The thing is that in many countries of Europe (an maybe somewhere else too) we consider that a company is not only a way for the owners to make money, but they have a social value and responsibility.
Therefore you cannot just fire 200 people to hire another 200 cheaper, because that's a way to increase only company's profit but not society benefit. And if you fire them, you need to compensate them properly. Of course companies try to go around these regulations, it's up to each Government how to enforce laws to prevent it.
So it sounds like in Germany, you can fire people to hire another 200 cheaper, you just have to compensate them for that firing. Just like in the US if you fire someone without cause, they get unemployment payments funded by their previous employers unemployment insurance (which goes up the more people they fire).
And this isn't even relevant to what is happening with Booking.com. No one is being explicitly fired, they are being moved to a new company with different job requirements. Which as far as I understand, is constrictive dismissal, so the right thing in this case is for Booking.com to give all their employees the option of being laid off instead.
Constructive dismissal laws vary by state- but generally, if the compensation and job duties remain substantially the same, it won't be constructive dismissal in the US. The post alludes to the possibility that the new company will make changes after 6 months... if they substantially reduce compensation at that time or substantially change the nature of the job, their us employees would probably qualify for unemployment.
Notably, the Reddit poster is from France, so this sin't a "US vs Europe" thing as some other comentors are trying to make it out.
That is not legal in Germany, because that requires a new contract, which you can refuse to accept and have to be compensated for.
Meaning, it does happen, but it requires the workers and union to accept it actually takes place, the company cannot just decide on their own that they will do it and that is it.
Because when you are laying people off and giving them a severance, you are taking more care of them than you would be if you were firing them. That's the entire basis of this comment thread.
Most of the employees in this announcement are in Europe, where there is no "firing" (i.e. at-will employment aka employer abuse).
There's only laying off with a severance and firing for cause, where firing for cause is by design <<super>> hard to do. And it's definitely not something that can be done to masses of people at once without all the government authorities coming to pay the offending company a visit ASAP.
> That's the entire basis of this comment thread.
Not if you figure out the entire context of this event.
I cannot imagine a lawsuit could be cheaper - if they lose (and might very well) they'll be forced to pay the due severance and fees and penalties. But until then...
I did not say, that is illegal to fire people in Germany. Nonetheless as an employer you have to obey the laws making firing cumbersome. Laws, not made by slave drivers...
In the US this would probably be constructive dismissal, so similar to what would happen in Germany. And referring to slavery when talking about the current US laws seems somewhat irrelevant
The ruling was they had to be fired. They tried to convert them to outsourced employees workibg for anoyher company, that's just olain exploitation since they do this to psy you less and save costs.
It is not illegal, it comes with strings attached because in general, in the EU the employee is seen as being the weak side of a contract, and is protected (to a point) against arbitrariness from the strong side.
It's not illegal to fire people in Germany. But just like most of Europe they need to provide some "just cause [1]", unlike in the US where there are a lot more "at-will [2]" employment contracts.
Left wing economist believe this is a great feature that makes lives much better for employees. Right wing economists believes this a bad feature that only protects incumbent employees and makes employers less inclined to hire in the first place or waste resources on workarounds like temp-agencies. Neither standpoints can be conclusively proven, so is mostly a matter of ideology.
