Americans will tell me how onerous this is and yet they somehow managed to screw it up anyway because I constantly read on the internet about "unfireable" employees which is a ridiculous concept. Even hiring quotas for large corporation's and government funded institutions (universities for example) don't matter when making firing decisions, the point is to let people with other backgrounds into the door, not keep them locked in.
You're welcome!
A french court would disagree with you - the German process you described is impossible in france. once an employee has finished their trial period, only gross misbehaviour or an official economic redundancy plan can get rid of them...
But it's not like in the US where you just declare this, and then fire them. It works like in many union shops in the US. You need to document that poor performance, show missed deadlines, show that you attempted to train and accommodate them, give them a few months of heads up to adjust, and then you can proceed with dismissal.
Just think of France as an all-hands union shop.
Anecdotally, I've heard about companies with these, which got that way by getting sued over and over again for wrongful termination. Now they are scared to even discipline employees engaged in sub-extremely-egregious behavior.
Like one story I heard was, "As long as they spend more time working than looking at porn, let's just let it be."
My 2 cents on this: Your company gets this way with poor leadership. Terminations without your i's dotted and t's crossed, and also an unwillingness to take some things on the chin for a broader view of how things are going to go.
Tenants need rights and landlords need tenants. In some cities (SF) the demand outstrips supply sufficiently that you won’t easily find housing but in other cities (NYC) there’s such a diversity in housing options that you’ll always be able to find a closet to rent somewhere.
I think it’s hard to say that tenants have too much rights. There’s no reason to enter the business of land letting unless you are comfortable with the regulations. Laws and their purpose come before profits.
There are plenty of landlords right now happy to rent an apartment to a couple each with 6 figure salaries and no debt. But if they can't find such a couple, they'd rather leave their apartment empty.
There are lots of landlords like that, and the end result is there are lots of empty apartments and lots of other people who can't find housing.
The solution for that are serious vacancy taxes. If people are unwilling to assume the risk of hitting a "dud", they can always sell their property to some large-scale landlord.
(if they sell up because they can't stomach the taxes, reducing home prices that is also a positive outcome)
Most properties it isn't the building that is valuable, but the inner city land where one can build a building.
Unless that was what was taxed.
>Most properties it isn't the building that is valuable, but the inner city land
Precisely my point. If you slap taxes on land you increase the available supply.
When i gave up my rent controlled apartment my landlady said she was leaving it empty.
Why?
Because she was retiring soon and in a 4-unit building the value of it goes up by $100,000 - $250,000 for each unit that is empty.
Why?
Because rent control locks in rent and this future income. Evictions can takes up to a year or more and mandatory payouts are often in the tens of thousands if you do evict without cause (say owner wants to move into a unit).
If the unit is empty someone can move in right away or rent for market rent.
The units were renting for ~$3,000 per month, so as long as she sold it within 9 years she wad ahead of renting the unit out.
I agree that landlords need to go in eyes wide open, but the challenge is rules can change after you get tenants.
And the big lesson here is landlords respond to incentives too. If regulations make it cheaper to do something negative, they’ll do it. Most people would.
I'm ok with some gatekeeping. There are some undesirable tenants.
Similarly, I see a problem wrt tenants' rights where it becomes so difficult to evict a tenant that no landlord will take a risk on someone who appears to be even slightly risky. It ends up with hordes of unhoused people at the bottom of the "desirable tenant" spectrum getting bumped onto the street in affluent cities, because no landlord will take a chance on the middle, let alone the bottom. Again, obviously tenants need rights, but it seems like many jurisdictions have overshot the sweet spot.
These things are so complex and have so many facets. I'm not confident that excessive tenants' rights are truly a problem, but I it's possible.