In the UK (and probably many other European countries) it's usual to have an initial probationary period of 6 months - notice required from either side to terminate in that window is 1 week.

I don't think it's helpful to the argument to pretend that stronger worker rights make it harder to hire when all of the signs point to that being little more than a talking point that isn't based in reality.

In Germany at least, you have zero protection against being fired in the first 6 months, two weeks notice are enough. Same goes for employees wanting to quit.

I don't get the "hiring is difficult" part. While I cannot alk about Europe, too many countries with their own legislation, in germany all you need is a contract and proper registration for social security and so on. Let you accountant handle it and it's done in a couple of days tops.

It's not the hiring, it's the firing which is difficult - which makes the hiring difficult. Similar to a marriage, the harder/more expensive you make the divorce, the more people will want to be super sure that it's "for ever".

There are two aspects to this, first you hired the wrong person and, second, the financial situation gets bad enough that head-count needs to be cut.

Regarding the first problem, 6 months should be enough to decide whether the new hire fits or not.

The second problem is a little bit tougher. There are two solutions, so. The first one is fixed-term contract, 1 year, 2 years. These can be extended (twice, if I remember well), which can be good solution for start-ups where long-term revenue is hard to gauge. The second is simple lay-offs. For young companies not that much a problem if there is a clear economic reason. You just close a department.

If cutting long-term employees is a problem, maybe the underlying root cause is bad head-count planning, read over hiring above needs and the companies cash-flow. Employers complaining about "firing is so hard in Germany" is a little bit lazy if you ask me. Don't over hire to beginn with, also helps in situation like Corona as the cash position is much better.

> Regarding the first problem, 6 months should be enough to decide whether the new hire fits or not.

Initially, possibly, but most contracts aren't fixed term. And I've seen way too many people that essentially do nothing, they know it, their manager knows it, but there's no way to get rid of them other than promoting them or waiting for them to retire. So they sit around and wait for retirement.

It's like if your cell phone contract was a 10-year-contract. Very few people want that.

> Employers complaining about "firing is so hard in Germany" is a little bit lazy if you ask me. Don't over hire to beginn with [...]

They're just cutting one word out and follow that advise: Don't hire. Of course, it's not black and white, but if you get strong penalties (aka "I can't get rid of them") for over-hiring, you will make sure that you stay far below the over-hiring threshold.

> If it's hard to get rid of somebody, you will make extra extra extra sure that they are a very good fit.

Perhaps I'm in the (American) minority but that seems like a win/win to me. As an employer I'd much rather take a bit more time to find the right person and as an employee I'd gladly exchange a slightly slower market for additional job security/a safety net if things don't work out.

As an employee, the slower market might mean that you don't get a job, because you're more of a long-term risk.

I'm by no means arguing that hire and fire is the best approach, but it makes the market more flexible. So even if you lose your job (less job security), you'll have less trouble finding a new one (less risk).

It depends how valuable you are in the labor market. If you are valuable, then you’ll want to be able to gamble a bit and maximize earnings. If you’re not, you’ll want security.