It sounds like they're barricading themselves inside the office but in reality they are just exercising their local statutory rights. According to the article Google can't just fire them like that without wrongdoing on their part. But only suggest they leave and not all of them followed this suggestion.
If Google wants to do business there they'll have to follow local laws.
I don't know how else it would be possible but the article is not about people being laid off chaining themselves to theirs desks and refusing to leave the building. It's about google "suggesting" them to resign because the law does not allow them to be fired without cause. (This is the case in a lot places outside of the US).
> law does not allow them to be fired without cause. (This is the case in a lot places outside of the US).
Most places have an opt-out if you're reducing headcount (e.g. due to cost cutting measures rather than firing individual employees due to specific or specific reasons)
Yes we have it too. It's not automatically a "just" cause. The workers have the right to sue to be reinstated. That usually nets them 8-12 months of their salary above what they already got as severance. (And severance is not optional either) If they resign though. It's a clean departure. Company pays nothing and can even get paid if the employee does not work in the severance period. Of course in the current case there would be a deal for resigning.
Indeed. Better to have worked for a year at Google and then get laid off, than never to have worked at Google at all. You had a year of good pay and a boost on your resume. Win-win. Sure, it didn't last, but not every good thing can last forever anyway.
How does this normally work when a Korean business needs to downsize? Is there sort of a cultural understanding of the need and the employees sort out together which ones with accept the resignation offer? Five employees sounds like a really low limit and like an affected business could be quite small, so what happens if business slows down enough that not all 6 employees can be paid, but none of them want to go?
Are the rules different too when the business itself needs to close? Or do the 6 employees have some kind of opportunity to take over the business if they don't want to be terminated?
I'm really interested in understanding more about this model, because it's so different from the "at-will employment" that I'm used do, and used to seeing higher-ups in companies defend as the only workable way.
Some contexts: South Korean labor laws have employee protection to the level close to EU. Basically you cannot fire employees without strong, urgent business justifications and you need to do best efforts to avoid layoff. Also you gotta negotiate with labor union if there's any with the majority of its employees, not sure if this is applicable to this case though, as the union seems small.
This is quite a headache for employers, so most companies begin with voluntary/recommended resignation and you're typically going to have a good number of employees who's okay to accept that with good severance packages. The problem is that Google doesn't want to give it. I think >$100B cash reserve is meant to be something, but their execs might have different opinions?
"Recommended resignation" sounds to me like the best employees will leave immediately (because they have alternatives lined up) and you're left with only those employees who expect that it'll be difficult to find another job, for example because those are the low performers.
20 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 52.7 ms ] threadIf Google wants to do business there they'll have to follow local laws.
Most places have an opt-out if you're reducing headcount (e.g. due to cost cutting measures rather than firing individual employees due to specific or specific reasons)
Are the rules different too when the business itself needs to close? Or do the 6 employees have some kind of opportunity to take over the business if they don't want to be terminated?
I'm really interested in understanding more about this model, because it's so different from the "at-will employment" that I'm used do, and used to seeing higher-ups in companies defend as the only workable way.
Don't know how it works in South Korean but typically if a business is losing money, then it's easy to layoff people.
The problem for Google is that they are not losing money (understatement), so they can't claim that they need to downsize.
This is quite a headache for employers, so most companies begin with voluntary/recommended resignation and you're typically going to have a good number of employees who's okay to accept that with good severance packages. The problem is that Google doesn't want to give it. I think >$100B cash reserve is meant to be something, but their execs might have different opinions?