When the recession hit Germany in 2008 most large automotive companies were also faced with a massive decline in orders and were forced to aggressively cut costs. As employees in these companies are heavily unionized they of course protested against this and the worker council started negotiating with the board of directors. They found a solution by reducing the work hours for a large percentage of their workers (with an accompanied pay cut) instead of firing a smaller percentage of them, which allowed them to retain almost everyone and at the same time reduce costs. When the economy sped up again they were able to just increase the working hours again. This was great for the employees (as they didn't lose their jobs) but also for the companies, because they didn't have to find and train new employees after the crisis was over.
I'm wondering why Tesla isn't considering something like this as I imagine there's a lot of training involved in many jobs at their factory, and it's probably very costly to rehire and retrain new employees when the growth picks up again. Just my 2 cents.
The maximum duration of this Kurzarbeitergeld was gradually extended through the 2007-2009 crisis from 12 months up to 24 months.
In the rest of the modern world, health care is the problem of the government, so cutting back on hours is a more useful strategy.
E.g. in germany, the price of health care is proportional to income.
The way it works is the government subsidizes the cost of buying insurance. The money is given to you as a credit against income taxes you would otherwise have owed. (With most tax credits, you wouldn't receive the credit until after the tax year is over, but this credit has a special provision to receive monthly payments in advance.)
The amount of the credit is based on the cost of insurance (which varies by age and location) and it is also based on your income level and size of household.
The credit is for people just above poverty through the lower part of middle class. It phases out as income gets higher, and people with a comfortable middle class income receive little to no credit. At certain income levels, the credit is pretty substantial (as it has to be to cover the high cost of insurance).
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/why-socialized-health-ca...
It's a position that doesn't make much sense in practical terms. Australia has universal public health care. Australia spends half as much per capita on health care than the US does and Australians have a longer life expectancy than Americans.
Australia's paying half as much for better health outcomes. For me, universal public health care isn't socialism as much as it is a better business model.
1. Quality of care is better in the US
(totally subjective, but in the US we're waiting less and getting better treatment with less runaround/referrals/arguments; if you have insurance, you'll get whatever you want without a fight)
2. Cost is about on par with Australia
(AUD3000/year for private health, plus 1000-3000 for Medicare supplement, plus whatever you pay in taxes; in terms of raw cash paid it's actually very close. But Australian PHI doesn't cover anything of value until you're hospitalised; urgent but non-life-threatening stuff is basically paid out of pocket. US has HSAs and practically everything is covered.)
3. US healthcare spend is measured in monopoly money and, assuming you have insurance, real costs are not easily comparable.
I don't have any hard data on these, though, and so am very happy to be educated.
Stating this as fact basically means you've never been to an American doctor, or are extremely lucky in your local hospitals. Waiting months for an appointment just so you can be told to see someone else is par for the course if you don't have a "normal" health condition in America. And after all the playing around trying to find someone actually willing to diagnose you with something, you then get to play the fun game of paying the bills. Remember, no matter the discounts the insurance company has with the hospital, they still benefit by denying you coverage through whatever fine print they can manage. They get paid regardless
Uh, I pretty clearly stated it as personal experience.
I did overstate the 'get whatever you want' part, though. I'm making the point that in Australia, insurance is both compulsory and useless. In practice, all it offers is slightly higher priority treatment than non-insured patients should you go to hospital. Should you need a specialist, you'll usually pay them out of pocket -- insurance will (at best) cover a small percentage of the fees, and usually nothing.
> Waiting months for an appointment just so you can be told to see someone else is par for the course
This is also the case in Australia.
Some pragmatic numbers:
1. Health spending: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
2. Health prices: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-...
I had a ligament injury after a car accident. Without traveling more than hour (and I live in a major populated area), I could not get physical therapy for '8-10 weeks').
> urgent but non-life-threatening stuff is basically paid out of pocket. US has HSAs and practically everything is covered
As someone who lived in AU for 20 years, and in the US for 12, huh? I never paid more than $20 for urgent care in Australia. IF you have a HSA here, sure, you can pay your co-pay, which would be $20-40 anyway, with that, but most people don't have the luxury of a HSA. And if you're uninsured, urgent care here will charge you $200-300.
But for the 60-year-old hourly line worker making $40k, whose wife and two kids are also covered by the plan (thanks union!), a good HMO might cost upwards of $2000/mo., an almost 50% overhead. [0]
For a PPO, the numbers would be even higher.
[0]: https://www.calchoice.com/FormPdfStreamer.aspx?FormId=6601&E...
More companies don't do this because it's not in labor's favor, in aggregate. Regardless of economic conditions, companies always have an interest in paying their workers less, as this cuts costs and improves profit margins. In aggregate, companies can't continually cut wages because workers would leave for employers who would pay them market rate, and so employers are forced to lay off employees to cut costs - precisely because, in a low-trust environment, it's the only way to convince labor that the cost cutting is actually necessary, because the layoff hurts the company too by way of lost productivity. The upwards pressure is called "sticky wages", and it's one of the reasons why economies need at least a small amount of inflation to be healthy.
German auto manufacturers could do it because a) they have much better labor relations on the ground and b) the 2008 recession was a real phenomenon that everyone knew about. Their trust allowed them to come to a more ideal solution, but for most companies around the world, real people and realpolitik get in the way of the ideal solution.
If we ever unionised in tech it would have to be along German lines.
But he did not do that. He betrayed the Workers for his own political delusions. He just wanted to be the one who brought down a government, he didn’t give a stuff about the People. Why do you think the DUM split off from the NUM? That’s why he can never be forgiven.
By the way the previous government to Thatcher had closed twice as many mines as she did, and not a squeak from Scargill. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd?
I’m thinking it’s because they aren’t firing people at random. They’re letting go their weakest performers. This is very common and has been encouraged in business for decades:
https://www.inc.com/paul-b-brown/should-you-fire-10-of-your-...
From what I've seen of large corp. performance appraisal systems, that's very rarely the case.
Those systems tend to reward people who are good at self-promotion, not necessarily people who are good at their jobs.
With that said, in large companies it can be very hard to determine just who is below whatever standard is set. Instead it becomes more of a game to be liked by your manager or claim credit for work.
By the way, part of working at or above a standard also includes not being an asshole.
So stack ranking (or any kind of ranking by criteria) tends to nudge people into "let's do what the standard expects us to do" instead of "let's do what makes the team, company and product improve."
https://www.inc.com/paul-b-brown/should-you-fire-10-of-your-...
It's a short article so maybe a little leeway should be given, but it is nuts the way the author equates reviewing employees and firing employees:
You don't have to a rigid rule, such as fire the bottom 10% every year, but you do want to be reviewing your entire workforce (at the very least) once a year, with an eye toward constantly improving it.
You should be reviewing your employees a lot more often than once a year and it doesn't need to result in anyone getting fired. Reviews are a more effective process - especially in the small company environment the author is talking about - if nobody ever approaches them like that (with the expectation that people will be fired).
Not in places that I have worked. Weak performers still have jobs years later, yet decent performers have been sacked quickly at other companies when they were struggling with money.
I'm usually a lurker on HN and don't see a way to send a private message, but if you're up for it, I'd love to exchange emails and learn more about your personal journey and challenges.
Forever, sure that is wrong. However, there is some expectation of constancy. Simply because people tend to make choices based on the status quo.
What makes things worse is that signaling that lay-offs are coming, either for specific people or in general, really harms productivity. This is because people start infighting and lose morale.
Hence, companies have reasons to announce these things late. This means it becomes harder to trust statements by employers about job security.
When firing happens, this distrust is amplified.
In a perfect world things like this wouldn't happen. Top employees would never leave for a better paying job, and you'd never have to let employees go to remain competitive. But this isn't a perfect world. We must prepare for the worst and hope for best while remembering to treat each other with as much respect, kindness, and understanding as possible.
Whether or not these specific cuts were needed or sensible, I don't know. What I do know is that Tesla is a young company in a highly competitive space. Were I personally to take a job at Tesla I wouldn't expect to be there longer than a year - especially if I was a temp worker or contractor. Anyone who's worked at small, early stage startup in the past would know how this story goes. You often work harder and longer than you would at a more established slower moving company, you don't get the perks, and you're constantly worrying about whether or not you'll have a job next month. But it can also be very rewarding when things go well. These are the decisions you must weigh up as an employee when looking for work.