this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
24 points (81.6% liked)
World News
31475 readers
864 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand this. I am totally happy for the guy and he obviously deserves it. It's a total dick move to fire someone so close to their retirement but the law is still very confusing.
His contracts totaled 8 years which would make him eligible for the conversion but the article says he was just short of the 5 years. Does the law only considered contracts signed after the law passed? If so isn't the entire point of the 5 year duration that employers can terminate the contract just before that time?
Do you manually have to apply to convert the contract to indefinitely after 5 years and if you don't you don't get the benefits? In which case again, why did he receive the "special" treatment?
I have way more questions than answers after reading the article.
He was already 2 years in to a 3 year contract when the 5 year law came into effect. Renewed for 3 more = 3 + 1, then 1 month shy of 2 more = <5+1. I believe the reason is his total employed period actually exceeded 5 years if you consider the portion that partially overlapped at the start of the law.