Yes, absolutely, and I would not like to trigger anyone with my opinion. I just felt that expecting 12 months severance (unless it is included in your contract) is really over the top.
I know that employers like to build this image of a family of co-workers, they give you the sense of security, but this should not leave you unprepared.
A large fraction of the population want some sort of job security. If we consider roughly two options:
.)You made the right arguments for the first option. Here are some arguments in favor of the second option:
As far as I know, most evidence points to “marginally increasing job protection” leading to “higher unemployment”. But I suspect that most of these studies don’t compare “job protection” vs “absolutely no job protection”.
You’re rather handsomely compensated for that risk by having an income that puts you in the top 2% bracket - which enabled you accumulate your savings.
Most people - though maybe not on this forum - do not have the negotiating power to negotiate greater job security in the absence of (at least some) legal protections.
I don’t understand isn’t unemployment your protection? You do pay every month.
I’m more in the field of: companies can fire anybody anytime, but there is unemployment for a couple of years paid by state.
I’m actually happy with the Swiss system
Half of the youth is unemployed, lots end up working for government (a trick to hide unemployment). And for adult population it’s bad too - France has unemployment rate of about 10% for at least 3 or 4 decades. Other, more elastic, countries have less during recessions - and Switzerland is a good example. Normal, healthy unemployment rate is about 2-3% in economic expansion and 5-6% in recession. That was historical standard in the past. Now most welfare countries have 5-10% during expansion part of the cycle. Job protection is a pathology that breeds unemployment and - paradoxically - weak bargain position of the employees vis-a-vis employer.
PS. The ultimate, healthy for the individual and society, and non-unemployment-generating protection is FU money.
I believe it’s a bit more complex.
France might have lots of people with a lower level of education while most of the new jobs are in higher levels (if that’s is always necessary isn’t part of the topic).
Are you suggesting that France is more poorly educated than Switzerland, UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Israel, etc, etc or even Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, etc, etc? This endemic and chronic unemployment for such a long time is clearly effect of their insane job protection laws. It’s a known fact for years among economists and I don’t think it’s really controversial. It’s a well researched pathology.
First problem is that job protection, regulations and taxes are major costs of employing people, and in some areas they are prohibitive. Second problem is that they educate too many humanists and social scientists, whose “skills” are useless on the job market, but their inflated ego won’t allow them to work in something else. So that’s a major cause of job market disequilibrium - on one hand huge unemployment, on the other there are hundreds of thousands of people needed in crafts and construction works.
No, I’m suggesting that there might be other causes as well.
I know well the issue about firing people because I follow the situation in Italy (maybe worse?)
France has also the lowest working/nonworking population ratio in Europe. Their retirement system is in a pretty bad state.
