key is to live in a lower cost US state where
| the salaries are still quite high compared to most of the
| world.
| Spivak wrote:
| Same, being DINKs we literally save 85% of our monthly
| cash flow while maxing out two IRAs, two employer matched
| 401ks, and two HSAs, and carry no debt.
|
| We don't even make that much by US coastal standards.
|
| My retired grandparents have total monthly expenses of
| $3k but make $12k/mo from their pensions _plus_ around a
| million in retirement accounts. Their entire careers they
| barely made more than the median household income and had
| kids.
|
| The advantage of making a lot of money in expensive
| cities is you get an amazing deal when you pay "world
| rates" for things. But living in cheap medium size cities
| gives you an absolutely fucktonne of purchasing power.
| Our total monthly expenses including rent, utilities,
| internet, food, insurances, gas is less than $2.5k and we
| live in a nice well appointed flat.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > But for most of us the things are not this bad. I am a
| professor
|
| If you are a professor, you are not one of the 'most of
| us'. For most, things are really that bad.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-
| secret...
|
| There are millions of working families where both parents
| and even children work and yet they still suffer hunger.
| malshe wrote:
| My comment unintentionally sounded like I was talking
| about all the other Americans. I meant to say most of us
| in the middle class. I am acutely aware that poverty in
| the US is real. When I talk to my academic friends in
| Europe and we compare salaries (it's quite common to do
| that because in the US our salaries are public if we work
| in state universities), we usually come out with the
| conclusion that in the US we have a lot more liquidity
| after accounting for pension, medical, housing, and other
| expenses.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Depends, America is a good place for the upper middle class
| and a paradise for millionaires. The rest of society-the
| majority lest we forget- is not so well off.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I love it when US companies meet Dutch labor laws.
|
| This is the first time I've heard of any US company requiring
| an employee to keep a camera on themselves 9 hours per day.
| Obviously, that's not some standard US company practice.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if these same practices would fail in a
| US court.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Some _in-office_ workers in US, usually unknowingly, have
| their desktop web cam and other monitoring tools recording
| them at all times. It 's sad and disgusting to say the least.
|
| Last employer did this without the status led turned on. They
| also recorded, keystrokes, push notifications attached to
| volume changes and media players, used sslstrip/mitm on web
| traffic, among other things.
|
| Sadly, wouldn't be surprised if the same has carried over to
| remote.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| I recently did an interview with a German company, and they
| had the same requirement. They mentioned it early on, and it
| was probably the shortest interview I ever did.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| This. I have worked at a number of US employers, and if a US
| employee sued over similar circumstances, they would almost
| certainly win (IANAL). There's a whole long process that you
| need to go through to fire someone, especially if the
| organization is medium to large, and far more serious
| sounding infractions have been found to be insufficient cause
| for firing. Given that he said he was already sharing his
| screen, it's hard to see why a webcam would be a legally
| defensible requirement, even in the U.S.
|
| One big difference is the variability of the outcome in the
| U.S. You might get a result where such a firing is upheld, or
| you might get several million $ in punitive damages. Most
| companies don't care to roll the dice.
| Twirrim wrote:
| It's been coming up a lot, especially since the pandemic
| started. Sadly this isn't an extreme example.
| belter wrote:
| Plus cue in the shock of US Employees, when they realize his
| court costs to sue his employer were less than 500 dollars.
| elorm wrote:
| Filing fees. There's still a legal fee threshold.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| This isn't harmonized across the EU though, e.g. in German
| labor courts each side pays their own fees and lawyers
| regardless of outcome. So even a completely illegal action by
| your employer can/will still cost you hundreds to thousands
| of euros when you go and fight it. (The flip side is you
| don't have to pay for a team of expensive corpo-lawyers in
| case you loose)
| Xylakant wrote:
| The rules depend on what court you go to. In the first
| instance, both sides pay their own lawyers, but the court
| fees are paid by the loosing party (1). The fees are
| usually not very high, so that's not much of a barrier. On
| an appeal, the loosing party pays all fees, including the
| opponents lawyers (1).
|
| Being in a union pays off in labor court: Unions usually
| offer sending their legal staff instead of a lawyer that
| you'd need to personally retain. This substantially reduces
| the costs of a court case for the employee.
|
| See https://www.klugo.de/ratgeber/arbeitsgericht-kosten
|
| (1) or shared, on partial wins.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You're applying the American Rule backwards. There is no
| default presumption in the US legal system that you pay the
| winner's legal fees.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_f
| e...
| tyfon wrote:
| In Norwegian civil court, the loser pays the legal bills for
| both. It may seem a bit harsh, but it does prevent frivolous
| law suits.
|
| For work related cases, if you are in a union, they will foot
| the bill in most cases.
| trevvr wrote:
| I wonder if this makes court cases a pretty high stakes
| game for even the smallest of issues? Interesting concept
| all the same.
| Ekaros wrote:
| At least in Finland it still makes things quite ugly from
| cost perspective. It is not uncommon to read about cases
| where costs are in tens of thousand for real-estate.
| Probably one of the more common things to take in court.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > I wonder if this makes court cases a pretty high stakes
| game
|
| Stay away from courts! If your case goes before a judge,
| you're in casino country. Unless you're on the hook for
| some criminal offence, tell your lawyer to negotiate a
| settlement. Once a civil case comes before a judge, that
| usually means that there's a legal issue to be decided
| that nobody agrees on, which means that you can't predict
| how the cookie might crumble.
| Tor3 wrote:
| The loser doesn't _always_ pay for both. In some cases
| (well, many actually), or at least in cases where party A
| sues party B and loses, the court decides that it wasn 't
| all clear-cut and party A was right to get a resolution
| through the court system. In that case both may end up
| paying their respective legal bills.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Honestly I'd just have asked my union to deal with it... but
| that a little more in membership fee, compared to the EUR585,
| but it would have gotten me a lawyer who understands labour
| laws.
| dingosity wrote:
| Kind of weird that the website hosting a story about intrusive
| spying has a cookie policy that essentially says "we're going to
| set a cookie to track you around the intarwebs and you can't opt
| out of it."
|
| One more site to add to the memory hole.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| If the boss wants to monitor me working they should better not
| tell me. My entire intelligence melts down in anxiety and
| performance drops to near-zero if I know I am being watched. Why
| the heck do they want to watch people? What are they trying to
| discover? Isn't monitoring the results of the job enough?
| dusted wrote:
| I wonder how work culture will devolve from this kind of idea..
|
| If I had a company, I'd much rather that my employees generate
| value, rather than "looking busy" and "working hard"
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Those playing that game are usually managers using employees
| for the "perception" game and office politics/justifying their
| own position. It's nonsense.
|
| My last manager was this type and was a big advocate for
| everyone returning to office, likely for playing this game.
| ineedasername wrote:
| _he was ordered to take part in a virtual training period called
| a "Corrective Action Program."_
|
| This is the sort of name given to processes uses when an employee
| is already performing below expectations. (Where I work it's a
| more euphemistic Performance Improvement). If that's the case
| here then his firing was a bit less sudden than it appears.
| Though the entire monitoring process seems draconian regardless.
| blub wrote:
| PIPs are a tool for managing out employees that don't perform
| well _or_ don't yield to often abusive company demands like
| e.g. overtime _or_ pissed of somebody in management or
| connected to management.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| PIPs rarely work but it's the legal system that awards poor
| performers the equivalent of a year of salary when they're
| fired that makes them a requirement in the first place.
| tyingq wrote:
| Also potentially just the unlucky selected person for a
| forced rank/yank exercise when everyone is doing their job,
| but some percentage is selected to oust.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I've always called them sacrificial lambs.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Depends on the company but they are commonly used to ensure
| managers are not just firing someone that they are "pissed
| off" at, people are cynical about them but they are designed
| to ensure managers have to document the poor performance, and
| have notified the employee they are under performing...
|
| I have seen companies that lack this process and witnessed
| employees getting very positive feedback from managers even
| in performance reviews, only to be shell shocked with a
| termination for poor performance.
|
| Given the option to have a PiP process or not I would rather
| have one.
|
| I have seen employees go on a PIP and then improve their way
| out of it. I have seen them be used as a tool to justify
| termination, and in one case the PIP ended up revealing
| fraud.
|
| I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse
| employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP, but even
| with abusive management having that process IMO is better
| than not
| csa wrote:
| > they are designed to ensure managers have to document the
| poor performance
|
| I have had very close interactions (details below) with
| managers who completely fabricated "poor performance" in
| order to PIP the target out of a job.
|
| In both cases, I had the PIP target secretly work in tandem
| with a star employee to produce work that was considered
| top notch work up and down the management chain.
|
| In both cases, the manager took a cursory look at the work
| and completely dressed down the PIP target verbally and in
| writing with little or no constructive feedback.
|
| One manager was fired, and the other manager was out to
| pasture to work on meaningless solo projects (necessary due
| to organizational reasons).
|
| I am not sure how common this is, but managers who are
| slightly more intelligent about it can fairly easily set up
| a PIP target to fail while technically providing
| constructive feedback.
|
| One of the cultural problems in this org was that pretty
| much 100% of the managers were bad/inexperienced/untrained,
| so the unwritten rule was to not monitor the administrative
| actions of other managers. I was brought in basically to
| protect them from potential lawsuits that would have had
| merit -- they were incapable of doing this internally.
|
| > I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse
| employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP
|
| Agreed.
|
| > but even with abusive management having that process IMO
| is better than not
|
| Sort of, imho. What I always tell people is that they
| should consider their PIP period as a type of severance and
| look for another job aggressively while they are on it.
|
| In the handful of orgs that do PIPs well, the folks will
| usually know that the process is not punitive. I will add
| that I am fairly certain they every relatively large org
| I've known that does PIPs well also gives folks an
| opportunity to transfer if the job is not a good fit
| (assuming the target is not a bad apple, which is a
| selection problem).
|
| Anyway, I agree that PIPs could and should be an effective
| tool for remediation. That said, I am not sure it's any
| better than undocumented managerial capriciousness and
| malfeasance since usually all it really does in these
| situations is slow down the bad behavior slightly.
|
| If anyone gets randomly fired by a bad manager in an org
| with no PIP, they are probably better off just being out of
| the org in general rather than suffering for a few months
| in a sham.
| biztos wrote:
| Interesting factoid from Europe: at least in Germany, you
| are effectively unhirable if you are in a PiP. You actually
| have to warrant that you are not, before any company of any
| size will consider hiring you, and of course lying about
| that would be a firing offense.
|
| I get the logic, but as an American I was surprised... I
| was never PiPed but I too would have assumed it was better
| than the alternative. Not always!
| ghaff wrote:
| That would seem weird in the US given that, if you're on
| a PIP and aren't looking for a new job you probably
| should be as a PIP rarely ends up well. Essentially,
| you'd be in a situation where you knew you were going to
| be fired sooner or later but couldn't look for a new job.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| I never had this issue when working in Germany, and I was
| actually on a PIP at one company while successfully
| finding a new job to move to.
| sveme wrote:
| I worked for small and large companies, both German and
| American, never has anyone asked me whether I had been in
| a PIP. Have never even encountered something like this in
| Germany.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Interesting, in most states in the US it would be illegal
| for an employer to reveal to another employer that the
| employee was on a PiP, I am surprised that is allowed in
| the EU with all the privacy laws.
|
| The US has lots of anti-black listing laws in almost
| every state that would make something like that very very
| illegal
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Its also not legal in Germany, in fact, its pretty
| impossible to legally give a bad reference.
|
| HR departments have a workaround though - instead of a
| bad reference, they will simply confirm that yes, you
| worked there. Nothing else.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Are reference letters no longer done in Germany?
|
| When I was there that was how this was done. Basically
| you would _always_ get a reference letter when ending
| employment. The reference letter 's language always
| sounds good, as in not giving a bad reference. However, a
| reference letter that states things like "employee X
| delivered his tasks on time and to the satisfaction of
| work standards" basically means that he's a slacker that
| does mediocre work at best. It has to say something like
| "We are ultimately saddened for employee X leaving
| because he always delivered his work early and to the
| highest standard thinkable". These are bad made-up
| English language examples to show the difference in
| language but there's basically template language HR
| departments use for this.
| _nalply wrote:
| Yes, this was a thing already thirty years ago. There's
| even a term for them: coded reference letters. I even got
| a reference letter explicitly declaring that it doesn't
| contain hidden codes.
|
| https://www.arbeitszeugnis.de/presse/geheimcodeliste.pdf
| (German)
|
| This shows that there's a conflict: law forbids to
| discriminate someone with a bad review of their
| capability, motivation or fitness. But people always seem
| to try to work around this prohibition. Like giving a
| friendly declaration that someone worked at a company if
| they weren't impressed and give an enthusiastic
| recommendation in the other case.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| I never got a reference letter when leaving at any of my
| German employers, but when references were checked that's
| how it worked - the language would either be explicitly
| good, or "neutral good" meaning bad.
| biztos wrote:
| They are still a thing, though I don't know how common.
| My own experience on leaving a big company fairly
| recently was they were available if you wanted one, and
| you were expected to write your own and submit it for
| approval, in German and/or English at your discretion.
|
| I didn't bother, but if my future plans had included
| being an employee at a big company in Germany I
| definitely would have done so.
| csa wrote:
| > HR departments have a workaround though - instead of a
| bad reference, they will simply confirm that yes, you
| worked there. Nothing else.
|
| This works in the US as well.
| 3np wrote:
| So I guess anyone working at a German company will want
| to make really sure their HR department is in on this
| before leaving :p
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > yes, you worked there. Nothing else.
|
| That's the norm in most places, isn't it? He didn't steal
| anything, he wasn't sacked, he didn't punch-out the boss,
| and he didn't shit on the carpet.
|
| Nobody wants to be sued for giving a decent reference.
|
| My dad was a soldier; his retirement reference (age 45)
| said something like "He is an oustanding officer who will
| succeed at any enterprise he turns his hand to". That
| impressed me, until I learned that any officer retiring
| from the army will get a reference pretty-much the same.
|
| Note that retiring from the army at age 45 is very
| common. If you get to 45 without getting promoted past
| colonel, you need a new career, because serious promotion
| happens when your CO gets killed in combat; and beyond
| about 45, they won't be sending you into combat.
| [deleted]
| csydas wrote:
| I'm actually shocked that so many companies handle
| performance improvement and coaching so badly.
|
| We implemented a coaching system for our support team about
| a year ago with the explicit purpose that individual
| coaching does not directly affect KPI, and that as much
| coaching can and should be done freely without worry of
| impacting the support team. The system tracks both the
| person being coached and their team lead who does the
| coaching. The coaching is directed to be as instructive as
| possible, that it's not about punishment, but better ways
| of handling specific technical situations or adherence to
| the support policy.
|
| Long term reviews consider not just the person being
| coached, but also the leader as well, as a high number of
| coaching options across multiple persons on the same team
| would suggest an issue with the leadership as the root
| cause, and more qualitative reviews focus on that element
| as well. The entire point is to ensure that Performance
| Improvement Plans don't have to be a thing, and that there
| is constructive feedback flowing into the system.
|
| Adoption was slow, but with strict adherence to what a
| coaching instruction must include, we've seen exceptionally
| high improvement and much calmer conversations when
| mistakes are made since the support persons realize "this
| isn't a KPI penalty or a PIP; it's just trying to prevent
| that." Having the system "open", i.e., the support persons
| can see every entry they have at any time with a few clicks
| of a button means no secrets.
|
| It's a lot of documenting, but so far we're seeing a ton of
| success with it and positive feedback to having this
| process for constructive criticism, and the focus on also
| considering "this might be a leadership issue" also helps
| add some comfort.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I've seen this work well, especially with some
| flexibility. Had a very dramatic underperformer on a team
| that sat near me. His lead went down every paperwork
| rabbit hole to get him fired, and the improvement plan
| was the last step. He simply couldn't knock out a simple
| backlog item without a lot of help. I'm not sure how he
| graduated with a degree. But the improvement plan had him
| doing some ops work as well as development, and low and
| behold he was a natural born ops wizard... It all made
| sense to him. Had never heard of k8s or helm and was
| spitting out helm charts, docker files, conan files etc.
| in less than a month, burning down the whole teams ops
| backlog.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Last time I got put on a PIP was for refusing an entirely
| unreasonable request to be on call, and leaving my work phone
| at home during that period.
|
| I started making plans to resign pretty soon after being put
| on the PIP.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I dunno, can't you just say "Dude, if you put me on the
| PIP, I'll have trouble leaving. Since what you're proposing
| amounts to disciplinary measures, I'll be quitting anyway;
| so why make it harder for me to get a new job?"
|
| The dismissal process for underperformance here (UK)
| requires the employer to give warnings: one verbal, and two
| written, I think. The employer is also expected to help the
| employee meet the performance target. The PIP sounds like a
| checklist version of that help - it's not meant to help the
| employee, it's meant to hustle along the dismissal process.
| I'd take a job flipping burgers, rather than work for a
| boss that put me on a PIP.
| Kranar wrote:
| Quitting and getting terminated have very different
| consequences. Quitting does not entitle you to EI and
| could jeopardize severance/termination pay. To lose those
| benefits due to termination the termination must be for
| cause, which comes with a very high standard that an
| employer is exclusively required to justify.
| tallanvor wrote:
| This completely depends on the company. Where I work, PIPs
| really are designed to give extra structure to the people on
| them as to what is expected of them and they're designed to
| be achievable by the average employee without working extra
| hours. Of course, they're also private, so you only know
| someone has been on one if they choose to share that
| information.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| I've never ever ever seen a PIP used in a positive way. It's
| almost always been a way for petty toxic management that
| resented an employee not tolerating an abusive environment.
| tartoran wrote:
| Of course PIP got a huge potential to be abused, it's like
| a weapon in the hands of management. I've never been under
| a PIP but if I were I'd urgently look for work.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| That's what I did - once I was put on a PIP, I knew it
| was time to jump before I was pushed.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Man, it's so frustrating. I just wanted to work hard, do
| a good job, and make a comfortable living.. but I got
| repeatedly screwed over by corporate politics several
| levels above me at my first couple of tech jobs after
| college. I was forced into learning how to play corporate
| politics just to stay employed, and now I make 6x as much
| money and work maybe 1/3rd as much as I used to.
|
| If these companies weren't comprised of weasels and
| wannabe tyrants, I think everyone would be a lot better
| off. I guess being a manipulative, greedy asshole is just
| human nature though.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| For management it is a win-win. If the employee fails they
| have a record that they can use to defend themselves in
| court against a discrimination lawsuit. If it actually
| helps, they retain a worker with perhaps improved
| productivity. Companies can use them for either or both
| thelittleone wrote:
| I got asked if I'd be willing to take a guy on pip onto my
| team. The guy was senior to me when I started but he
| languished a bit so I was now senior. He was good
| technically but terrible with internal politics. It was a
| bit of an adjustment but we worked hard and managed a turn
| around. He was surprised and thankful for the genuine
| interest in his career and well being. He never became an A
| player, but he stayed on a few more years and stock splits
| and we remain in contact 15 years later.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Thanks for being a decent human. In my experience, such
| is more rare than you would think.
| Falkon1313 wrote:
| Yeah, I had a manager PIP me out once like that. I was
| required to work until midnight to hit a deadline, then get
| on a call until 3am with the contractors in India, and when
| my butt wasn't back in the office chair by 8:30am the next
| day, I was written up for being late. Another warning came
| from refusing to stay more than 3 hours late one night
| (unplanned overtime) because I had plans that night, which
| made me 'not a team player'. After those two warnings, it
| only took me being randomly 5 minutes late one day for the
| third and final.
|
| Oddly enough, after we 'mutually agreed to terminate my
| employment' there, I got a call from the director of
| another department offering me a job in his department and,
| most surprisingly, a really glowing recommendation on
| LinkedIn from the very manager that fired me.
|
| I don't claim to understand it. But I do understand why the
| company had such high turnover, and why the guy I had been
| hired to replace had gone on mental health leave and just
| never came back.
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| Well, I worked on a company with a performance program (I can
| really remember the exact euphemism), in which all new
| employees were supposed to take part when joining, and then if
| marked as low performer go through it again, with a neat
| addition... random employees were also selected to go through
| it again just because.
| pridkett wrote:
| That's not that terrible idea - it removes some of the stigma
| and potentially helps ensure the program provides value
| rather than just being a checkbox on the way to termination.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| It's still a checkbox used during termination.
| trynewideas wrote:
| I also don't see how going through it reduces the stigma.
| The stigma exists _because_ of the experience, not the
| unfamiliarity of it. For instance, does the experience of
| going through US airport security ever reduce the stigma
| of it?
| kube-system wrote:
| When you go through TSA, nobody thinks "oh, that person
| must be a terrorist because the TSA is screening them".
| Because the TSA screens everyone.
|
| When someone is on a PIP, the expectation is "that person
| is about to get fired"
|
| This is the stigma we're talking about.
| pram wrote:
| Assuming PIP programs exist for any purpose other than
| establishing justification for termination.
| kweingar wrote:
| > does the experience of going through US airport
| security ever reduce the stigma of it?
|
| Some people feel degraded when they go through airport
| security, but it doesn't carry a stigma. Nobody's judging
| you for going through security so you can fly.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> it removes some of the stigma
|
| Stigma around being on a corrective performance plan should
| be removed?
| numpad0 wrote:
| punishment is for reinforcement. Our brains are just not
| sophisticated enough to regularly reevaluate forecasts
| and stop the chain of events, but do at most trigger on
| known initial condition, trace and recreate the
| precedents all the way through to the pain, then just
| exit with an exit code.
| bigfudge wrote:
| This post reminds me of the category of "not even wrong".
| Apart from anything else, reward is a _much_ more
| effective stimulus for learning than punishment.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| I guess it depends on whether your goal is to improve
| performance, or punish and humiliate people
|
| BTW: If anyone finds themselves on any sort of
| "performance improvement plan", do the BARE MINIMUM to
| not get fired outright. Ideally go to a therapist, talk
| about how stressed out you are and how fucked your
| situation is, and get an official FMLA (legally protected
| leave of absence). That'll give you some time to relax
| and look for a new job. Don't let your boss or website
| trolls gaslight you into thinking you can't find a new
| job that will treat you better.
| collegeburner wrote:
| idk man seems plausible that the social pressure of not
| wanting to be the PIP bozo could be effective. also love
| how you assume that "anyone.. on any sort of performance
| improvement plan" is 100% not at fault, it must be the
| evil kkkapitalist boss "trolling" or "gaslighting". there
| are retards who don't do their jobs well and a PIP is
| sometimes trying to push them into doing better instead
| of firing.
| jcadam wrote:
| > random employees were also selected to go through it again
| just because.
|
| I can imagine being in the middle of a critical project, on a
| tight deadline, and getting the "You've been randomly
| selected to attend the performance program again." email.
| memcg wrote:
| The article also states that he was "telemarketing worker"
| without much detail about his job duties. Was the company
| already recording his screen and voice (if applicable)
| interactions with customers?
| P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote:
| from the article
|
| > The telemarketing worker replied back two days later, "I
| don't feel comfortable being monitored for 9 hours a day by a
| camera. This is an invasion of my privacy and makes me feel
| really uncomfortable. that's the reason why my camera isn't
| on. You can already monitor all activities on my laptop and I
| am sharing my screen."
| memcg wrote:
| That does not answer the question regarding interacting
| with customers.
| P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote:
| >Was the company already recording his screen and voice
| (if applicable)
|
| The answer is yes.
| memcg wrote:
| Was his job to interact with customers? Not answered. Did
| not address voice recording which is common for call
| center and support employees.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I suspect the article meant teleworking
| memcg wrote:
| Me too, but it makes a big difference. Recording sales or
| support interactions with customers is common.
|
| The article also mentioned "commission" as part of his
| compensation which may be related to a sales function.
| ashaikh wrote:
| The article mentions he was a remote worker up front. I
| think his job was telemarketing.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I wonder if they were a remote sales or marketing rep.
|
| I'm not sure why a software development Company would
| have an employee doing telemarketing, at least not the
| unsolicited direct to consumer type we use the term for
| in the US. Maybe this is a connotation issue.
| simonh wrote:
| Software companies still need to sell stuff much of which
| can be remote, it looks like this local branch was a
| sales operation to the Dutch market.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't know if you're from the US or not, but in the US
| the term telemarketer usually refers to someone that
| makes cold calls to private residences. It is usually low
| paid work and usually outsourced to countries with cheap
| labor.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Chetu argued instead that the webcam was no different than if
| the worker had been present in the office being observed by
| management._
|
| Is this a company where a manager is literally watching over
| employees for the whole day? I don't think that's normal outside
| of things like production lines and other blue-collar type
| environments.
| andyp-kw wrote:
| I would never work for a company that required me to have my
| webcam on for the full work day.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm a little surprised they had a Dutch employee and did know the
| laws.
|
| Every company I worked for with foreign employees, hired (or more
| often acquired) knew the lay of the land.
| Irishsteve wrote:
| Can this actually be enforced. It sounds like it's a Dutch court
| v US entity where they were a contractor. If the company had a
| Dutch entity they wouldn't make such obvious errors in judgement
| as they'd know the local laws
| maartenscholl wrote:
| If you'd read the second sentence of the article, you would
| have learned that the company has a branch in the Netherlands.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Yeah, but it sounds like the NL subsidiary doesn't employ a
| NL lawyer; or maybe they do, but just don't listen to him.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| And if you kept reading you'd know they don't anymore and the
| guy hasn't been paid.
| maartenscholl wrote:
| I read that and I don't think it contradicts my comment, as
| the firm had the Dutch entity and thus the knowledge of
| Dutch labour laws at the time of the firing. This is
| contrary to what the parent supposes.
| jacknews wrote:
| "insubordination"
|
| wtf, was this a job or a prison camp?
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Insubordination is simply refusing a proper direct instruction;
| for example, refusing to turn on your webcam. I'd argue that
| instruction wasn't "proper". But one of the legitimate grounds
| for dismissal is refusing to do what you're told. After all, if
| you hire someone, and they won't do what you pay them to do,
| then natural justice would seem to say that you can stop paying
| them, and hire a replacement.
|
| From what I've read, this employee was indeed insubordinate;
| but they were entitled to be insubordinate, because the
| instruction they were given wasn't proper. It would be wrong to
| court-martial a soldier, for example, if they refused an order
| to murder PoWs, even though prima facie that would be
| insubordination.
| rocqua wrote:
| As others said, the dutch term is probably different.
|
| Their (bad) legal argument was. He refused to follow work
| instructions, hence he did not perform his work as required,
| hence we can fire him "op staande voet" which is an on the spot
| firing that does not require a long process of attempting to
| improve employee performance. They needed a 'op staande voet'
| firing because the long process takes months. The
| justifications for this are limited to things like "theft or
| fraud", "Threatening or causing Grievous insult", "repeated
| innebriation" (called out specifically in law), or "refusing a
| task".
|
| That final cause "Refusing a task" ,or in dutch, quoting from
| the law: "wanneer de werknemer hardnekkig weigert te voldoen
| aan redelijke bevelen of opdrachten, hem door of namens de
| werkgever verstrekt", can be translated to insubordination. A
| full translation of the dutch phrasing would be: "when the
| employee persistently refuses to comply with reasonable orders
| or instructions issued to him by or on behalf of the employer".
| Hence the company argued that "turn on your webcam all working
| day" was a "reasonable order or instruction issued by the
| employer".
|
| Note that the story mentions this was during a "Corrective
| Action Program". That sounds like they were already in the
| firing process. Which starts with a process of notifying an
| employee their performance is not good enough, and requires
| they are offered a chance to improve. This 'offering a chance
| to improve' is usually done by putting employees on a
| 'performance improvement plan'. I believe many US states have
| similar procedures.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| (deleted, replied to wrong comment)
| mcherm wrote:
| > I believe many US states have similar procedures.
|
| Most US companies follow similar procedures because they are
| a sensible thing to do. But 49 out of 50 US states have "at
| will" employment which means that employers can fire any
| employee at any time for no reason at all.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| US companies follow those procedures because lawyers tell
| them they'll lose in court if they don't. Sensibility has
| nothing to do with it.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| "At will" employment, especially for larger organizations,
| does not mean this. There are lots and lots of cases of
| employees, in nearly every state, suing for wrongful
| termination and winning.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| They have at will firing. When employees choose to leave,
| not so much:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-
| wisc...
| jesuspiece wrote:
| same thing in the states
| ifqwz wrote:
| Seems an appropriate word...
|
| "Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying a lawful
| order of one's superior."
|
| Your boss is your superior, so disobeying what he asks of you
| is insubordination.
| volepole wrote:
| Your boss is just some other person. If he thinks he's
| superior to anyone else, he can fuck right off. He'll end up
| as worm food just like the rest of us.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > Definition of superior (Entry 1 of 2) 1 : situated higher
| up : UPPER 2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superior
|
| Boss is by definition superior to your position, not in a
| sense better, but higher.
| inopinatus wrote:
| not higher. the graph is topologically unchanged if you
| draw it with the CEO at the bottom, and so on.
|
| don't be hoodwinked by bad analogies, or the arbitrary
| demands of insecure narcissists
| mhuffman wrote:
| Well, I mean your boss can fire you from the company but
| you can not fire your boss from the company. So in that
| sense they are "superior".
| inopinatus wrote:
| Sorry, but no. That is a falsifiable statement in just
| about every respect and possible interpretation. The
| implied assumptions about everything from employment law
| to the notion that in all work environments everyone has
| a "boss", let alone the meaning of that term, are far
| from universal.
|
| The world just isn't that limited, thankfully.
|
| Tip: think about why you had to put "superior" in quotes.
| yrgulation wrote:
| The amount of people that advocate in favour of master-
| servant mentality is appallingly high. No wonder there are
| so many that prefer working in human farms.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| Not to mention that the company was already monitoring
| keystrokes and requiring screen sharing. This indeed is
| some slavery mindset.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Most certainly but that's not the point. The point is that
| companies are structured so that division of labour flows
| from a core group deciding the strategical priorities
| towards more specialised groups and ultimately line workers
| through levels of organisation making tasks more and more
| specific along the way. As a salaried worker, provided it
| was in your contract, you can't entirely refuse to do
| what's asked of you by the strata defining your work and
| expect to keep your position.
|
| Thankfully, in Europe, unions have harshly fought for
| somewhat fair employment laws and this relationship only
| applies to actual work and not the whimsies of your boss.
| camgunz wrote:
| I think you're right about things like chain of command;
| most companies are hierarchical in this way. But I think
| there's a fallacy that's widely believed that people "at
| the top" see things more clearly than those... not at the
| "top". I think we see very little no matter where we are,
| and we have to rely on each other to get the whole
| picture. To me, this indicates that a more flat structure
| makes sense: I'm good at the tech thing, you're good at
| the budgeting thing, if suddenly you stop being good at
| the budgeting thing I want someone else to do it, and
| vice versa.
| castis wrote:
| Since the lawsuit was successful, the order given was proven
| to not be lawful. Thus, not insubordination.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Sure, but that wasn't the expectation of the company at the
| time they called it that.
|
| If the court ruled in their favour it would have been
| insubordination.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| True, but it's still the case that he was fired by his
| company with the claimed reason of insubordination. I think
| it's a valid translation given the context (i.e. talking
| about what they said he did, not about what he actually
| did.)
| talideon wrote:
| You seem to have missed the word "lawful".
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| lawful just means the order itself wasn't illegal. It
| doesn't mean that it's "enforcing the law"
|
| If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be
| insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
|
| If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be
| insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
|
| Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm
| would have been it was legal to require someone to have
| their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to
| refuse.
|
| They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not
| unfair of them to think it was.
| msh wrote:
| No. It would only be lawful if you were legally entitled
| to require him to buy apples.
| em-bee wrote:
| as it's only insubordination if they were entitled to
| require him to buy apples. if i tell my friend or my
| brother to buy apples, and he says no, then that's not
| insubordination
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| There is also the word "reasonable". In civil law
| countries like Netherlands, that actually means
| something. One can argue that even if being ordered to
| turn on the webcam all day is not illegal, it is still an
| unreasonable request e.g. because it infringes on privacy
| too much.
| afiori wrote:
| The employer disagreed and so called it insubordination.
|
| The employer was also found wrong by a court.
| 01acheru wrote:
| > ... lawful order ...
|
| That's why it is not insubordination, the order must be
| lawful. Your boss is your superior but there are plenty of
| possible scenarios where disobeying their orders is not
| insubordination. Besides that, your boss is not in a position
| to give you _orders_. It is a work place not a prison or a
| platoon.
|
| In modern times insubordination is almost always related to
| military contexts.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Nah, insubordination is a very common term in employment
| law.
| 01acheru wrote:
| It depends on where you live, at least in Europe most
| people would find the word inappropriate. For us here
| "disobedience" or something alike would be a better term.
| apurtbapurt wrote:
| I disagree (and am European, and a union rep for many
| years). Subordination is what I expect from an employee
| and obedience from a dog.
|
| Subordination is a role you opt into. Obedience is
| something you can't get away from.
|
| You take a job as mailman and then you are a subordinate
| to the postmaster. Refusing to carry out sensible and
| appropriate orders (without a valid reason) is
| insubordination and grounds for being fired (more or
| less) on the spot, even in Scandinavia.
|
| What counts as an appropriate order and a valid ground
| for refusal is probably very different in different
| regions/countries/states, but the basic dynamic is not.
| 01acheru wrote:
| Subordination:
|
| 1. The act of subordinating, subjecting, or placing in a
| lower order, rank, or position, or in proper degrees of
| rank; also, the state of being subordinate or inferior;
| inferiority of rank or dignity.
|
| 2. Degree of lesser rank.
|
| 3. The state of being under control of government;
| subjection to rule; habit of obedience to orders.
|
| 4. The act of subordinating, placing in a lower order, or
| subjecting.
|
| 5. The quality or state of being subordinate or inferior
| to an other; inferiority of rank or dignity; subjection.
|
| 6. Place of inferior rank.
|
| 7. The process of making something subordinate.
|
| 8. The property of being subordinate.
|
| 9. The quality of being properly obedient to a superior
| (as a superior officer).
|
| As you see when you expect your dog to be obedient your
| are placing yourself on a higher rank, so your dog is
| your subordinate.
|
| When you expect your employee to be subordinate your are
| expecting him to obey when something is asked or tasked
| from ranks higher than their's in your organization. Your
| are also expecting him to obey to what is written in the
| subordination contract signed by both.
|
| Wikipedia: obedience, in human behavior, is a form of
| "social influence in which a person yields to explicit
| instructions or orders from an authority figure".
|
| What I think to be the main issue is the word "order".
| IMHO an order is not something that might exist in a
| workplace, with few exceptions. Your boss gives you tasks
| and expect you to execute them remaining inside a more or
| less explicit set of rules, your boss cannot give you
| _orders_.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Insubordination is an english word, and it is written
| into employment law as grounds for immediate dismissal.
| "Disobedience" isn't. Basically, if you take a paid job,
| you subordinate yourself to your boss.
| 01acheru wrote:
| > The resident of Diessen, Noord-Brabant, was hired by
| the the Rijswijk branch of Chetu Inc.
|
| We are talking about a Danish person hired by an European
| company. I fail to see the point of your comment.
| jefftk wrote:
| Whether the order was lawful is exactly what the suit was
| about
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| If you pick it apart, it really means failure to put yourself
| below.
|
| Outside of acknowledged overt heirarchy like the military
| where the strict heirarchy has a defensible purpose (there is
| always some sort of heirarchy, but only in something like a
| military is a pathological form of it justified) you are
| theoretically always equal to anyone else, and your order-
| taking is merely a very limited commercial transaction. You
| are not actually subordinate to your boss or anyone else.
|
| There is just this very narrow scope where you have
| voluntarily agreed to accept some specific kinds of
| directions in a specific context in return for pay.
|
| Swap subordinate for subservient and I would not consider
| "insubservience" or "failure to be a servant" a very damning
| charge and I would look more at anyone who thought it was.
| flotzam wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination#Private_Sector
| duxup wrote:
| The term seems fine to me. Actions of the company absurd, but I
| don't associate that word with just a prison camp type
| situation.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Judging by their webpage they seem like a classic body shop
| making a living on selling cheaper EU devs to US firms.
| castis wrote:
| Its hilarious that on the 3rd line they say "quality software
| is important to us..."; and immediately following is jquery
| soup.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I think it's a bad translation, the actual Dutch word being
| used is "ongehoorzaamheid", which means something like "not
| following the rules".
|
| I will say that it's typically used in the context of raising
| children for example, but it's definitely acceptable to use
| this word in Dutch in this context.
| krono wrote:
| Then it is a correct translation, as that is what
| insubordination means.
| [deleted]
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Yes, a friend raised concerns about his health versus
| company mandates / peer pressure in an emotional and kind
| of irritating way and the company Terminated him for that.
| Still finding out if he's eligible for unemployment in the
| US state he lives. Specifically, he wrote that the
| company's only option was "not up to his standards" and the
| Executive who fired him cited that as a reason, because how
| could an individual possibly have higher standards than him
| and the company? Hint: it's not hard because they are
| malicious hillbillies.
| em500 wrote:
| "ongehoorzaamheid" means disobedience. Even in the context of
| raising children it seems pretty unfashionable nowadays. It
| has the air of authoritarianism that in my experience modern
| Dutch parents try to avoid. I wouldn't consider it acceptable
| in the context of employment relationships (except perhaps in
| military positions).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> there was no urgent reason given to justify the immediate
| dismissal given." He alleged that the termination was
| disproportionate_
|
| Damn sweet. I wish we had such great employee protection laws in
| Austria, where the company/employer can terminate your employment
| relationship without any reason at all.
|
| _> Less than a week after the plaintiff was fired, the Rijswijk
| branch of Chetu Inc. was deregistered from the Chamber of
| Commerce and shut down on 2 September, records show_
|
| So the company knew they were in the wrong for firing him and
| immediately shut down their Dutch operations to avoid the
| lawsuit.
| nraynaud wrote:
| Plus you can always fire anyone for any reason in the EU, just
| give them enough money to stomach it.
| [deleted]
| Ekaros wrote:
| Worst thing that can happen is being taken to court and
| ordered to pay some money.
| em-bee wrote:
| and give them at least one month notice as well as pay out
| their unused holidays.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Not really, mutual agreements are a thing. If you pay
| someone with one month notice 3 months worth of pay to
| leave on the same day, they would be stupid not to take it.
| em-bee wrote:
| ok, yeah, as long as you pay more than the remaining
| working time. but an employee has to watch out how that
| affects unemployment benefits.
| Ekaros wrote:
| 3 months I feel bit questionable still. As depending on
| location there might be loss of unemployment benefits.
| nraynaud wrote:
| yeah, you have to go higher than what they would get in
| court.
| dsr_ wrote:
| I assume the company is not in good financial condition, either
| -- 75,000 euros should not be terribly burdensome, otherwise.
| gambiting wrote:
| In the UK most people don't know that for the first 2 years of
| employment you can be let go for any reason(as long as it's
| legal) or no reason at all. Only after 2 years various employee
| protections kick in.
| tankenmate wrote:
| However there about 60 reasons that a dismissed employee can
| claim that it was automatically unfair to fire them,
| regardless of length of tenure.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| At one time I was told that it was very easy to fire someone in
| Denmark. I have no idea how true it is, but it was at a time
| when the Danish economy was doing much better than the German
| one, and the anecdote was trying to explain why.
|
| It was a constrast of Denmark, Germany and the US. In Germany
| it was hard to fire somebody, so employers were reluctant to
| hire. Denmark & the US had no such troubles, but the difference
| between Denmark and the US was that a fired employee in the US
| loses health care, et cetera. OTOH the fired Danish employee
| falls into the generous Danish social security. The anecdote
| was that the Danish rules were the best of both worlds.
|
| It's hearsay, but I found it convincing. Austrian social
| security isn't as good as Denmark's, IIRC, but it's much better
| than the US's, so perhaps Austria is close to the optimum of
| the guy telling me that anecdote?
| yosamino wrote:
| Not true that in Austria you can be terminated for any reason
| at all. There are protections in place. For example, in the
| regular case, i.e. 'no urgent reason' there is no such thing as
| an immediate dismissal, and this can be fought. Of course as
| always with the law ymmv - but there are many different ways in
| which your rights as a worker are protected.
|
| See this: https://www.usp.gv.at/mitarbeiter/beendigung-
| arbeitsverhaelt...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Not true that in Austria you can be terminated for any
| reason at all. There are protections in place._
|
| Not true at all what you claim about Austria. There are zero
| protections in place for workers here unless you're over 50
| or work at a place with a union (worker's council) that will
| fight for you. If you work for a small tech company you have
| no protections against unfair dismissal. Basically your boss
| can tell you at any time "in 30 days you won't work here
| anymore, goodbye" without any reason. Unlike other EU
| countries where you need to provide a specific legal reason
| why you're letting an employee go or you can get sued for
| unfair dismissal like the man in the article did to his
| former employer.
|
| I spoke to Arbeite Kammer after being dismissed for no reason
| by a douchebag boss and they told me "your employer doesn't
| need a reason to dismiss you according to Austrian labor
| law".
|
| My jaw dropped when I realized that Austria is basically,
| similar to US in this regard, where you get no protection
| against unfair dismissal except that here you get about 30-60
| day notice period to find another job while you continue to
| work for your current employer. Austrian employers are even
| allowed to dismiss you while you're on sick leave. Crazy
| stuff.
|
| Very backwards employment laws for an EU county.
| origin_path wrote:
| The US is the opposite of a third world country.
| em-bee wrote:
| you seem to mix up something. termination with advance
| notice is a normal process and pretty much always possible.
| i doubt there is any country in the world where you can't
| terminate employees with sufficient advance notice. the
| periods for advance notice differ but the process is
| otherwise the same in austria or in germany for example.
| and i am pretty sure most EU countries are similar. i only
| heard about france having much stricter rules for
| termination. so how is austria worse in that regard?
|
| in this particular example, the legal date for termination
| in austria would have been december 31st (because by
| default it is 6 weeks notice after august 26, to the
| nearest quarter) in germany it would have been september
| 30th.
|
| and for termination without notice
|
| https://www.arbeitnehmer.at/kuendigung/entlassung/
|
| pretty clearly spells out the reasons when someone can be
| fired, which contradicts your claim that people can be
| fired for no reason.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> termination with advance notice is a normal process
| and pretty much always possible. i doubt there is any
| country in the world where you can't terminate employees
| with sufficient advance notice_
|
| I think you are misunderstanding. Unlike Austria, in most
| others EU countries you can't terminate employees, even
| with notice, without providing a reason.
| em-bee wrote:
| ok, it looks like i was wrong. i thought i read that in
| germany too employees can be terminated without reason.
| further search found that to be false.
|
| it seems that austria really is the bad exception here.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I disagree. Austria's labor protections are fine. If you
| make rules around dismissals stricter then you greatly harm
| the ability for a company to hire in the first place. The
| current rules give you plenty of protection as an employee
| that you can find a new place of work and not suffer
| financially.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Austria's labor protections are fine_
|
| When they're objectively worse than every other EU
| country, bordering on competing with the US, I can hardly
| call them "fine".
|
| _> If you make rules around dismissals stricter then you
| greatly harm the ability for a company to hire in the
| first place. _
|
| Please stop parroting the propaganda of the conservative
| party (OVP) who are bought and paid for by the business
| elite and would gladly tell us working 60h/week is in our
| best interest. The stricter employee protections in other
| EU countries haven't harmed the economy or innovations
| there. Do you see Netherlands or Sweden doing poorly
| economically because of their better employee protection
| laws? In fact their innovation and tech sectors are far
| above Austria's.
|
| Nor did the lack of employee protection laws boost
| Austria's economic sector. Have you looked at Austrian
| skilled wages? They earn the lowest wages of all the
| German speaking countries causing an exodus of doctors
| and other skilled specialists to Germany and Switzerland,
| while Austrian devs make Eastern European wages. So how
| did the lack of worker protections help with this?
|
| Maybe fixing the needlessly complex and conservative
| bureaucracy and high tax burdens on employers and
| employees would help improve the Austrian economic sector
| and make it more competitive and attractive for business,
| instead of taking away employee rights in a race to the
| bottom hoping that going the sweatshop route will make it
| more competitive.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| There is a lot I want to fix in Austria from bureaucracy
| to taxation of stock options and more. The employment law
| is very fine by me.
|
| If you think that you will get better wages if it's
| harder to dismiss employees I have doubts. The main
| reason devs don't earn enough in Austria is that it's
| hard and expensive to have a business there and that the
| country is not appealing for employees. That means that
| the few good IT companies have a small labor pool and
| need to relocate developers for whom the country is not
| appealing.
| em-bee wrote:
| if austria is not appealing for employees, wouldn't that
| mean that salaries should be higher, to make it more
| appealing?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Not really, because there are other options around. For a
| gross salary of 100.000 Euro (which is already high, but
| not necessarily for software engineers) the employer pays
| 125.000 Euro, after taxes the employee retains 61.000
| Euro. Stock options are generally taxed as income as
| well.
|
| So the general taxation situation and the complexities in
| doing business (lots of notaries needed, slow processes)
| make it unappealing.
| [deleted]
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Very similar in Texas - it is called At Will employment.
| Other states are Right to Work. Each has pros and cons. I've
| only lived and worked in Texas so At Will is very close to
| "for any reason" as long as it's not against the law. Don't
| like your haircut? They can shut can you on the spot.
|
| On the flip side, if one day you go in and you've just had
| enough of the hourly retail job and think you can get a
| better one, you can up and walk out then and there. Usually
| we flash the double V for Victory sign and say "Peace out!"
| when that's the case. It's fun.
|
| I remember working as a waiter once and the Manager started
| assigning employees cleaning duties like getting on ladders
| for ceiling vents. Waiters get paid by tips, salary was $2.13
| an hour at the time. When he asked me I told him I wouldn't
| do it and would call the Workforce Commission if he wanted to
| push the issue. Needless to say I was the only front of house
| person not cleaning shit like a chump that day.
| astura wrote:
| >it is called At Will employment. Other states are Right to
| Work.
|
| Wtf?
|
| No, "right to work" is not the opposite of "at will," they
| have almost nothing to do with each other. Furthermore,
| Texas IS a "right to work" state.
|
| "Right-to-work" laws are laws that make joining a union not
| a requirement for employment.
|
| All states in the US are "at will" employment.
| lucb1e wrote:
| > Usually we flash the double V for Victory sign and say
| "Peace out!" when that's the case. It's fun.
|
| Sounds like a good way to burn bridges. If I'd show up to
| work one day and tell them to suck it up for the next few
| months of planned projects, I do know what kind of
| reference my boss would provide to future employers.
|
| It's not about loyalty or something, but so long as there
| isn't anything egregious, it does seem reasonable to me
| that both sides can expect a notice periods.
| ghaff wrote:
| >it does seem reasonable to me that both sides can expect
| a notice periods
|
| Two weeks is pretty customary and normal in the US. A few
| months of planned projects being a reason you "can't"
| leave really is not. I generally have projects in some
| stage of planning going out a while. That wouldn't mean
| I'm effectively tied to an employer for te duration.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Being booked out 2-5 months ahead is typical for us. Two
| weeks is effectively zero notice period because you'll
| almost always have more remaining days of paid time off
| than that. If we had to account for N people being able
| to leave effectively on the spot, we'd not be able to
| sell more than 8-N persons concurrently (we're a small
| team), at least not more than a few days ahead. At N=1
| person, that's already 13% lower turnover for the whole
| company.
|
| After the trial/probation period where this notice period
| is not in effect, when I know what the employment is
| like, I'd much rather get a 13% higher salary and, should
| I choose to quit, wrap things up properly and do the job
| for 2-3 more months. (The notice period is not as long as
| we schedule ahead for: with 2 months' notice, we can find
| a good freelancer and get the paperwork done without time
| pressure, or the client can still find another firm in
| the worst case.)
|
| Since I was fine with doing this job for years now, those
| months seem insignificant for the benefits that go both
| ways.
| ghaff wrote:
| Laws permitting--and I assume any extended notice period
| would be/should be mutual--companies can put any
| appropriate terms in their employment contracts. But it's
| certainly not the norm in the US. I'd expect most common
| would be two weeks notice and you get paid out for any
| unused paid time off.
|
| For most people, multiple months notice wouldn't work
| well. Either you quit without an offer in hand and spend
| half your remaining time job hunting or you have an offer
| but your potential new employer won't wait more than a
| month. I'd certainly think very hard before entering into
| such an arrangement as it would make getting a new job
| riskier.
| esprehn wrote:
| "Right to work" is a different concept related to unions,
| and includes Texas:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
|
| All the states are At Will, but a number of them have
| exceptions that provide certain protections (ex. Not being
| fired for following the law):
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
| temac wrote:
| I love how only _some_ are providing the protection of
| not being fired for following the law. Can they order you
| to organize a coup, some terrorist acts, or a murder in
| the others?
| gambiting wrote:
| >>So the company knew they were in the wrong for firing him and
| immediately shut down their Dutch operations to avoid the
| lawsuit.
|
| Or he was their only Dutch employee so there was no point in
| keeping their Dutch entity open.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Note that it's only the notice period that this considers. The
| Netherlands and Austria are the same in that you can terminate
| an employee without reason.
|
| //edit: apparently that's incorrect for the Netherlands. Must
| have mixed that up.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is not true at all. It's notoriously hard to fire
| someone in the Netherlands.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I've always wondered about this.
|
| In my contract, it says there is a few months' notice
| period, both when I want to stop working there as well as
| when they want me to stop working there. When reviewing the
| contract, it sounded reasonable and I just assumed that
| when I get the notice, that's how it is.
|
| Later, I learned of these "there must be a valid reason"
| type of protections.
|
| Does that make this whole clause void? Or even working in
| my favor, that is: even if there is a valid reason, our
| contract adds those months of notice period?
| stoltzmann wrote:
| That's incorrect. Employers in the Netherlands must have a
| valid reason to fire staff - see
| https://business.gov.nl/running-your-
| business/staff/dismissi...
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I just saw. For some reason I thought that the Netherlands
| have no restrictions there but apparently I was wrong.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| FWIW, while they are a U.S. incorporated firm, it looks like it's
| actually an Indian company in terms of staff / leadership.
| gryzzly wrote:
| what a pleasant piece of news
| gnfargbl wrote:
| _> Less than a week after the plaintiff was fired, the Rijswijk
| branch of Chetu Inc. was deregistered from the Chamber of
| Commerce and shut down on 2 September, records show._
|
| So, it's a fair assumption that no organisation in the
| Netherlands is going to pay out as a result of this.
|
| What are the chances of the employee being able to enforce this
| judgment in a Florida court?
| londons_explore wrote:
| I believe most European countries require some kind of employee
| liability insurance that will end up paying this.
| [deleted]
| nraynaud wrote:
| There is a mechanism to get civil lawsuits results registered
| accross borders for collection, I don't know how difficult it
| is to use.
| telesilla wrote:
| I was of the understanding that you cannot open a business in
| the Netherlands if you are not resident or have no local office
| - or does it simply require you have employees and pay the
| relevant taxes? It seems too easy for the owner to have gotten
| out of this without recourse.
| V__ wrote:
| Looking at their website [1] they still have a location
| (branch?) in the UK. I don't know how Brexit changed the legal
| frameworks between the UK and EU, but I would assume that could
| be a avenue to get some enforcement.
|
| [1] https://www.chetu.com/locations.php
| Archelaos wrote:
| The UK (together with Denmark) was never part of the European
| Account Preservation Order, established in 2017. So the
| comparatively easy EU process to freez funds in another EU
| country was never possible there. What is possible according
| to UK law, I do not know.
| matthewheath wrote:
| It is possible to get a freezing order through the courts
| to freeze assets like land, property, bank accounts, etc.
|
| It operates similarly to the European Account Preservation
| Order, and under the right circumstances it is possible to
| apply for a freezing order on a _without notice_ basis
| meaning that the employer would not be aware of the order
| until it is issued.
| izacus wrote:
| Cross border collections are a thing between western nations.
| After all, US courts want to collect damages from EU countries
| as well.
|
| It takes time and usually isn't worth for small amounts... But
| for 75k someone will take time.
| [deleted]
| btbuildem wrote:
| They'll collect eventually, and Chetu will have to pay interest
| on the late payments on top of it all. The longer the process
| takes, the more they pay.
| Archelaos wrote:
| There may be another way for the employee to get his money:
| Provided that the company still has a bank account somewhere in
| the EU (except Denmark), a creditor can apply that the funds
| are to be freezed. The debtor does not have to be informed of
| this in advance. Then a court order can be obtained to be paid
| out of the freezed funds.
|
| See:
| https://e-justice.europa.eu/379/EN/european_account_preserva...
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| If they've deregistered the company, presumably they drained
| the accounts too.
| theow7384iri wrote:
| Home is not owned by employer. So for this type of surveillance
| employer should get consent from all inhabitants.
| legulere wrote:
| It's very easy to see that such a consent cannot be given
| freely, only coerced.
| ep103 wrote:
| It's very easy to see that most of capital-labor relations
| fall into this category.
| Raydovsky wrote:
| It's ironic. My company hired Chetu some years ago. Their devs
| were doing 20 mins of work, but charging for 8.
|
| We couldn't trust them to do anything.
|
| And Chetu doesn't trust its employees. Heh
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-09 23:00 UTC)