Not in my (albeit limited) experience in the Netherlands. What I’ve seen it lead to is people hired initially into temporary one-year contracts, which are then converted to permanent contracts if things work out. I’ve definitely seen people be fired or otherwise pushed out even on permanent contracts. It’s not impossible, but as the above poster mentioned, it’s not easy either.
The quality of employees hired was certainly no better than at other companies I’ve worked for where firing was much easier. That’s with a sample size of 1 Dutch company though, and that company sucked, so it’s not a great dataset from which to draw conclusions.
I've never been at the helm for hiring decisions so couldn't tell you too much about the process itself, but we have a concept of a trial period here. The first month (or two, it varies by company but I think the maximum allowed is 3 months and most companies only go for the 1 month) of your employment, either party can part ways for any reason whatsoever at the end of the trial period. So if you're just not a good fit for whatever reason, the company can let you go when your trial period ends, no questions asked (assuming you weren't being treated unfairly of course).
At least anecdotally, everyone I've worked with that has passed the trial period at the 4 companies I've worked for in NL has been great to work alongside. People like to imagine a scenario where someone will bust their ass off for the trial period and then coast once they get through the trial period, but I've never experienced anyone doing it, I have however seen plenty of people dropped once the trial period ends.
Keep in mind that you can only get a permanent contract after 3 consecutive temporary (usually 1 year) contracts, so it's not like there's endless room for abuse by a bad employee either. If they're shit at the job within the first or second contract, the company just has to wait them out and not extend another one, and if someone's been fine for 3 years then it stands to reason that they should get a permanent contract that protects them extremely well.
Of course, if the company likes you they can offer you a permanent contract even sooner or even straight off the start, but I just mean that legally the company has 3 years worth of contracts to decide to keep you permanently or not.
It's probably a bit harder to get hired here (I don't really have that struggle but friends do complain about it), but once you do land somewhere then you can at least have the confidence that you won't arbitrarily be fucked over with no recompense due to things wholly outside your power.
Anecdotally I've seen companies skip even that process and hire anyone who seems even slightly qualified. The bar for "better hiring practices" is pretty low for me when the examples I've seen over 20 years in tech are either hire anyone to fill seats or throw obscure logic problems at candidates assuming that maps well to the role being hired for.
In your experience, has this led to more careful hiring?
One big downside I've seen at some companies in the US is that its so easy to fire someone that companies can tend to hire whoever walks in the door. Especially at larger and publicly traded companies, it can often be more important to fill seats and show company growth when times are good and fire by the thousands at the first sign of any economic issues coming ahead.
I don't personally mind it being easy for a company to fire someone as long as that situation is clear before accepting a job, but it would be interesting if we have clear examples of better hiring practices when the employee can't be fired easily.