This is why I don't give you a job

Re:This is why I don't give you a job by bad_user on Saturday January 07, 2012 @09:13PM (#3438663)

There are many restrictions in place because companies don't play by the rules either. Some things I've seen in practice: civilian collaboration contracts, which have far less restrictions than regular working contracts; collaboration contracts with authorized individuals (PFA); minimum wages declared, to escape taxes, the rest of the salary being paid illegally.

Also, I know of at least one instance in which the owner of a company asked his employees to sign their resignations, without a date added. He can fire anyone when he feels like it.

     I have never seen such a contract nor do I know 
     somebody in IT working under such conditions ...

IT is one of the very few privileged classes in Romania. People working in IT are blessed. It does happen a lot less in this field and usually the fraud committed is more subtle, but it does happen. I was talking about my godson btw, he's not working in IT, but he is a knowledge worker and he has 3 years of his contract left.

Also, asking for a return of "subsidies" is completely legal.

     Even a non-compete clause is something that I cannot 
     add to a contract because it's super-expensive.

IMHO, non-competes should be banned completely. And I'm glad that you are unable to add it to your contracts ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is why I don't give you a job by fierarul on Sunday January 08, 2012 @02:59AM (#3439136)

This brings us back to my original comment where I said that generally companies do tax evasion in Romania and most "job creation" involves a certain degree of tax evasion. I guess the same happens in Hungary too.

About firing, it does seems fair to me: an employee can just quit at any time with no reason so a company should also be able to fire at any time.

They way I see it, asking for a return of "subsidies" should be regulated some more. But not outright banned since I can clearly see some situations where it would make sense.

I am able to add non-compete to a contract, it's just not worth it because the ex-employee will still be getting at least half a salary each month. I don't see why they should be banned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is why I don't give you a job by bad_user on Monday January 09, 2012 @03:35PM (#3444119)

On non-competes - because the potential for abuse far outweigh the benefits for employers. It is also a way to subvert the free-market rules.

In California non-competes are not valid, except for equity stakeholders. Silicon Valley is in California and clearly the lack of this privilege hasn't done much harm to businesses - quite the contrary, if the correlation with their success in the software industry says anything about it (the same argument could be made pro software patents, however software patents have only began to be seriously accepted / enforced recently - and I feel like Silicon Valley will see a decline because of it).

[ Parent | on HN ]