Hacker News Reader

Comment by thebean11 | Hacker News Reader

What if the company starts struggling to make payroll 3 months in? What if the employee works hard the first 3 months then stops showing up?

Regulations like that just entrench the biggest players because they can afford the legal headaches of firing. Great way to incentivize people to start companies elsewhere.

View on HN

Apparently all the companies in the building I'm in didn't get the memo. There is a risk yes, then again there are also way more rewards for the company than the employee so you give some, you get some.

Nobody is claiming hiring would go to zero. Do you know for a fact how many employees would be in your building if laws were different?

My guess would be zero more than now. None of the startups is limited by getting employees and I'm almost certain no funding would be gained by allowing at will employment as it is a non-issue anyways (as it is already possible to do so by just hiring contractors but nobody does this).

edit: Consider that most people would request considerable more than they earn here now if at-will employment would be the case, offsetting any "gains" you might consider. In Europe wages are considerably lower than the US.

Why do you think the vast majority of startups choose the US despite dramatically higher dev salaries?

Because that's what everyone(TM) does. Don't judge what makes sense based on what people do.

If they stop showing up, you would have legal cause to fire them.

That's an extreme example obviously, but still one where there might be significant legal costs if the firee lawyers up.

Not being able to afford an employee is obviously a valid reason to dismiss them. So is them refusing to work. But the scenario you describe is contrived anyway: Someone motivated enough to work hard won't randomly stop being so.

The "legal headaches" are only a serious problem if your legal system is broken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com