Mise
isle of lucy
Stop letting TF drive omg. You need:
1) Sufficient protection from wrongful dismissal (as warpus said)
2) A sufficient social safety net (e.g. unemployment benefits, child support for low income families, universal healthcare, etc) that
2a) alleviates the suffering caused by unemployment/being fired
2b) increases worker bargaining power as they no longer fear unemployment as much
3) Retraining programs, help relocating, etc that reduce frictional unemployment
4) A bunch of other stuff that most European countries have already but I'm sure I've forgotten.
The goal of all of this is to create a labour market that is flexible, but reduce suffering for those who cannot find suitable employment. Flexible labour markets are important not only for employers (the benefits for whom are too often touted), but also for employees. If you look at Youth Unemployment, you'll find that rigid labour markets produce far more unemployed young people than flexible ones. The reason for this is simply an in vs out problem -- the same problem that plagued closed shops. People who are protected by rigid laws against "at will" dismissal (i.e. those who otherwise would be fired due to performance or simply cost saving measures by the company, but would not be protected under "unfair dismissal" laws as they are not being discriminated against) keep their jobs at the expense of young people or people who are capable of performing the same job for lower wages. Simultaneously, those protected workers can't get new jobs elsewhere (perhaps jobs they are better suited for, or higher paid, higher productivity jobs that will maintain their lifestyles in a net value-adding way), because other companies are in the same boat: in order to hire one worker they have to fire another, but can't because they are protected. Rigid, inflexible employment laws let you have this one job -- but prevent you from having ten other, better jobs instead. It only benefits the people who are already as high as they can go, and disadvantages those right at the bottom, who are prevented from rising to their fullest potential.
Flexible labour markets alleviate this problem and allow workers to move to jobs that are best suited to them. Combine this with a strong social safety net that helps workers by reducing the disincentive to quit and increasing their bargaining power and you have an ideal liberal labour market. This conversation is too often couched as employer vs worker, flexibility vs worker protection. But that's the wrong conversation to have. The way to protect workers is to build a strong social safety net, not to lock people into unproductive employment or even more unproductive unemployment. The fact is, we need flexible labour markets, and we need a strong social safety net. We need both.
1) Sufficient protection from wrongful dismissal (as warpus said)
2) A sufficient social safety net (e.g. unemployment benefits, child support for low income families, universal healthcare, etc) that
2a) alleviates the suffering caused by unemployment/being fired
2b) increases worker bargaining power as they no longer fear unemployment as much
3) Retraining programs, help relocating, etc that reduce frictional unemployment
4) A bunch of other stuff that most European countries have already but I'm sure I've forgotten.
The goal of all of this is to create a labour market that is flexible, but reduce suffering for those who cannot find suitable employment. Flexible labour markets are important not only for employers (the benefits for whom are too often touted), but also for employees. If you look at Youth Unemployment, you'll find that rigid labour markets produce far more unemployed young people than flexible ones. The reason for this is simply an in vs out problem -- the same problem that plagued closed shops. People who are protected by rigid laws against "at will" dismissal (i.e. those who otherwise would be fired due to performance or simply cost saving measures by the company, but would not be protected under "unfair dismissal" laws as they are not being discriminated against) keep their jobs at the expense of young people or people who are capable of performing the same job for lower wages. Simultaneously, those protected workers can't get new jobs elsewhere (perhaps jobs they are better suited for, or higher paid, higher productivity jobs that will maintain their lifestyles in a net value-adding way), because other companies are in the same boat: in order to hire one worker they have to fire another, but can't because they are protected. Rigid, inflexible employment laws let you have this one job -- but prevent you from having ten other, better jobs instead. It only benefits the people who are already as high as they can go, and disadvantages those right at the bottom, who are prevented from rising to their fullest potential.
Flexible labour markets alleviate this problem and allow workers to move to jobs that are best suited to them. Combine this with a strong social safety net that helps workers by reducing the disincentive to quit and increasing their bargaining power and you have an ideal liberal labour market. This conversation is too often couched as employer vs worker, flexibility vs worker protection. But that's the wrong conversation to have. The way to protect workers is to build a strong social safety net, not to lock people into unproductive employment or even more unproductive unemployment. The fact is, we need flexible labour markets, and we need a strong social safety net. We need both.
