Mandriva Linux Was Allegedly Brought Down By Employee Lawsuits

[steveriley]

I don't know about France

My employer just went through a round of layoffs. One person who got RIFed lives in Paris. Apparently, in France, a business can't lay someone off just for economic reasons. If it does, then the person can sue for lots of compensation. In my employer's case, they worked out a deal with the dude for a super nice severance in exchange for a promise not to sue, and then he just resigned.

[Chaz]

When a company runs out of cash a lot of CEOs get it into their heads that they're entitled to withhold their employees' pay "for the good of the company". "Sure we've been declining for five years, but if we could do without those pesky payroll expenses for 3 months I'm sure I can turn this company around! It will be better for everyone in the long run!"

No, Boss Man, that's not how it works. Pay your employees' wages, pay their benefits. Pay it on time every time or you're in default. Pay it on time or you're breaking the law and the government will shut your ass down. And they're completely right to do so, because (aside from breaking the law) if you can't pay your employees now then odds are you never will.

[GreatEmerald]

(Most? Some?) European countries have strict rules for layoffs.

I don't know about France, but for example in Germany, you can't just give 2 weeks notice and that's it. There must be a reason (and that reason must be allowed by law), and the employer has to follow some rules when deciding which employee gets laid off. The social background must be taken into account for example. It's not uncommon to sue an employer after getting laid off, and then the employer might be forced to re-hire you (and pay in retrospect), or you get some compensation for the illegal layoff.

Some. France included (in fact their laws are quite notorious about that, same with room rental laws, the employer/renter has pretty much no rights). See what steveriley said.

Lithuania is not included. Here you can fire anyone at pretty much any time. And it works out well, because on one hand employees have to make sure they do well in their jobs, and on the other hand there aren't many workers available for most jobs, so employers rarely want to fire anyone to begin with.

When a company runs out of cash a lot of CEOs get it into their heads that they're entitled to withhold their employees' pay "for the good of the company". "Sure we've been declining for five years, but if we could do without those pesky payroll expenses for 3 months I'm sure I can turn this company around! It will be better for everyone in the long run!"

No, Boss Man, that's not how it works. Pay your employees' wages, pay their benefits. Pay it on time every time or you're in default. Pay it on time or you're breaking the law and the government will shut your ass down. And they're completely right to do so, because (aside from breaking the law) if you can't pay your employees now then odds are you never will.

Oh man, people like this fail to understand that this has nothing to do with wages, but rather with socialistic laws.

[joh22n]

People deserve their salary, they have to eat, pay bills etc. If a company cannot pay, it shouldn't expect people to work out of charity, it doesn't work that way.

When you are working there, then of course you should get your salary. But in this case the company got sued since the services of some employees were no longer needed (for whatever the reason; lack of money is a very valid reason; nobody expected them to work "out of charity" like you said). Which is quite insane. Imagine if you no longer want to watch TV and cancel the service and the service provider will sue you for it... same thing.

[Chaz]

Some. France included (in fact their laws are quite notorious about that, same with room rental laws, the employer/renter has pretty much no rights). See what steveriley said.

Lithuania is not included. Here you can fire anyone at pretty much any time. And it works out well, because on one hand employees have to make sure they do well in their jobs, and on the other hand there aren't many workers available for most jobs, so employers rarely want to fire anyone to begin with.



Oh man, people like this fail to understand that this has nothing to do with wages, but rather with socialistic laws.

Um, prove it?

As in, please provide one single piece of evidence that Mandriva had any problem whatsoever caused by "socialistic laws". And if you can't do that, could you please go away?

[AJenbo]

(Most? Some?) European countries have strict rules for layoffs.

I don't know about France, but for example in Germany, you can't just give 2 weeks notice

In Denmark you have to give 3 full months notice (you can quit with 1 full month notice, and no reason), and provide the reason for the termination. A valid reason would be downsizing (Illigal reason could be peternaty leave, any thing discriminatory, sickness and a few other things).

[s3rg3]

Here is a link about it in french:

http://droit-finances.commentcamarche.net/contents/590-le-licenciement-economique-la-procedure

[GreatEmerald]

Um, prove it?

As in, please provide one single piece of evidence that Mandriva had any problem whatsoever caused by "socialistic laws". And if you can't do that, could you please go away?

How about reading the article. "Croset blames the legal system in France for Mandriva's demise. That's because the laid-off workers sued the company". Keywords "legal system" and "laid-off", not "unpaid".

[duby229]

I think it can all be chalked up to the french language. It makes it absurdly difficult to consider technical problems and so they avoid doing that. The end result is that french speaking people don't understand underlying problems. And even refuse to recognize problems. It's inherent to the language. They can't help it, that's how they were taught since toddlers.

[Chaz]

How about reading the article. "Croset blames the legal system in France for Mandriva's demise. That's because the laid-off workers sued the company". Keywords "legal system" and "laid-off", not "unpaid".

You are completely ignoring my point. I have to assume you are doing it deliberately. As I said earlier, the fact that this dude made a vague complaint about "the legal system" proves nothing. He refuses to give any detail whatsoever. He refuses to say specifically what the French legal system is doing that he considers incorrect. He won't say what the claims against him even are, and the reporter didn't ask anyone else for their side of the story. Honestly there is so little info that it was inappropriate to even publish the article. Generally when someone gets sued, that person thinks they shouldn't be getting sued even if everyone else thinks they are in the wrong. You can't assume this dude's right. He's trying to make excuses for his failure. The article provides no genuine evidence to support your claim that the French legal system caused an unjustified burden and you have not found any evidence elsewhere.

There could be a very legitimate reason for these workers suing, but you assume there is not. You reflexively blame "socialism" because apparently you are ideologically opposed to socialism. You do this even without evidence of any thing "socialist" being done, much less causing a problem. That proves that you are unable to reason logically and unable to reason morally. You are blinded by your prejudices.

I will not argue with you any more. You are either hopelessly blind or arguing in bad faith. Goodbye.