Unions. Not just for fancy Europeans and factory workers.

If your colleagues gets fired for some bs reason you and your other colleagues can stand for each other by striking.

... and codetermination. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

I read this as "code termination" instead of "co determination" and was about halfway through the wikipedia article and quite confused before I figured it out.

Yeah, its what happens when you get fired but everyone wraps their arms around you in a big group hug so security can't get to you: de-termination.

exists in most northern and western european companies aswell.. Unions in europe also seem far less militant than those in the US.

> Unions in europe also seem far less militant

That's because unions are an integral part of the way many of the countries socio-political systems work. In Norway, for instance, the trades unions and the employers get together once a year to hammer out what is called tarriflønn, essentially the going rate for each broad type of job. The state provides a referee for the meetings whose job is to keep them on track and to encourage both sides to compromise. Unions and companies work together rather than fight each other, most of the time.

But this can only work if there is a broad consensus that we are all in the same boat and that we will all be better off if we work together.

The attitude, that appears to be common, in the US that employers are always exploitative, employees are always lazy and thieving, that the government is just a parasite, and that the aphorism "Good enough for government work" is a synonym for delivering shoddy work means that no one trusts anyone so you end up fighting all the time.

It should be noted that European unions were no less militant originally. Being militant (and strong enough) is what gets you concessions - including better arrangements for future deals.

Of course, no argument there. But European society even then wasn't quite so polarised as the US seems to be now. So being militant was effective. Somehow unions in the US seem to have got such a bad reputation that even those who would benefit from them don't join.

I presume because their functional existence is already a given. America still hasn't quite gotten over the Pinkertons.

Unless some of your colleagues don't go along with it and are willing to train recruits enough to keep the ship afloat. Unions: the anti-anti-trust weapon in the war to win the balance of power.

Fwiw all states are at-will, though there are varying exceptions from state to state.

Yeah I know broadly they all are, but some states offer slightly more protection.

On a side note, what happens to health insurance for employees who're let go? Does it end the time of your last day or midnight? I was too afraid to Google it as I likely knew it's be pretty cut throat, but have always stressed about it regardless.

It might be immediate, it might be end of month, might be some other period. In any case COBRA kicks in and can be paid for retrospectively if you need it.

Generally the end of the month that you were terminated in, unless you pay the same company to keep the same plan via COBRA. It's the same plan, you're just paying what you paid for it before plus whatever the company was paying for your share, which is generally much higher.

Montana is the biggest exception. It's only at-will for a 6-month probationary period, and after that, you can generally only be fired for "good cause".

Good cause could be Twitter is losing money and has massive debt.

A redundancy is different to being fired, and comes with a payout depending on length of tenure with the company.

Fire for cause means "you aren't doing your job properly."

Redundancy means "your job is no longer required."

If twitter restructures to save money, the jobs that no longer exist have been made redundant.

Layoffs are not firings.

Yes that’s what I’m saying. Layoff == redundancy.

Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

> A redundancy is different to being fired, and comes with a payout depending on length of tenure with the company.

In US usage, the general term here is “layoff”. And severance is not a legal requirement, and practices vary considerably by industry and, within industries, by individual firm. Layoff is eligible for unemployment, while firing may or may not be. (The line is also looser because the US has at-will employment, so there are very little general rules–other than those in particular employment contracts of unionized or high-status employees–around termination other than for prohibited purposes, or–mostly around warning periods–mass terminations, but there are conditions for unemployment assistance.)