State of the Shelanman

It would seem to me, however, that if I were a business owner considering hiring someone, but knew that if I didn't like their work, or just their personality, that I would have to jump through a strenuous series of hoops to un-hire them, I'd probably try very hard to continue operating without bringing anybody new (and thus unproven) aboard. When hiring a new pwerson becomes a risk, it's tempting not to hire at all. This is worse among young workers who may not have significant experience under their belt -- and thus no laundry-list of references proving their capability and willingness to work.

So, as an under-twenty-sixer myself, I'd be in favor of lowering the risk involved in hiring young workers, even at the expense of "job security."

Why? Because I know that I'm a valuable asset to my employer — and would never take a job otherwise &mdash so I'm not afraid of being fired (in fact, I live in a state where you can be fired for any reason — or no reason &mdash and yet I've held my current position for over four years!). I'd want to encourage potential employers to "take a chance" on me by lowering the risk. This way, they might hire me figuring if I didn't work out, they could always send me on my way.

If you make firing hard, you make hiring dangerous, and thus rare. The young workers in Paris should be protesting against the misguided social policy that is the direct cause of the outlandish 20% unemployment rate, rather than protesting a law that will, in all probability, result in more young workers being able to find higher-paying jobs and decreasing unemployment among young workers.

— The Shelanman