
Sweden's Job-Security Councils Make Layoffs Easier - imartin2k
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/how-to-lay-people-off/543948/?single_page=true
======
SOLAR_FIELDS
My anecdotal experience, from having lived in Sweden and worked with Swedes
for some time now, is that actually firing someone in Sweden for performance
reasons is quite difficult for both cultural reasons and worker protections.
So this might make the process of widespread company layoffs easier on the
employee, but it's not something that makes the workforce significantly more
mobile, at least from an outsider's perspective.

~~~
WalterBright
The harder it is to fire someone, the more reluctant companies will be to hire
people, and the more choosy they'll be.

~~~
eesmith
You make it sound like "more choosy" is a bad thing. Aren't all the big
technology companies choosy about who they'll hire?

The numbers given the essay suggest that Sweden's employment rate is not
unusually low, so is your comment really a meaningful basis for making a
policy decision?

When it's easy to fire people, it's also easy to fire people for personally
motivated reasons, rather than reasons which are good for the company.

For example, the boss might want to fire someone to bring in a family member.
Nepotism isn't illegal. But the union contract helps prevent these sorts of
(non-business related) firings.

People tend to work better when they aren't worried about being fired for
reasons that have little or nothing to do with their job.

~~~
WalterBright
> You make it sound like "more choosy" is a bad thing. Aren't all the big
> technology companies choosy about who they'll hire?

Let me rephrase - less willing to give someone a chance who may not have done
well in the job interview.

> employment rate is not unusually low

Wouldn't that also suggest that finding another job won't be difficult?

> fire people for personally motivated reasons

Why would you want to work for someone that dislikes you and doesn't want you
around?

> People tend to work better when they aren't worried about being fired

A workplace where people hate each other doesn't sound like a happy place,
either.

~~~
eesmith
I understand the model you are presenting. My question again is, is it useful
enough to guide policy decisions?

Based on the information given, it doesn't seem like it is. Perhaps there are
other mechanisms in place (like this job-security council) which compensate?

How would you expect the Swedish job market to look if employees didn't have
these protections?

You ask: "Why would you want to work for someone that dislikes you and doesn't
want you around?"

Here's an example from the blog of a small-town teacher I read. If you are a
teacher, and coach Little League baseball, and the principal puts pressure on
you to place the county education board member's grandson on the team (say
it's from pressure from the board member), then who's going to back you if you
refuse, and end up on the principal's bad side?

Or are you going to quit your job, uproot your family, and move away? Because
it's likely not easy to find another teaching job in the same small town.

To put it another way, why is it that if 1 person dislikes you out of the 40
or 50 people you work with, and that person happens to be the principal, then
you have to leave? Why does he deserve that much power over you?

~~~
SamReidHughes
Your example, which I presume is from America because we have Little League
and counties, involves a public institution.

In a private institution the person paying you money to do stuff for him
deserves the power to stop paying you money because it's _his_ money. It's
also the employee's ability to make contracts that you're talking about --
you'd hinder an employee's ability to agree to a contract with a lower risk of
employing them.

I happen to find it convenient to be able to agree that if somebody doesn't
like my output they can stop paying me. It's part of how I get them to start
paying me in the first place. You would take this freedom to make contracts
away from me. Presumably because you think you know better, and by taking away
my freedom, you enhance my negotiating position.

Why do you deserve that much power over me?

~~~
eesmith
Yes, I am an American, and the teacher from a public school in the US. The
examples are easily transferred to private industry - I can be a volunteer
Little League coach while working for a private company, and my department
head wants to be on the good side of the CEO whose wants his grandson to be on
the team.

"In a private institution the person paying you money to do stuff for him
deserves the power to stop paying you money because it's his money"

Yes, I believe one of the "other mechanisms in place" in Sweden compared to
the US is that Swedish workplaces are more structured around consensus and
democracy, while US workplaces are more hierarchical and control-based - a
sort of mini-monarchy.

"I happen to find it convenient to be able to agree that if somebody doesn't
like my output they can stop paying me."

I believe Swedish companies can fire people who are unable to do their job.
The question is, do you find it convenient that you can be fired for reasons
which have nothing to do with your job? The Little League example is one. How
do you feel about not being paid because your boss wants to hire a poorly
qualified relative instead? Or not being paid because you refuse to work on
weekends?

"You would take this freedom to make contracts away from me. Presumably
because you think you know better, and by taking away my freedom, you enhance
my negotiating position."

I did not understand this argument. What essential freedoms are taken away
from private Swedish companies or from employees in Swedish companies? How has
this had detrimental effects on the Swedish economy or lifestyle?

~~~
SamReidHughes
> The question is, do you find it convenient that you can be fired for reasons
> which have nothing to do with your job?

We can't separate this from being fireable for being bad at your job, or for
making others hate going into work because you're insufferable or a sexual
harasser or just undesirable to work with.

> How do you feel about not being paid because your boss wants to hire a
> poorly qualified relative instead?

Perfectly fine. It's _his_ money. If he wants to spend it unwisely, he's
welcome to. And I'm not "not being paid." I'm "working for somebody else."

> Or not being paid because you refuse to work on weekends?

That's not the matter under discussion. You can already sue over not getting
paid, or you can work somewhere else if they want the deal changed.

> What essential freedoms are taken away from private Swedish companies or
> from employees in Swedish companies?

The freedom to agree, "You'll pay me money to work for you and either of us
can terminate this agreement at any time."

The ability to freely partake in economic activity is essential.

> How has this had detrimental effects on the Swedish economy or lifestyle?

See the inability of immigrants to integrate into the Swedish economy and
Swedish society.

~~~
eesmith
It sounds like you also disagree with laws which are in place to prevent
sexual harassment and prevent discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
nationality, etc.

After all, these laws also limit your freedoms in the sorts of economic
activities that can be done at work. If that's the case, then I consider your
views too idealistic and unsuitable.

And I've read the EEOC guidelines. There are many precedents which show that
being a sexual harasser _is_ separable from being "just undesirable to work
with". There's no bright and clear line, but if that's what you require than
you demand the impossible.

You also don't seem to understand why some people would rather be an employee,
and not simply be a contractor. Many people want a longer-term, more stable
position, the ability to influence work conditions, get respect, etc. and as
jernfrost pointed out at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578545)
lack of these factors will cause resentment and disloyalty, and people will
"tend to give less shit about their company because they know the company is
never there to have their back".

In order to judge "the inability of immigrants to integrate into the Swedish
economy", what factors do you use to compare it to the US? Because I seem to
recall a lot of integration problems in our own history. And hasn't Sweden
taken in a lot more refugees recently than the US has? I heard many US
politicians who didn't even want to try to integrate Syrian refugee orphans. I
think that has to count in the negative column.

------
expertentipp
Funny, Swedish outsourcing centers in CE Europe don't have councils. They just
pay half of Swedish salary, demand obedience, and fire at will. Job counseling
those laid off? No such thing. Someone has to work for and pay for their
luxurious conditions back home. You're welcome, Swedes - hope you'll choke on
your redundancy packages.

~~~
walshemj
Yes a lot of European companies that behave well at home behave badly overseas
I know of one that artificially bankrupted a uk subsidiary to avoid paying the
statutory redundancy payments.

They called every one to a meeting said where bankrupt you don't have a job
and there's a pile of RB2 forms over there. Th Rb2 form is to claim the much
reduced redundancy payment from the state, when the parent company could have
paid the statutory redundancy out of petty cash

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
This is why worker protection laws are so important. All big companies will
behave sociopathically in order to maximize profits. It's only through
government regulation that such anti-worker behavior can be limited and
controlled.

~~~
ploxiln
This is why worker protection laws are so dumb. You just can't force other
people to give other people money, they'll always find a way not to. Worst
case they'll just practically never hire people in your country. So those
people are desperate to get into another country without those worker
protections, e.g. US or UK or NZ, so they can get a job and make some money.
This is happening in France, Italy, Spain, etc.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Sounds more like that's a side effect of globalization. When other countries
can provide more labor for less cost, it leads to a race to the bottom to see
what country can provide the lowest wages, thus decreasing the quality of life
for workers.

I understand that return on investment is important, but corporate profits are
overall higher than they have ever been before. When is enough enough? When
should we start to again prioritize the quality of life of our workers?

edit: To those downvoting me, could you please explain the flaw in my logic? I
don't see what's wrong or inaccurate with either of my comments.

~~~
arvinjoar
When is enough enough? No-one gets to say. For better or for worse, a race to
the bottom is a coordination problem where the incentive is always to be the
defecting party. This means that however well-intentioned you are, global
capitalism marches on without you, your choice is to jump on the bandwagon or
become irrelevant. Politics doesn't matter much, it can only stall the
inevitable, usually at great cost.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> When is enough enough? No-one gets to say.

Yet we do get to say. A big cause of the political instability in the US is
due to increasing inequality and a declining quality of life for much of the
country. If such economic forces cause protectionist legislation to be passed,
isn't that the people getting a say?

Also, the idea that you must jump on the global capitalist bandwagon to remain
relevant is odd to me. Is being an economic powerhouse the only factor in a
country's relevance?

~~~
justin_vanw
What political instability in the US? Please define what you mean by
instability, the US has been the most stable national government since it was
founded, with a big exception of the Civil War of course. Even then, compare
it to the governments of any continental European or Asian or African nation
that isn't part of the British Commonwealth, and we have had a stable
democracy while basically every single non-commonwealth government has gone
through collapse, been reformed, and collapsed again in the meantime.

I mean it's easy to say 'inequality' as some kind of Marxist trump card that
you think automatically ends all possible debate, but meanwhile things in the
US are fine. Fine != Perfect, of course, but it is yet to be demonstrated that
you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions
outside of the Nordic countries. Every other attempt at it has been a complete
disaster.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> What political instability in the US?

The election of Trump and the near-election of Sanders.

They are signs that a huge chunk of the population is discontent with our
political system and with the direction of the country. A history of collapse
isn't required for there to be instability in a nation.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist
> welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries.

I didn't say that's what we should do to solve the problem, merely stated the
fact that worker protection laws are important, then questioned when return on
investment should supersede quality of life. A socialist welfare state wasn't
involved in the 1930's when inequality declined in the US, which is proof that
things can change without such systems.

I worry that if we don't do something about the growing discontent among our
lower and lower-middle classes, they'll continue electing populist candidates
until someone truly dangerous gets elected, and I feel that correcting the
inequalities caused by globalization and the strong dollar would be a good
place to start.

~~~
justin_vanw
And we elected Richard Nixon multiple times (governor, vice president,
president!).

I suggest you don't get caught up in the hype. The current period is actually
extremely placid compared to many in the course of our history. Just because
Trump is really dumb, and that people voted for someone really dumb, doesn't
make things 'unstable'.

If anything Trump's term so far has been a case study in what a stable system
looks like. He can barely implement any policy and has yet to get any
legislation passed. In the meantime the government seems to be functioning,
checks are being mailed on time and the military is still under civilian
control and is 100% loyal.

I mean what sort of scenario do you have in mind (if any) of how this
'instability' would play itself out? Generally the biggest threat to democracy
isn't "electing someone that everyone thinks is stupid and has negative
charisma, during a peaceful time with few major problems" it's the opposite,
someone super charismatic during a time of extreme danger.

I would say that electing Clinton would have been a far greater symptom of
something deeply wrong. Not because of her personally, but because it would
have been the second time in 12 years that we elected someone who was in the
nuclear family of a previous president. Oligarchy destroys democracy, an
incompetent leader is just someone we put up with for awhile (and we have had
plenty far worse).

I think Trump would have lost by double digits if Biden had run, and he would
have lost handily if Bernie had won the primary. It almost goes without saying
that a hypothetical Trump vs Obama election would have been a bloodbath. There
are probably half a dozen establishment democrats that would have beaten him
easily. However, they didn't run because the Clinton machine was actively
threatening anyone who didn't get in line for years ahead of the election.
THIS is what destroys democracy, the ability of powerful families to
perpetuate their power and influence. That Bernie did so well says very little
about him, and a lot about how well anyone would do running against Hillary
Clinton, a candidate that a sizable majority of people dislike and believe to
be a liar. Frankly, Clinton is probably one of the only people in the country
that Trump would have won against.

Anyway, the point of all that is to say that Trump didn't win because of
discontent or something that made him popular, he won because the Democrats
nominated someone who is not electable. Trump was never popular, even on the
day he 'won' the election.

------
Overtonwindow
This is what I always believed unemployment SHOULD BE in America. The amount
from unemployment is painfully low for most people who need it, but having
been on unemployment a few times, beyond the check, there's very little
support.

~~~
geofft
Social protections for the unemployed allow you to disentangle "Should I ruin
this person's life" and "Is this person contributing to my business". I
understand the reasons why those two got entangled historically, but I've
always thought anyone who's really invested in a society with both laissez-
faire capitalism and a claim to moral decency should support an extremely
generous social safety net.

~~~
walshemj
For some people SS in the USA is more generous when I worked for a company
that went bust benefits £56 pounds a week ran out after 18 weeks.

