Text 4542, 148 rader
Skriven 2007-07-16 12:25:55 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 4496 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Labor laws (was: CIA's Family Jewels)
=============================================
16 Jul 07 07:11, Robert Bashe wrote to Ross Cassell:

 RB> Ross Cassell wrote to Michiel van der Vlist on Sunday July 15 2007 at
 RB> 17:28:

 RB> The following applies only to Germany, as I have no knowledge of the
 RB> labor laws in other EU countries.

 RC>> Assuming the employee isnt under contract, can the employee leave at
 RC>> will?

 RB> The employee can leave for any reason, but must give proper notice as
 RB> defined either by law (in Germany, I believe the minimum notice
 RB> period is two weeks) or by the pertinent industry-wide labor contract
 RB> (if one exists). In the case of employees with a written contract -
 RB> this generally includes all white-collar employees - the notice
 RB> period in the contract applies to both employer and employee, but may
 RB> not be shorter than the legal minimum.

What usually happens under such conditional matters, the employee is
severed immediately and given compensation for the time period the notice
would cover. i.e. two weeks more pay than he has earned up to the notice
day.

 RB> In many industries, the industry-wide labor contract is binding for
 RB> both employers and employees, regardless of whether a formal
 RB> (personal) labor contract exists (except for "aussertarifliche"
 RB> employees, who are genrally middle to top management and do not fall
 RB> under the industry-wide contract).

 RB> This is one of the major differences between the US and German labor
 RB> practice, that in the US labor contracts are generally negotiated for
 RB> single companies between company management and one or more labor
 RB> unions, whereas in Germany there are "blanket" unions for an entire
 RB> industry (for example metalworkers), and they negotiate industry-wide
 RB> labor contracts with an employers' association for that industry.

This happens here as well, although special needs may be addressed
locally. While working at Boeing, in Seattle, the IAM (International
Asscociation of Machinists) had a contract with Boeing and all of it's
subsidiaries in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Georgia, California, Texas, etc..
The local had a contract with Boeing of Seattle that made it mandatory for
a new hire to join their union local within the 90 day xxxxx period.

 RC>> If so, then the relationship should be both ways.

 RB> It isn't for the reason that a majority of the German population, and
 RB> consequently the government, consider the employee to be the weaker
 RB> party, requiring legal protection, whereas the employer or company is
 RB> considered stronger. Without outside legal protection, an employee
 RB> would be at the mercy of the stronger party, i.e. his/her company.

And so, a real screw up can continue employment without fear of losing his
job.

 RB> In Germany, labor unions don't deal with individual terminations,
 RB> since these are governed by the laws and are often quite difficult to
 RB> invoke even when the reasons are - at least on first sight - quite
 RB> reasonable. However, you definitely can be fired for threatening a
 RB> supervisor or fellow worker, or for privately surfing the Internet on
 RB> the job (when company policy forbids this). Firing someone for
 RB> "non-performance" is harder, since you're expected to be able to
 RB> demonstrate this objectively in court. But it's also possible.

 RB> Here in Germany, labor unions are more interested in getting wage
 RB> increases on an industry-wide basis, sometimes (for example)
 RB> accepting lower wage increases in return for a pledge to forgo
 RB> involuntary terminations for a certain period of time in the case of
 RB> industries that are in difficulty. Or the union might accept lower
 RB> wage increases for higher-paid employees in return for a "lump sum"
 RB> to lower-paid employees (which would, in effect, be a higher
 RB> percentage increase).

 RB> So the situation in the States and Germany is totally different. The
 RB> German labor market is highly regulated, whereas the American labor
 RB> market is fairly free of government regulation. Both systems have
 RB> their advantages and disadvantages...

 RB> The German system gives the employees more rights and security, but
 RB> tends to prevent hiring of new people (particularly marginal
 RB> employees with little training/intelligence or a handicap) unless
 RB> this is absolutely unavoidable. Lower-paid jobs go by the wayside,
 RB> since machines are cheaper and can't sue an employer for improper
 RB> termination.

 RB> The American system is flexible and enables even marginal employees
 RB> to get a job. It generates a great deal more new employment on an
 RB> economic upturn than the German system, so the economy in general
 RB> tends to "boom" more quickly on recovery from a recession than in
 RB> Germany. Unfortunately, the downside is that there are very few
 RB> employee rights (except those negotiated for labor union members in
 RB> individual companies) and very little security.

 RB> In both cases, the general population is in favor of its own system,
 RB> and considers the system of the other "exploitation" (Germans to the
 RB> American system) or "socialism" (Americans to the German system). If
 RB> people thought differently, the systems would change.

 RC>> Places I have worked for, they had the ability to terminate "at
 RC>> will" but in every case, they all practiced the method of
 RC>> documenting the reasons. Reasons could be attendance, job
 RC>> performance, disruption of workplace, failure to follow direction,
 RC>> drug and alchohol usage, violating company policies, stealing etc.

 RB> Some of these would be grounds for involuntary termination in Germany
 RB> as well, but not all - and most would still end up in court with a
 RB> suit for illegal termination. What then generally happens is either
 RB> that the employer pays the (former) employee a certain sum of money
 RB> in return for the employee agreeing to the termination (common), or
 RB> that the court finds that the termination was illegal and directs the
 RB> employer to retract it (less common, and even in this case the
 RB> employee is often paid a sum of money to accept termination).
 RB> However, courts have also been known to declare involuntary
 RB> terminations legal when the grounds provided by the employer are
 RB> legally valid and convincing. So it's not a one-way street, even if
 RB> the question of terminations is heavily loaded in favor of the
 RB> employee.

 RC>> Other reasons could be job elimination, closing the location,
 RC>> layoffs.

 RB> These are grounds that generally do not justify involuntary
 RB> terminations in Germany. What normally would happen is that company
 RB> management would negotiate with the employee "works council"
 RB> (Betriebsrat) to reach an agreement on such terminations: how many,
 RB> when, under what conditions (retraining, help with job applications,
 RB> notice period), and possibly a pledge not to implement further
 RB> involuntary terminations for a specific period in return for
 RB> agreement to a specific number of terminations for the reasons you
 RB> cite. If the works council and employer cannot reach an agreement,
 RB> the industry-wide labor union and employers' association might step
 RB> in and try to act as mediators. But except in really critical cases
 RB> (large numbers of terminations in major companies), such things are
 RB> generally settled within the company itself - by negotiation.

 RB> Cheers, Bob

 RB> --- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 RB>  * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)

                R\%/itt


"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck
forever..."

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)