Hacker News Reader

Swiss citizen here...

A few answers :

  - Strikes are mostly illegal in Switzerland and are very rare
  - Apart from a standard 3 months notice it's easy to lay off people in Switzerland (unless they are pregnant or sick)
  - There are no standard minimal wage but there have been discussion recently of introducing one 
  - We do have quite a few "program" in our welfare system a GBI would simplify a lot of things
  - There have been no mention of a possibility to opt-out

Thanks chli. It sounds like Switzerland is in great shape for this, then. I'm really rooting for their success here; it's hard to overstate how important successful examples of these policies are going to be for the future of our societies.

> Opt out. Any person who doesn't want to take the money (because they already have plenty) should be able to refuse it.

Why is this necessary or useful? It adds administrative complexity to the system and doesn't serve any apparent useful purpose.

> - Union strikes for non-safety related issues have to be made illegal. You don't get to strike for higher wages when there's a GBI.

>- Hire/fire policies need to be made completely at-will, with pretty much no exceptions.

So employers should have all power, and employees should have none? Why should employers have the right to fire at will, but employees should not have the right to stop working at will?

GBI would give employees would have a huge amount of leverage in that they can just quit work whenever they without financial consequences.

In exchange for a GBI, we must enslave anyone who decides to work? I really don't get it.

Yes, they can just quit their job and still survive. (Although it is not "without financial consequences.") That is the point. I don't see how that justifies making it illegal to leave your job whenever you want to.

I think GP was arguing that both employers and employees should be able end employment at will. Strikes are something completely different, they're essentially a way for employees to hold their companies hostage to get more money (have you noticed how few strikes are based around "give us more money or we quit"?)

How are strikes different in any way? Strikes are when people stop working as a way to negotiate. If you're going to prevent them, then you're going to force people to work when they don't want to.

Because those people aren't saying "pay us more or we quit", they're saying "pay us more or we'll stop you from functioning". In many cases where people strike, the employer could quickly replace them if they quit (maybe not if they all quit, but they're easily replaceable individually).

How are they stopping a business from functioning? If they are sabotaging it or trespassing, that's already illegal and doesn't need to be made more illegal. If they're merely protesting, boycotting, encouraging people to go elsewhere, etc., that should remain legal as a matter of freedom of speech.

Can you fire workers on strike, and replace them? If not, that's essentially a hostage situation. They can protest and boycott all they want on their own time (after hours), but if they're paid to work, then they should work.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is this: if the business depends on the workers, and they go on strike, and you're not allowed to fire them and hire new ones, then they're effectively "stopping a business from functioning".

"At-will" work would imply that, yes, you can fire striking workers. I can see no more reason to prohibit this than to prohibit strikes in the first place.

I don't think you even need 'at-will'. Someone that is so blatantly not doing their job that they're not even showing up to work should be trivial to fire under almost any circumstances. ahomescu1's worry is pretty unrealistic.

In most European countries, employees carrying out a legal strike are basically impossible to fire legally until the strike has ended.

But at the same time, the conditions for when a strike is legal wary substantially, and strikes for wage reasons are generally restricted to periods during wage negotiations.

Sure. But the context for this discussion was these two statements for what would be needed when implementing a basic income:

> - Union strikes for non-safety related issues have to be made illegal. You don't get to strike for higher wages when there's a GBI.

> - Hire/fire policies need to be made completely at-will, with pretty much no exceptions.

The second means you can fire striking workers and replace them, so the first is unnecessary and rather draconian.