Wow this article is pretty condescending towards the biotech scene in Europe...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe there are fewer biotech startups in Europe because profiting off of people's illnesses is generally frowned upon?
My guess is progress in that area falls more into the realm of government grants, with maybe the exception of classical pharmaceuticals (there are plenty of old companies like Bayer).
Biotech is not my field so I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions.
You should go back and reread the entire article. This isn’t a US is better than the rest of the world post, it’s a Boston/SF are getting really good at the whole life science startup thing.
Sure, I'd see no problem highlighting how far they've come. Sharing success stories is important. Which is why I found it odd that they were making multiple condescending references to Europe such as (paraphrasing) "if you're not in Boston or SF you might as well be in Europe" where it's making it sound like Siberia...
I don't know if this helps your friend but I know BMW in Munich is hiring. A lot of departments are fine with English speakers. I found a couple of examples for him if they are useful:
And it is exactly this style of management that is causing problems at the German automation plant he aquired (see my comment in the duplicate thread). It is probably a reason why production of the Model 3 is behind -- the company he acquired builds the factory robots needed for advanced automation. Smart move to acquire it then and it explains why the timing is now off.
You can't run a German plant like an American one, people will take the 30 day vacations that have been written into their contracts since before he arrived (just because you have a new boss doesn't mean the old contract is invalid), take sick days if they need them (unlimited sick days by law, they don't come out of your vacation time), and go home at 5pm because they value their home/family/free time. Last I checked the factory had at least dozens of positions open that they can't fill because no one here wants to work for them.
Presumably one bit of Tesla culture they can't bring to Germany is firing low performers.
I worked for a German company for over a decade. I don't know if it was due to their culture or their laws, but I never saw anyone get fired for poor performance (except for failing the initial 6-month probation after joining). And it's not like we didn't have low performers — once I got into management it became quite clear that there were a handful of people who were borderline useless, but it was just accepted that they were employees, that the company should look after them just the same, and find work for them to do.
The idea in large parts of western europe is that it is OK to fire employees who aren’t fit for their job, but that “low performing”, at best, only is a low quality indicator of the former.
For example, management can stifle productivity in ways that individual workers have little influence on.
Also, employees may be ‘useless’ for a while, but then improve again, for example if they are going through a divorce, the death of a relative, etc. Firing people because they perform worse for a few months is frowned upon in some circles.
How do people there understand the difference between low performers and people who aren't fit for their job? The latter has the sound of something lasting that cannot be fixed, but I'm wondering how it plays out in practice. How do you determine that someone is not fit for their job as opposed to a mere low performer?
I think this comment is the 'RTFM' of employee-employer relations.
Very few things in this world are actually simple enough that this kind of dismissive attitude works. I've seen people who didn't care about giving helpful feedback and second chances, but I've also seen people who agree in spirit, but don't know how to do it well.
> And it's not like we didn't have low performers — once I got into management it became quite clear that there were a handful of people who were borderline useless, but it was just accepted that they were employees, that the company should look after them just the same, and find work for them to do.
In addition, courts will be siding with the employee in lots of cases, and when the company has a Betriebsrat (workers council) and the Betriebsrat sides with the employee it is next to impossible to get someone fired without serious consequences in court.
I've worked for companies where it was easy to fire people. There was no shortage of borderline useless people and getting fired was usually more about getting on management's nerves rather than performance.
People living in fear of their jobs created the most toxic environments.
I always wondered why laws are needed to require benefits. Seems like working for someone is a consensual choice that ought be regulated by the free market itself. Other than physical safety regulations, seems like the rest of it is government overreach. It’s also weird to me that a “contract” covers “workers” rather than a contact negotiated by each worker. Seems rather Marxist to me to consider workers as interchangeable cogs in the production machine. Some guy might not care about 30 days vacation but might prefer more money, as an example.
Have you ever watched a movie where the writers treat a computer as a magical thing, a deus ex machina? It's like they have a hazy theoretical idea of what computers do, but no real practical experience. If you're like me, watching those movies is deeply irritating. Why didn't they take the time to learn about the history and practical details of what they're writing about?
I have a similar reaction to your comment here. It is as if you know exactly nothing about the long history of labor markets. We started out with very unregulated markets, and have moved away from that for very specific historical reasons. You could reasonably argue that any given protection was a step too far, or that a particular regulation no longer makes sense given some sort of change in technology. But just handwaving it away? All of it?
When you say you've "always wondered", I have a hard time believing it. There are many books on this topic. Books, articles, podcasts, movies, blogs, everything. You can learn about the history of labor markets, the theory of it, the present-day reality. Your comment shows no sign of having done the slightest work to understand the topic.
Even if you are not inclined to study history, just try thinking about it as an engineer. Markets aren't magic. They are a specific technology for solving specific economic problems. There are conditions under which they work well, and conditions where they work poorly, sometimes so poorly as to fail. Like any other technology, they come in a variety of specific forms depending on need. They need to be properly installed and maintained if they are to serve the purpose they were created for.
I think the issue is that a "free" market is a theoretical construct and not a practical one. There is a lot of asymmetry in contract negotiation and without these sorts of laws you get what we have in America, which is many people wanting more vacation time but having difficulty getting it (even software engineers who are very in demand right now will complain of not having enough vacation sometimes). From talking to Europeans I think most of them would agree that these laws make their life better and a law that makes their citizens life better pretty much across the board doesn't really seem to be huge overreach
The 19% of youth in Europe who are unemployed don't have any of the cushy legally mandated benefits of employment there, and might be happy to forego a few to be employed at all.
It varies a lot by country. Maybe I might have a little of a skewed view because I've talked to people mostly from Germany and The Netherlands, which both manage to have have decent labor laws and fairly low youth unemployment.
You should find out. Just wondering with underlying vague conviction where "things seems" forever is not a good thing.
Even Adam Smith knew that 'free market' is idealization and don't fit into everything without tweaking. Most non-regulated markets suffer from market failures and contracts have negative externalities. Smith's invisible hand was not all seeing hand.
As a market advocate myself, I approach markets as an economist. They are something can be made to work, but it usually involves mechanism design (= reverse game theory).
Collective bargaining and labor laws can have both positives and negatives. To make it work well requires discretion. Workers competing against each other with lower benefits has some very negative effects for the society.
>Seems like working for someone is a consensual choice that ought be regulated by the free market itself.
It's because the free market is a myth, and what actually exists is all kinds of forces playing against each other, using influence, media, money, laws, and the government for their purposes.
Now, the most powerful forces are those of the people with (m/b)illions in the bank, expensive layers, friends in high places and the ability to move their operations wherever they want, and those are rarely people looking for work -- rather they the people looking for employees.
Which is why laws are required. Because a democratic government represents each person equally -- each has one vote, regardless of their wealth (again in theory, like there's no free market, there's also no actual democratic government). So it serves as a counter-balance between small people and big people/coprs (governments can be in bed with big people/corps but they need to pander to small people too in order get their vote).
Add to that, the fact that without any government at all, you don't get anywhere close to a free market either.
At best you'll get the heavier players doing everything they like -- and having private armies and thugs enabling them, to which regular people can just suck it and play along.
This has been the case in some places in developing countries for example, where, while there nominally a government exists, it's so in the pockets of the local moguls that it's just like their private mercenary enforcement force.
>Some guy might not care about 30 days vacation but might prefer more money, as an example.
Without any kind of legal pressure, guys and gals are gonna get neither "30 days vacation" nor "more money".
I'm a movie industry veteran. You're struggling to get that first job. You have no savings, and lots of student debt. I'm the gate-keeper to that first job. A single word from me, and you're in. A negative word from me, and you're out.
You're also really cute. Hmm. Let's see ... maybe I can help you if you help me ...
Because many workers won't have an option - if companies aren't forced to offer so many days holiday time, they just won't offer it. If you try to negotiate for it, you won't get the job (from an employer's point of view, most workers are, by necessity, interchangeable to at least some degree).
Sure, people with a long track record or specific skills may have more room to negotiate, but for entry-level and/or unskilled work you'd be unlikely to get more than the minimum enforced by law.
That said, tools like collective bargaining and unionization can bring it closer to the market ideal - workers acknowledging and taking advantage of their importance to the business to the same extent as the employer does.
In practice, many external if not anti-free-market factors have made that grouping harder to do.
I don't know about Germany, but in other European countries, the judge might also order you to rehire an employee in addition to the back pay and damages.
It's true that if you have 30 days of vacation that that comes from your contract, but that's a pretty standard perk with large-ish companies. The legal minimum is 24 days though [1], so that's as low as it can go. Usually after a couple years of working for a German company, you have a permanent contract, which can only be changed or revoked under cases that are also regulated by law (e.g. layoffs because of cash shortage or continued, documented underperformance).
It's sad that the GP's post is showing support for Americans by pointing out that they should all have health care, and someone is triggered into believing it was an attack.
I would bet it is related to the mismanagement of the German automation plant that Tesla acquired about a year ago (on mobile, too hard to post links, maybe someone wants to help).
The plan as I understand it was to use the technology at this company to speed up production but it hasn't been going as planned, in large part due to misunderstanding of cultural differences i.e. No one is going to be happy here in Germany if you start changing the terms of contracts that were supposed to last for the next few years and people in general don't respect abusive bosses. Unemployment rate is 3%, no need to (and lower for highly skilled workers). And you can't just tell people to not take vacation because production is behind, you'll get laughed at.
And yes, this has happened a few times now - American corp buys some German corp and replaces managers with American ones (or American-styled ones) and a few years later no one in the industry wants to work for them any more.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe there are fewer biotech startups in Europe because profiting off of people's illnesses is generally frowned upon?
My guess is progress in that area falls more into the realm of government grants, with maybe the exception of classical pharmaceuticals (there are plenty of old companies like Bayer).
Biotech is not my field so I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions.