"But she is authorized to use the register. I don't see why she can't take all the money and claim the same defense she used here."
She can and she should win on that charge. How in hell does taking all the money from the register she was allowed -and even commanded, to operate, make into a "hacking" case?
"Nobody's talking about removing natural silica from water"
Yes, you do.
You ask for removing "Carcinogens cause cancer. Period. They should not be allowed into our water systems at any detectable level." Natural silica is a carcinogen, therefore it needs to be removed from your water systems at any detectable level.
"Company wide tax mitigation does not happen without C-suite executives being involved"
non-sequitur, as that's not what's been talked about.
"A CEO who isn't keeping a close eye on the where the money goes in the company is not doing his/her job and should be fired."
And then, another non-sequitur, as that's not what's been talked about here.
Of course, you are right on how things *are* done, but the parent poster was talking about how things *could* be done. See the difference? And I'm not even starting with if he could be right or wrong.
"Nobody is going to hire you if you go around doing it too often"
That's what you think.
On one hand, since it is not the long term shareholders but the executive board the ones hiring the CEO, it looks quite good enough if the board gets a lot of money from the dismantling process. Now, remember that quite a lot of companies share executive members and there you have a valid rinse-and-repeat scheme.
On the other hand, it's not even a matter of thinking about it since you can just read about it in any press archive. That's exactly the quickest way to make money back in the eighties -remember Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"?
"I always thought it should be feasible to get "dead or alive" warrants by bench-trial-in-absentia"
Well, you'd have a point... except for the fact that one of the most important principles for a resemblance of justice is the right to be hear. A trial in absentia "just" because the judicial system (or worse yet, the executory arm) is in a hurry is only slightly better than not having justice at all (i.e.: negate the habeas corpus right).
The way for the SWAT to behave is not to give it a justice cover but to strictly tie it to the usual principles: you won't kill but in the most pressing menace to innocent lives. Not because you can't think of another resolution, not to protect third party goods, not to revenge your killed fellows.
"every time SWAT is brought in to neutralize a threat before bystanders get dead"...the first thing to consider is if you wouldn't achieve your goal by just taking bystanders out of the way.
"They actually interviewed him for like four hours with a hostage negotiator, and knew who he was working with (alone) and his motives (he wanted to kill white cops to avenge the guys who got dead over the last two days, and everyone else who was "lynched.""
That's still no excuse for police to take the role of judge and jury to process him, find him guilty of capital penalty and execute the sentence.
"False. No one held these people down and shot them full of heroin to make them an addict"
Even if we took your words to the letter you still would have not an argument within this context.
Logically, it could very well mean that while *becoming* an addict is not a medical problem, *being* and addict it is.
"That was their choice [...] A medical problem is cancer which no one chooses to get"
Please, think about it for a while and you'll see how stupid it results (mind you, I am not calling you stupid, just your line of reasoning) i.e. a miner suffering silicosis also chose to be a miner, therefore silicosis is not a medical condition? A reckless driver has an accident and breaks half of his bones; does this mean his injuries are not a medical condition?
"He declared "war on" poverty because that choice of words was resonating as something positive at the time he did it."
Yes, but I think there's also something a bit more subtle running there.
Some time along the eighties, "corporate view" somehow changed from being mainly "services or product based" to be "project based" as a way to achieve success. A war is kind of a project: a concerted effort to achieve a goal within a time constrain, therefore that approach is somehow to be preferred.
You could say, but this is about politics, not corporate world but then, look where do a lot of politicians get trained and you may see my point.
"Criminal attempts to run over guard with car. Guard fires and kills criminal. Guard not charged because of self-defense. His life was in danger."
Point being that the criminal usually doesn't attempt to run over the guard, but just to run towards the exit with a guard, that could very easily just take himself out of the way, stubbornly being in the way so he can use deadly force against a non-credible menace.
Third parties' money against a human life should *never* be considered "self defense".
So what? I already said "Maybe that's the case for your model. Mine doesn't control RPM".
On the other hand, millions of Mercedes sold (yes, they've sold a lot of cars in the last fifteen years, despite not being a favorite in USA) makes your "not typical" argument quite moot (others would even say "hey, it's a Mercedes: what they are doing today is what other cars will be doing in ten years").
"From the sound of it, the actual problem was finding that set of skills in somebody with the clearance at the same time."
Which is still exactly the same problem.
If you are ready to pay market prices for the skillset, you are basically paying for the security clearance as -again, any non absolutely moron candidate can get into speed about "TCP/IP deep inspection" in few months at most. Heck! it they so dearly needed the expertise, they could probably sponsored the clearance and still get ahead.
The problem is "I want this and that, and all the effort I'm going to do about it is taking it out of the shelve, just as I'd do in the supermarket. If it's not in the supermarket shelf, it doesn't exist, Booo Hooo!"
"Then they might well decide they don't really need to get those skills"
Exactly that. But then don't come up to me saying "I needed desperately this and that qualifications but I couldn't find a suitable candidate", and then "Well, you could do this and that and then you'd end with what you are looking for" followed by "Well, well, well, not *so* desperately"
"I gave you already the real data from official sources in a post"
No, you didn't. You smacked down some quickly found entries from google, mixing years, laws, false claims and partial truths that doesn't work in reality because of the pesky details (i.e.: you "forgot" that up to the first six months permanent contracts have no severance, or that ill leaves are mostly payed by either the employee or the government, not the employer, or that you can have apprenticeship contracts well below minimal wages, or that 2013 reform gave instruments for basically any contract being terminated under "due conditions" rendering only 22 days/year of severance, limited to one year worth of wages, or that due to our incorporation laws is quite easy to fold up a company and pay no severances at all, since employees are the last honored debtors, or that while there are penalty fees for some employer behaviours they certainly can be contested in court, etc. etc.etc.).
You know shit about the Spanish labor conditions and no amount of trolling will change that fact.
For indefinite contracts the severance for "no reasons" firing is 33 days/year. Only 22 for a firing "within reasons" which the last labor reform has made very easy to come with. In the first case the employer won't pay anything over two years worth of salary; in the latter, only up to one year.
Temporary contracts, while legally have a limited severance, in practice tend to have zero severance, since within the first three to six months the employer can claim the contract being in probatory period. In case of "service" contracts, the employer can claim the service is not needed anymore and extinguish the contract with no severance at any time (but then he would face fines if hiring someone else for the same position within -I think to remember, the following six months).
The 200.000 eur/year doesn't look like either temporary or a work-for-hire so we should assume to be a permanent contract. That means that firing the employee six months minus one day down the road comes with exactly zero severance. Firing him for no reason after exactly one year, would cost the employer 33 days, though, roughly a 10% of his gross salary which is still less than the average contracting costs which are usually considered to be somewhere around 15-25% a year's wages (with "contracting costs" I am not referring to any "legal fee or tax" but just the time involved, fees to headhunters, lost productivity for having somebody new, etc.).
"But i live and work in spain and i dont have 44 days off"
Well, to be fair, you do (I don't know if the exact number is 44 but can't be far from that): you need to count your 21 or 22 days of vacation plus banking holidays (christmas day, new year, epiphany, etc.).
Spain still has a yearly hour count above EU average, though.
Whenever you hear something about the "Spanish competitivity problem" as something related to the employee, ask for the numbers: you'll find that in most cases if not all, there are countries *more* competitive than Spain, be it France, Germany, UK, or even Italy with "worse" numbers than Spain (less hours, higher salaries, better social support...) so don't hesitate on claim bullshit on such assertions. I.e: "one of the problems is minimal wages are to high" Why is it not a problem for France, then, with minimal wages that more than doubles Spanish's? "one of the problems is that we have too many holidays" Why is not a problem for Germany, then, which has a yearly hour-count lower than Spain? "one of the problems is that Spanish workers demand too a high salary" Why is not a problem for France, Germany, Italy or UK, all of them with higher wages?
The *real* Spanish problem is on the leadership side, not the employees': caciquism, cronyism, corporate fraud, corruption, plain leadership incompetence... those are the real problems, not wages or workers' rights.
"I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants"
You talk about "deep TCP/IP packet skills" as if it was some kind of arcane only the maesters of Antigua can deal with or something like that. Hint: any promisory IT freshman can do that.
So you lost a year worth of opportunity costs because you'd better not train anyone. And somehow that's the "talent pool" fault.
I already answered in a different thread. What do you pretend? Gaining reason through flooding?
I was almost sure you had no contact with the Spanish labor market. Your behaviour cleared any cast of doubt: you don't.
You are of course entitled to your views of the world: how it is and how it should be. What you are not entitled, though, is for the world to be the way you think or want it to be.
Just for others to know: no, the problem in Spain is not labor laws or costs being too harsh. It is the awful feeling of entitlement from our privileged class that can be easily routed to our dictatorship days, despite of the fact that Franco dead about 40 years ago.
You, in USA, mock out of the Pointy Haired Boss character or how you need to belong to the proper "boys club" to go up the corporate ladder. You should come here to really know what the closed circle is or what an absolutely incompetent executive or manager looks like.
"Now go ahead, tell me how I do not know things about hiring in Spain."
Ha, Ha! No, you don't. But your ego forced to look something out in the internet. How much time did you devote to this?
There's a difference between putting together some half-backed details gotten from Internet without paying details to dates and circumstances, and knowing what are you talking about.
There's a general aspect that shows how stupid your full argument is: if it's so difficult to fire someone, how is it that Spanish companies managed to fire above 15% of the labor population in the very moment they were in a harsh economic situation? Hint: reality doesn't go the way they are painting it.
And now, some points over the counter: * Yes, the minimal wage *for a fully engaged employee* is about 6,22â/hour (which you find "high" while, at the same time, USA is about 12$/hour and pushing for 15$/hour). But whatever. That's for a fully engaged employee. Aprenticeship goes as low as 3 to 4â/hour. * No, a salaried employee doesn't get 44 vacation days a year: just 22 (a month). * No, the employer doesn't pay for illness leaving. The petty details depends on industry but only minimally and it usually goes like this: first two/four days are covered by the employee (that is, the employee gets no salary at all). From this point to the first two weeks, are covered by the employer (but only something around 75%). Starting there, the government covers it. * Yes, the overall cost of wages for the employeer is something around 133% whatever the raw salary for the employee is. Now look what the modal salary is (around 25.000â) and compare it to the other countries on the EU (which also have real wages cost around the same percentage). Surprise, surprise: it's below average. * "you have no choice but to have 2 people minimum for the job of one" That's simply the most idiotic concept someone can say. Please, think what you have just said -and shame. * The point on the maternity leave is true, but it throws no cost for the employer. And yes, the employer has to rehire the person when the leave ends. Numbers vary from country to country, but they are similar to the rest of the EU. of course you can desire slaves and desire them in a way that it's counterproductive even for you in the long run (look at EU's population growth rates, to see what I mean) but others think labor doesn't equate slavery. * "Labour authority, which is *not* a court," Labor authority is a public ministry, which, much like everywhere else can throw administrative sanctions that, of course, *can* be contested in courts. Mean it, that while you can not fire an employee for, say, religious discrimination, you can fire him for *no* reason, with a compensation of 33 days per worked year. * No, for a valid reason is 22 days/year; no reason is 33 days/years. See? That's the difference between looking for the details on the Internet and knowing them. * In case of merger/acquisition you can very easily find reasons for valid firing: you should show the redundancy in a convincing manner or show 3 months in a row of decreasing profits, that's all.
Even if you were the smartest person in the world, even if you had focused your superior intelligence into the understandment of economics, that wouldn't mean shit with regards to your knowledge about the Spanish labor law. Even a moderately intelligent person would know that, moreso a genius (intelligence and knowledge being two different things) still you went into a garden you can't get out of, so maybe you are not so smart after all.
I'm still waiting for your data on the real costs of hiring and firing in Spain.
"I know quite a bit. You have never hired anybody, to you everything seems simple."
Except, of course, I've hired people and I of course know what hiring costs (and firing costs) are here in Spain.
"It is extremely expensive to hire there (in Spain) and to fire is also extremely expensive."
You keep using vague words on your statements. Can you please tell us exactly how much it takes to hire someone, let's say on a mid-management position, and how much does it take to fire him -either with founded cause or without it?
"Based on this premise (or so they said) the laws were actually changed around 2011 or so, and the only result was that the companies fired long-term employees, because it was cheaper now, and they replaced them with workers in temporal contract with lower wages."
That's exactly what the reform was about: given that Spain was not free on its monetary policy, due to being bound to Euro, instead of devaluating the currency, which is not possible, let's fire everybody (statistically speaking) so we can re-hire them on a 30% cut. That's why the reform was absolutely fixed on making firing cheaper with absolutely zero provisions to make hiring easier.
"I have personally had to deal with the work product of an individual who had no formal training in computer science. He had built an entire product almost by himself. While the product did work, maintenance was such a nightmare"
And how was that not the fault of his manager/boss, which surely earned tad more?
"Or maybe they have laws that once you hire someone you're stuck with them for years."
Or maybe not. Maybe you can fire them for basically no reason within the first three to six months (depending on required education qualifications) for exactly zero. Maybe after that, you can fire them for any reason at all with only 33 days per worked year of compensation (topping at 24 months of compensation, which only happens for employees that stay on the company longer than 20 years) or mere 20 days per year, topping 12 months on the case of "firing with a cause" which, after the reform, a moderately wise labor lawyer can make it to be basically anything.
So, let's say you hire a PhD. That means you have six months to see if he fits you with the ability to fire him at any moment with no compensation. After that, you also can fire him for any cause paying him a bit over a month per worked year, but never more than two years' pay, or you can fire him for reasons like the business not going well or the business changing its aim so you don't need him anymore for less than a month per worked year, topping at a year's worth of salary.
Now, can you tell me how is it not your fault if you can't see if you hired a good candidate after six full months?
Slashdot Mirror
"But she is authorized to use the register. I don't see why she can't take all the money and claim the same defense she used here."
She can and she should win on that charge. How in hell does taking all the money from the register she was allowed -and even commanded, to operate, make into a "hacking" case?
Furthermore, you must weigh the same as a duck and be made of wood.
"Nobody's talking about removing natural silica from water"
Yes, you do.
You ask for removing "Carcinogens cause cancer. Period. They should not be allowed into our water systems at any detectable level." Natural silica is a carcinogen, therefore it needs to be removed from your water systems at any detectable level.
"Company wide tax mitigation does not happen without C-suite executives being involved"
non-sequitur, as that's not what's been talked about.
"A CEO who isn't keeping a close eye on the where the money goes in the company is not doing his/her job and should be fired."
And then, another non-sequitur, as that's not what's been talked about here.
Of course, you are right on how things *are* done, but the parent poster was talking about how things *could* be done. See the difference? And I'm not even starting with if he could be right or wrong.
"Nobody is going to hire you if you go around doing it too often"
That's what you think.
On one hand, since it is not the long term shareholders but the executive board the ones hiring the CEO, it looks quite good enough if the board gets a lot of money from the dismantling process. Now, remember that quite a lot of companies share executive members and there you have a valid rinse-and-repeat scheme.
On the other hand, it's not even a matter of thinking about it since you can just read about it in any press archive. That's exactly the quickest way to make money back in the eighties -remember Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"?
"Why this makes any sense is beyond me but IANAL."
It certainly makes sense... for the lawyers that get payed hefty sums for such nonsenses.
"I always thought it should be feasible to get "dead or alive" warrants by bench-trial-in-absentia"
Well, you'd have a point... except for the fact that one of the most important principles for a resemblance of justice is the right to be hear. A trial in absentia "just" because the judicial system (or worse yet, the executory arm) is in a hurry is only slightly better than not having justice at all (i.e.: negate the habeas corpus right).
The way for the SWAT to behave is not to give it a justice cover but to strictly tie it to the usual principles: you won't kill but in the most pressing menace to innocent lives. Not because you can't think of another resolution, not to protect third party goods, not to revenge your killed fellows.
"every time SWAT is brought in to neutralize a threat before bystanders get dead" ...the first thing to consider is if you wouldn't achieve your goal by just taking bystanders out of the way.
"They actually interviewed him for like four hours with a hostage negotiator, and knew who he was working with (alone) and his motives (he wanted to kill white cops to avenge the guys who got dead over the last two days, and everyone else who was "lynched.""
That's still no excuse for police to take the role of judge and jury to process him, find him guilty of capital penalty and execute the sentence.
"False. No one held these people down and shot them full of heroin to make them an addict"
Even if we took your words to the letter you still would have not an argument within this context.
Logically, it could very well mean that while *becoming* an addict is not a medical problem, *being* and addict it is.
"That was their choice [...] A medical problem is cancer which no one chooses to get"
Please, think about it for a while and you'll see how stupid it results (mind you, I am not calling you stupid, just your line of reasoning) i.e. a miner suffering silicosis also chose to be a miner, therefore silicosis is not a medical condition? A reckless driver has an accident and breaks half of his bones; does this mean his injuries are not a medical condition?
"He declared "war on" poverty because that choice of words was resonating as something positive at the time he did it."
Yes, but I think there's also something a bit more subtle running there.
Some time along the eighties, "corporate view" somehow changed from being mainly "services or product based" to be "project based" as a way to achieve success. A war is kind of a project: a concerted effort to achieve a goal within a time constrain, therefore that approach is somehow to be preferred.
You could say, but this is about politics, not corporate world but then, look where do a lot of politicians get trained and you may see my point.
"Criminal attempts to run over guard with car. Guard fires and kills criminal. Guard not charged because of self-defense. His life was in danger."
Point being that the criminal usually doesn't attempt to run over the guard, but just to run towards the exit with a guard, that could very easily just take himself out of the way, stubbornly being in the way so he can use deadly force against a non-credible menace.
Third parties' money against a human life should *never* be considered "self defense".
"Your Mercedes is not typical"
So what? I already said "Maybe that's the case for your model. Mine doesn't control RPM".
On the other hand, millions of Mercedes sold (yes, they've sold a lot of cars in the last fifteen years, despite not being a favorite in USA) makes your "not typical" argument quite moot (others would even say "hey, it's a Mercedes: what they are doing today is what other cars will be doing in ten years").
"From the sound of it, the actual problem was finding that set of skills in somebody with the clearance at the same time."
Which is still exactly the same problem.
If you are ready to pay market prices for the skillset, you are basically paying for the security clearance as -again, any non absolutely moron candidate can get into speed about "TCP/IP deep inspection" in few months at most. Heck! it they so dearly needed the expertise, they could probably sponsored the clearance and still get ahead.
The problem is "I want this and that, and all the effort I'm going to do about it is taking it out of the shelve, just as I'd do in the supermarket. If it's not in the supermarket shelf, it doesn't exist, Booo Hooo!"
"Then they might well decide they don't really need to get those skills"
Exactly that. But then don't come up to me saying "I needed desperately this and that qualifications but I couldn't find a suitable candidate", and then "Well, you could do this and that and then you'd end with what you are looking for" followed by "Well, well, well, not *so* desperately"
"I gave you already the real data from official sources in a post"
No, you didn't. You smacked down some quickly found entries from google, mixing years, laws, false claims and partial truths that doesn't work in reality because of the pesky details (i.e.: you "forgot" that up to the first six months permanent contracts have no severance, or that ill leaves are mostly payed by either the employee or the government, not the employer, or that you can have apprenticeship contracts well below minimal wages, or that 2013 reform gave instruments for basically any contract being terminated under "due conditions" rendering only 22 days/year of severance, limited to one year worth of wages, or that due to our incorporation laws is quite easy to fold up a company and pay no severances at all, since employees are the last honored debtors, or that while there are penalty fees for some employer behaviours they certainly can be contested in court, etc. etc.etc.).
You know shit about the Spanish labor conditions and no amount of trolling will change that fact.
Even worse than that:
For indefinite contracts the severance for "no reasons" firing is 33 days/year. Only 22 for a firing "within reasons" which the last labor reform has made very easy to come with. In the first case the employer won't pay anything over two years worth of salary; in the latter, only up to one year.
Temporary contracts, while legally have a limited severance, in practice tend to have zero severance, since within the first three to six months the employer can claim the contract being in probatory period. In case of "service" contracts, the employer can claim the service is not needed anymore and extinguish the contract with no severance at any time (but then he would face fines if hiring someone else for the same position within -I think to remember, the following six months).
The 200.000 eur/year doesn't look like either temporary or a work-for-hire so we should assume to be a permanent contract. That means that firing the employee six months minus one day down the road comes with exactly zero severance. Firing him for no reason after exactly one year, would cost the employer 33 days, though, roughly a 10% of his gross salary which is still less than the average contracting costs which are usually considered to be somewhere around 15-25% a year's wages (with "contracting costs" I am not referring to any "legal fee or tax" but just the time involved, fees to headhunters, lost productivity for having somebody new, etc.).
"But i live and work in spain and i dont have 44 days off"
Well, to be fair, you do (I don't know if the exact number is 44 but can't be far from that): you need to count your 21 or 22 days of vacation plus banking holidays (christmas day, new year, epiphany, etc.).
Spain still has a yearly hour count above EU average, though.
Whenever you hear something about the "Spanish competitivity problem" as something related to the employee, ask for the numbers: you'll find that in most cases if not all, there are countries *more* competitive than Spain, be it France, Germany, UK, or even Italy with "worse" numbers than Spain (less hours, higher salaries, better social support...) so don't hesitate on claim bullshit on such assertions. I.e: "one of the problems is minimal wages are to high" Why is it not a problem for France, then, with minimal wages that more than doubles Spanish's? "one of the problems is that we have too many holidays" Why is not a problem for Germany, then, which has a yearly hour-count lower than Spain? "one of the problems is that Spanish workers demand too a high salary" Why is not a problem for France, Germany, Italy or UK, all of them with higher wages?
The *real* Spanish problem is on the leadership side, not the employees': caciquism, cronyism, corporate fraud, corruption, plain leadership incompetence... those are the real problems, not wages or workers' rights.
"I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants"
You talk about "deep TCP/IP packet skills" as if it was some kind of arcane only the maesters of Antigua can deal with or something like that. Hint: any promisory IT freshman can do that.
So you lost a year worth of opportunity costs because you'd better not train anyone. And somehow that's the "talent pool" fault.
I already answered in a different thread. What do you pretend? Gaining reason through flooding?
I was almost sure you had no contact with the Spanish labor market. Your behaviour cleared any cast of doubt: you don't.
You are of course entitled to your views of the world: how it is and how it should be. What you are not entitled, though, is for the world to be the way you think or want it to be.
Just for others to know: no, the problem in Spain is not labor laws or costs being too harsh. It is the awful feeling of entitlement from our privileged class that can be easily routed to our dictatorship days, despite of the fact that Franco dead about 40 years ago.
You, in USA, mock out of the Pointy Haired Boss character or how you need to belong to the proper "boys club" to go up the corporate ladder. You should come here to really know what the closed circle is or what an absolutely incompetent executive or manager looks like.
"Now go ahead, tell me how I do not know things about hiring in Spain."
Ha, Ha! No, you don't. But your ego forced to look something out in the internet. How much time did you devote to this?
There's a difference between putting together some half-backed details gotten from Internet without paying details to dates and circumstances, and knowing what are you talking about.
There's a general aspect that shows how stupid your full argument is: if it's so difficult to fire someone, how is it that Spanish companies managed to fire above 15% of the labor population in the very moment they were in a harsh economic situation? Hint: reality doesn't go the way they are painting it.
And now, some points over the counter:
* Yes, the minimal wage *for a fully engaged employee* is about 6,22â/hour (which you find "high" while, at the same time, USA is about 12$/hour and pushing for 15$/hour). But whatever. That's for a fully engaged employee. Aprenticeship goes as low as 3 to 4â/hour.
* No, a salaried employee doesn't get 44 vacation days a year: just 22 (a month).
* No, the employer doesn't pay for illness leaving. The petty details depends on industry but only minimally and it usually goes like this: first two/four days are covered by the employee (that is, the employee gets no salary at all). From this point to the first two weeks, are covered by the employer (but only something around 75%). Starting there, the government covers it.
* Yes, the overall cost of wages for the employeer is something around 133% whatever the raw salary for the employee is. Now look what the modal salary is (around 25.000â) and compare it to the other countries on the EU (which also have real wages cost around the same percentage). Surprise, surprise: it's below average.
* "you have no choice but to have 2 people minimum for the job of one" That's simply the most idiotic concept someone can say. Please, think what you have just said -and shame.
* The point on the maternity leave is true, but it throws no cost for the employer. And yes, the employer has to rehire the person when the leave ends. Numbers vary from country to country, but they are similar to the rest of the EU. of course you can desire slaves and desire them in a way that it's counterproductive even for you in the long run (look at EU's population growth rates, to see what I mean) but others think labor doesn't equate slavery.
* "Labour authority, which is *not* a court," Labor authority is a public ministry, which, much like everywhere else can throw administrative sanctions that, of course, *can* be contested in courts. Mean it, that while you can not fire an employee for, say, religious discrimination, you can fire him for *no* reason, with a compensation of 33 days per worked year.
* No, for a valid reason is 22 days/year; no reason is 33 days/years. See? That's the difference between looking for the details on the Internet and knowing them.
* In case of merger/acquisition you can very easily find reasons for valid firing: you should show the redundancy in a convincing manner or show 3 months in a row of decreasing profits, that's all.
Even if you were the smartest person in the world, even if you had focused your superior intelligence into the understandment of economics, that wouldn't mean shit with regards to your knowledge about the Spanish labor law. Even a moderately intelligent person would know that, moreso a genius (intelligence and knowledge being two different things) still you went into a garden you can't get out of, so maybe you are not so smart after all.
I'm still waiting for your data on the real costs of hiring and firing in Spain.
"I know quite a bit. You have never hired anybody, to you everything seems simple."
Except, of course, I've hired people and I of course know what hiring costs (and firing costs) are here in Spain.
"It is extremely expensive to hire there (in Spain) and to fire is also extremely expensive."
You keep using vague words on your statements. Can you please tell us exactly how much it takes to hire someone, let's say on a mid-management position, and how much does it take to fire him -either with founded cause or without it?
"In the EU the only barrier to finding a room for rent is (maybe) language."
Yes, sure: the only barrier.
What about the money to pay the rent with?
"Based on this premise (or so they said) the laws were actually changed around 2011 or so, and the only result was that the companies fired long-term employees, because it was cheaper now, and they replaced them with workers in temporal contract with lower wages."
That's exactly what the reform was about: given that Spain was not free on its monetary policy, due to being bound to Euro, instead of devaluating the currency, which is not possible, let's fire everybody (statistically speaking) so we can re-hire them on a 30% cut. That's why the reform was absolutely fixed on making firing cheaper with absolutely zero provisions to make hiring easier.
That was the idea, at least.
"I have personally had to deal with the work product of an individual who had no formal training in computer science. He had built an entire product almost by himself. While the product did work, maintenance was such a nightmare"
And how was that not the fault of his manager/boss, which surely earned tad more?
"Or maybe they have laws that once you hire someone you're stuck with them for years."
Or maybe not. Maybe you can fire them for basically no reason within the first three to six months (depending on required education qualifications) for exactly zero. Maybe after that, you can fire them for any reason at all with only 33 days per worked year of compensation (topping at 24 months of compensation, which only happens for employees that stay on the company longer than 20 years) or mere 20 days per year, topping 12 months on the case of "firing with a cause" which, after the reform, a moderately wise labor lawyer can make it to be basically anything.
So, let's say you hire a PhD. That means you have six months to see if he fits you with the ability to fire him at any moment with no compensation. After that, you also can fire him for any cause paying him a bit over a month per worked year, but never more than two years' pay, or you can fire him for reasons like the business not going well or the business changing its aim so you don't need him anymore for less than a month per worked year, topping at a year's worth of salary.
Now, can you tell me how is it not your fault if you can't see if you hired a good candidate after six full months?