Ask HN: Why on Earth does Europe have 3 month notice periods to switch jobs?
I'm an American looking to hire developers in the EU for one of our business units. I've been absolutely astonished by European employment 'contracts' that require a 3 month (!) or longer (!!) notice period to quit a job. It's difficult for me to understand how this isn't indentured servitude, especially in a region known for its stronger labor protections than the US. Here in America employees customarily put in 2-3 weeks of notice, maybe 4- but it's purely a courtesy, and technically the employee could leave literally anytime they want.
A contract stating that you're not allowed to leave without 3 months of notice seems extraordinarily restrictive. (What happens if you ignore it?) I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone- so this must greatly restrict labor mobility and hence wages. How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?
153 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] threadThere is also the possibility of an earlier contract end with the agreement of both parties.
What devs are you trying to hire?
This usually only applies for permanent employees, not freelancers.
Abusive behaviour.
(Germany)
Faute grave:
* Being drunk during work hours
* Not coming to work without a reason
* Insubordination (refusing to do work included in your contract)
* Harassment, violence, insults
* Theft on company grounds
Faute lourde:
* Keeping non-striking employees from entering company grounds
* Intentional destruction of company equipment
* Physical violence and death threats against your employer
* Kidnapping colleagues (lol)
* Stealing your employer's clients
* Divulging secret or confidential IP
Like all legal frameworks there is some room for interpretation, I'm not an expert on the matter, it's only a translation of the government website.
I've worked in a few places where occasionally a few bottles of red would be consumed during team lunch so not all companies have the same interpretation of what a fireable offense is.
Gross misconduct (evaluated in laws, usually things like directly acting against the company on purpose, like poaching contracts etc.)
Employee literally breaching the law (one example from Polish law would be turning up drunk or high at work)
And if you make a position redundant, you have to pay the employee their notice period.
So as a permanent employee, I'll need a smaller emergency fund if I know that I have three months heads-up if I need to find a new job vs one month or one week.
Three months is not "EU", it is more likely a Law of a specific country in EU.
Typically (but again it may depend on country) you can of course leave, but without an agreement on the lack of advance notice the employer may keep the equivalent of your pay for the period.
(conversely, everyone in the EU who hears about US ""right to work"" interprets it as some kind of 1984 euphemism for "you can be fired with no notice or severance")
Edit: yes, I think it's at-will and "right to work" is a different euphemism referring to law against "closed shop" unions.
Is that an incorrect interpretation?
Funnily enough, in Poland, I have been covered by Union contract without being a member of the Union. Because you can't force Union membership, but unions negotiate for all employees.
It offers me no disadvantage. Only upsides.
If something changes at work or in my personal life and I no longer want to work at my job, I have the right to say "goodbye", and leave immediately, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
If you've seen an American TV show where someone says "I quit!" and walks out the door, that isn't just a trope. I know people who have done that. As should be their right.
Well, that is easier. Just show up drunk and tell your boss to fuck off. Piss on his door if his office has one.
They will terminate you immediately with just cause and you'll be free.
Otherwise just be professional and give them the proper notice period. Being professional is not hard.
If an employer can terminate the agreement for just cause immediately, why can’t the employee?
Requiring someone to work a job they don't want to work seems dystopian to me.
This is literally the reality behind all those "it's hard to fire people in Europe" - you can terminate the employment, but you still need to pay for the notice period even if you suspend actual work.
Notice period being bidirectional is used to also guarantee that a leaving employee can be depended on to pass necessary training for those who remain. Effectively it forms insurance for both sides.
If you as an employer have made your business completely dependent on a single employee you haven't done your job, especially if that person decides to leave suddenly.
With great variations between member states. Germany has long notice periods, Greece has as short as 2 weeks notice.
> how this isn't indentured servitude
Labour law extends similar protections to employees. A long notice period simply levels the playing fields by returning some protection to employers. That's why in the EU there aren't mass layoffs like in the US right now, or riots, or mass shootings.
> (What happens if you ignore it?)
Maybe nothing, depends on how litigious the employer is. Usually a shorter notice period can be negotiated, eg. by agreeing to some un/pre-paid post-departure consulting for the previous employer.
> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter
It's about planning. I wouldn't want to work for an employer who is hiring in panic because they haven't foreseen labour needs. I'd be afraid that they'd let me go as easily as they have hired me.
> so this must greatly restrict labor mobility
Yes
> and hence wages
That is why you are trying to hire in Europe, aren't you?
> How is this legal, in the famously pro-labor EU?
Because it is literally the law.
https://sifted.eu/articles/startup-tech-company-layoffs-2023...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/10/warn-act-what-every-us-worke...
USA: 3.4% Spain: 13.1% Greece: 11.6% Italy: 7.8% Cypus: 7.7% [...] Malta: 3.2% Germany: 2.9% Poland: 2.9% Czechia: 2.3%
That'll be some gymnastics.
Employment security also helps mental health, you don't need to live in pure anxiety and fear that someone else might take your job next week.
If you go back to the way unemployment was counted before President G. W. Bush, you end up with higher rates.
The current U-6 unemployment rate in the U.S. is 6.6%. That adds back in discouraged workers, workers on long-term unemployment, and workers on part-time employment because of the economy.
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_u_6_unemployment_rate_unad...
The not commonly used U-6 is, yeah, but even your link mentions that U-3 is commonly used, and why would you compare different unemployment rates between countries? Here [1] is Destatis from December 2022 with data for all EU countries and the US for comparison.
> Spain, Greece, Italy's unemployment is highly seasonal - in summer it drops to almost 0%
In June 2022, Spain had 12.6% (2021: 15.3%), Greece had 12.3% (15.0%) and Italy 8.1% (9.4%), see [2] from Eurostat.
Is this going to turn into a session of frantic googling to find numbers that support your claim that you based upon feelings and prejudices instead of facts?
[1] https://www.destatis.de/Europa/EN/Topic/Population-Labour-So...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/14675433/3-0...
Not a paradise, but not a hellhole.
But that's besides the point, the claim was that employment has something to do with it, not the extent of the welfare state.
On the other hand, a lot of things influence employment beyond labor protection as well.
Mass shootings happen because people get to the extreme point of disconnection where they just say "burn it all, I'm going out in a blaze..." These aren't people that feel connected to anything (coworkers, family, schoolmates, teams).
Even if other things are lacking, employment can bring connection.
Would you rather be sick and poor in the US or in a more socialist country? Of course there's nothing like being wealthy in the US but if you fall behind in the US, there's definitely less support for you and might make people more.. desperate. US also has the highest incarcerated rate in the western world for a reason.
Those are all opinions and I have nothing to quote, but it's hard to argue that there is a strong difference in how societies are structured and what support they provide to their citizens to live a better life
"If something isn't done within working hours, either it wasn't meant to be and was underestimated or you're not working effectively" sort of.
This is one of the interesting aspects of inequality that I've found. Do the rich in the US actually seem fabulously happy to you? Like does Elon Musk demanding that Twitter engineers add a 1000 multiplier to his popularity score seem like the actions of a happy man?
I'm sure they are happier than the poor, but it may be that massive inequality in societies actually has negative effects on those at the top as well. This is actually what Robert Sapolsky found in his studies of primate societies, and while humans might not just be any other primate society, we are that as well.
Not at all, but my suspicion is that you may have causality backwards there.
I suspect that Musk is driven to do what he does by his various personality issues, rather than his personality issues being caused by his wealth.
I can understand not being satisfied with mere early retirement after PayPal, but simultaneously gambling on Tesla and SpaceX is extremely unusual, and very little about Hyperloop/TBC, Neuralink, and the purchase of Twitter really makes much sense except as a desire to be seen as a modern Da Vinci.
I've heard him described as narcissistic; I'm not qualified to say if he is that clinically or merely to the extent of an actor or YouTuber, but he certainly doesn't seem like he'll ever really feel secure in his connection to others.
I'm still not sure what to make of his clear humility about the success prospects for each new rocket's first launch, vs. the apparent hubris in every other field.
South europe countries have ~ 50% youth unemployment and very little prospects however there's no mass shootings?
Different implements, same outcomes unfortunately.
And youth unemployment is one of the problems that Europe has that America doesn't have nearly as badly.
You can be certain that has nothing to do with unemployment.
https://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-co... : "the most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself."
US crime is high, but falling from its very high peak, more or less independently of who's President.
Part of the reason the US has dismal social security is the same "dog eat dog" hyper individualistic mentality that is also present in people thinking it's their sacred right to own assault rifles and shit.
At least that's my impression from the outside. I never really went to the US to taste it first hand.
More eloquently: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/
And they're not better problems either, they're just different.
All the storefronts have insurance so any visible damage is quickly repaired.
I have never seen a riot in Paris and I've been here since 2020. Nor does it interfere with the lives of anyone I know here.
There have been mass shootings in many European countries, and in most cases they’ve led to heavy crackdowns on the availability of appropriate weapons, after which the mass shootings stop.
Has this person ever been to France or Greece?
> mass shootings
In foreign countries without second amendment rights criminals just ram trucks into people instead. Since no guns are involved, these don't get reported as "mass shootings", not that it would bring any comfort to the victims and their families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
> Because it is literally the law.
Ha, fair enough. I believe OP meant to ask and should have asked something along the lines of: "How is this the law in the famously pro-labor EU?"
In the EU country I live in employees have 30 days of notice and the employee has to pay the employer for each missing day of required notice. Employees generally don't pay anything anyway, as they mature several additional "bonuses" (13th and 14th month, severance pay) during their employment and the missing notice payment can be detracted from those.
Generally you can agree with your employer to waive the notice period. Often people will also take their accumulated vacation days at that time. Some collective labor agreements also specify that employees can take so many days off a month to look for a new job.
I suspect that even though most individuals want to be labor secure, most people would actually be better off with more mobility instead.
You wouldn't mind being laid off if you were pretty certain you could get a new job with a similar salary within just a few days. The only reason being laid off is so stressful is because there isn't sufficient mobility, and it's likely it will be many weeks or months till you find a new employer.
I'd kinda like to see an 'employer of last resort', where the government guarantees to employ anyone anytime. That should at least take away much of the fear of being laid off, even if few people actually use the service.
But I don't believe in these perfectly efficient systems, like the one you describe, in which as long as we remove friction everyone can do what they want. Humans are not robots, they need emotional and social stability to thrive. A job comes with a location, social bonds, an expertise, habits ... You can't swap one for another and call it good as long as the paycheck stays the same.
Great labor protections! Very few job openings.
There's always a flip side to the good things online Europeans like to brag about.
I mean, if you extended your horizons a little beyond the next earnings report, you'd be surprised what you can plan.
You may in theory get sued for the cost of covering for you, but in practice what happens is you lose any outstanding owed you by the employer (wages and payment for holiday not taken).
It's generally considered that this is an employee protection, because it works in the other direction as well. The employer has to give you 3 months notice to end the contract.
(it's not unheard of for people to get the "locked out of your account and building" at the point of resigning, then get paid for the 3 months. This is referred to as "gardening leave")
Well, when they also expect 12 weeks notice in their employee contracts, they can't exactly argue when you are held to the same standard in your current employment can they?
Edit: Both parties can of course negotiate a bigger time frame.
By the time you are senior enough to be at the 3 month level you will often be put on gardening leave anyway.
I terms of the UK, realistically its still just a curtousy, but employers put it in because employees often thinnk that they have to adhere to it, they don't. If in the scenario the employee doesnt work the notice period and just immediately leaves, the employer technically could take them to civil court, make a case that they need them to finish their notice period, and the court could theoretically grant them that due to the employee's breach of contract. But i'd imagine thats almost never happened (just guessing), because that would take considerable time, effort and money to do that, and its less hassle just to let them go.
So yeah, its put in because employers can, and employees often incorrectly think they're beholden to it and comply anyway.
It might not the best advice in Germany, where a reference letter from your previous employer can be very important for a new job (maybe not so much for expats).
Europe’s work culture is very different to America’s in that there’s mutual expectations around the commitment made by the employer and by the employee. All companies understand that to hire someone means to wait for their notice period to expire, so it’s not as if it prevents anyone from opportunities.
* in some places, an employer could pursue the ex-employee for contract violation if they didn’t respect their notice period, and the employee could incur the cost of replacing them in the short term… but it’s very rare and typically only important in the context of high-skill jobs. I’ve never seen it happen.
If the employee wants to leave, they give x months of notice (unless the employer agrees to less). If the employer wants to fire the employee, they also need to give notice, and salary during this time (unless the employee is fired for cause).
This is a strong labor protection, since it is turning an asymmetrical power relationship into a more symmetrical one.
> I can't imagine how a future employer can wait a full quarter to just hire someone
This is exactly what happens. I guess it makes employers more conservative on who they hire. It probably disincentivizes innovation and incentivizes social cohesion.
as a business owner, it protects me from key employees leaving me in the shit and gives me 3 months to replace them
as an employee, it gives them security that I won’t drop them in the shit and they will have 3 months to find a job or risk not being able to pay their bills
It doesn’t seem super complicated
As an employer it has benefits as well as drawbacks.
Don't hire as "permanent employees", hire them as contractors (and offer higher rate).
There are lots of people who are quite happy with this arrangement. People get more money, the cost is the same. Employer gets flexibility. Everybody is happy except the tax collector :).
cough IR35
This was rather eye opening for me. Is it good? Probably not, but that was the reality I saw.
In practice you pay 40% or more in taxes and the person who wants to get professional help, still uses private services.
Universal health care is only for the poor
https://madison-bridge.com/notice-periods-in-europe-are-they...
Most other places are a month - if you are senior: a manager, vice president etc then some companies may write 3 months into your contract.
Also, this law is not optimized for industries (like tech) that have talent shortages.
Both times I quit my job, my employer gave me a multi-month contract to finish my current work and/or to help onboard my replacement. They had to pay me a lot more than my employment rate to do so. They would have been thrilled to keep me for another 3 months without having to pay extra to do so.