You're welcome to disagree, I don't mind some competition.
> Just proof hire them for 6 months to a year.
As is common with most quickly tossed out "tiny fixes" to Socialist policies of excessive regulation, this makes the whole thing more complex and doesn't really solve the full problem for either workers or companies the way true free markets do. The only real "just" is just stop meddling with what everyone else does, let workers quit and companies fire whenever they want to.
> Your argument doesn't hold for someone that has worked for 10 years. If they were a bad hire; it's on you at that point.
Yes it does. It's not necessarily only that they're a bad hire. They could have the wrong skills or temperament or something for where the company needs to go, or the company could need to shut down a whole department or something. I don't know, the world has infinite complexity and possibility. I'm not smart enough to come up with everything anyone could ever want to do, and frankly, neither are you or anyone else.
> Easier planning life and reduce work anxiety for employees.
That sounds like a personal problem. I don't care to reshape national policy to cater to someone's alleged anxiety.
> It encourage companies to invest and train their existing employees since they're hard to get rid off.
Eh maybe, but many companies still do that now because good people are still hard to find. That's the better and more reliable way to do all of these things.
> It makes employees less scared to speak up or discuss problems.
Plenty already do that, I don't think it's much of a point. It's not really proven any more than the counter-statement that it makes employees more willing to slack off.
> It makes companies more cautious about reckless hiring if they're not sure about their economics.
That's exactly my point. I think it's good to let them "recklessly" hire if they think they can afford it. Some will get things right and grow huge, other will fail and those workers will be able to find new jobs more easily.
> Allows older workers to remain productive for longer, reducing the burden on the pension or unemployment system from people 55+ having a hard time finding new work for few years before retirement.
"Allow" how? They can already do that fine. Many companies value the experience of older workers just fine without the Government forcing them to do things. And I'd rather they have a comfortable retirement already set up from a robust investment market, possibly with a 401k or something like that. I don't want them to be dependent on either one company or the Government.
And intentionally saving this for last along with the end:
> If they're is such a massive difference we would see alot less globally competetive European companies.
> Finally, i must ask what the societal purpose of jobs and companies are. From a pure "numbers go up", there is a cost to worker protection. But id argue the society as a whole benefit much more from it than having a multinational IT company on the stock market. There is a balance to these things ofourse, but dismissing it outright is not fair.
"much less competitive European companies" is exactly what I do see, and you are also arguing that that's a good thing. Europe seems to have very little in the way of invention or growth pretty much since WWII. They haven't invented much new, and most of what they have invented has been eclipsed by more aggressive and nimble American companies. The European economy is still mostly dominated by the same large companies mostly doing the same things they've always done, sometimes adopting new technology long after American companies led the way.
I'm not dismissing anything outright. I've carefully observed the results of both styles of economy and I prefer freer markets. I like helping lead the way towards creating awesome things thanks to everyone's free will. It's not always perfect, but the market usually fixes things faster and better than half-baked Government policies.
