No, we still work. Just want some continuity. Not working for a company without direction chasing the latest fad and dumping everyone if it doesn't work out, but a good company with a decent business plan.
Is someone forcing you to work at a company chasing the latest fad?
You go and choose the type of company you want.
The keyword here being "Choice".
There are plenty of workers that would not mind carring a little more risk in those companies for better pay, and those companies could offer better pay if not made to jump through loops.
Classic Example is the "Consultant" contracts.
Companies are paying through their nose to hire "consultants" because it's the easiest way they can try a new idea that might not work.
Company A pays Company B 1k/day for that "consultant", Company B does not have enough capacity so gets that "Consultant" from Company C for 700/day. Company C does the same and gets the consultant from Company D for 500/Day. Company D actually employs the consultant and pays him 200/Day.
In this whole useless chain build to avoid the "can not fire even if your projects doesn't work" Both Company A and the actual Employee are losing big, Both would be much better having a direct contract for 500/day with the understading that this might not work after all.
Notice that for that Employee, stability is not there even now. yes he continues to be employed by Company D When Company A stops the contract but he is effectivly moved to another Contract with Company X. he is effectivly changing Jobs, new reposnsabilities, new collegues, new rules etc. only in the eyes of the state he is not changing jobs.
You are thinking of the continuity of work, colleagues, and responsibilities. Those are of course good to have, especially from the perspective of the company.
But from the perspective of the individual worker, a much more important continuity is the one of salary, insurance, and pension. This is the stability that the employee continues getting at Company D.
No, What i'm thinking is Having the option to choose Salary Stability or Salary Risk.
In that scenario if the employee is fired after just 2 years (worse case) because the project does not work, he is still financially better (compared to what he was getting at the "stable salary") even if it takes him 2 full years to find another job (something very unlikely if there is a dynamic employment market).
in the current scenario of contract works, the employee is getting all the negative effects of changing a job without any upside.
of course I am not talking about complete US style firing, but something in the middle. The option to fire with adequate notice let's say 3 months and adequate compensation, let's say 3 months of compensation after finishing your time.
This way, the employee has 6 months of job Hunting, (I think that is a sweet spot to make it reasonable for both the company and the employee)
You are free to choose opening a consultancy yourself and take on the salary risk as well as reap the rewards.
Companies also currently aren't completely banned from firing people. If and when they do, it can look like you described, with adequate notice and compensation.
I don't want to be an entrepreneur. And it doesn't have to be riskless. Just to have a good business (plan).
But this is the status quo in Europe. Companies are forced to take failure into account before they dive in deep, because it will cost them. Provide benefits for their employees, etc. This is good. Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.
I just don't understand the desire to turn the EU into the US. If you like how business in the US works, just start your business there, not here. Meanwhile I as a worker would never consider moving there. This way we can both get what we want.
> Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.
I think it's safe to say that the one who starts something has the privilege to make the call on its purpose. And I'd bet most if not all people who start companies do so in order to make money for themselves, and providing jobs is a means to that end.
So, if a company could make profit without employing a single person, it would still serve its purpose.
