> it’s downright illegal according to Colorado labor laws.

Interesting, that's the first time I hear of a US law being better for employee protection than here in Germany. Do they have limited sick days? That could explain it, as they are obviously unlimited here, but doctor's notes are commonly required after 0-1 days.

It's not a US law, it's a state law. And there are plenty of laws throughout the union that are "better" (more favorable to the employee) than in various places in the EU. California, for instance, has pretty strict employee/tenant protections; along with Oregon, New York, etc. There are also others that are substantially worse (Mississippi, Alabama, etc).

You can't compare US Federal law to German Federal law (in these cases), as the Federal government is significantly and substantively hands off to labor concerns (beyond the bare minimum). You would have to compare specific state statutes to Bundesrat+Bundesland statutes.

I meant "the first time I hear" quite literally, I know there are state laws and those can be quite different, I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees

There was no doubt to the literality of your statement. I was simply highlighting your misplaced assumptions and how they can be addressed/corrected in the future.

There was no misplaced assumption.

Sounds like you assume Germany will be better for employee protections in all ways compared to America.

No, again, I simply hadn't heard of an example. I knew there was the chance, after all some states have legal abortion which Germany still does not (it's almost defacto legal, but only almost) to take another example.

You’re literally describing an assumption. You didn’t know of an exact example, so you believed something that isn’t necessarily true.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I believed such a thing.

> I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees; ergo I assumed there wasn't, leading to my surprise at hearing otherwise.

Here is an expanded version of your quote that highlights the assumption.

That does highlight your assumption, not mine, considering I never said anything like that.

If you say so.

> It's not a US law, it's a state law.

In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ, because the US is a nation and the EU is not.

Therefore it’s my opinion that in order for something to be a “US law”, it’s enough that it’s a law anywhere in the US. I think laws differing across the US is already implied which is why care is taken to label something a “federal” law or crime when it does not.

In the EU however, any law that semantically fits into what could be called an “EU law” is a top-down mandate due to the fact that the EU is not a nation but a group of nations, so calling for example a law that exclusively exists in Poland an “EU law” becomes nonsensical when it didn’t even originate from the EU organization. The US is (at least not primarily) just an “organization of states” regardless what one might want to believe from reading the constitution. It’s very much a monolithic nation state in a way that the EU is not and possibly never will be.

I think what makes your definition confusing or misleading is the concept of dual sovereignty.

Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope.

An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.

I wasn't comparing US law to EU law. I said take a random labor law and state. Given that law, there are various EU nations the the US' would "surpass" (have more citizen/personal protections) and there are some it would "lose" against (more protections for corporations/big brother).

Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective.

Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany.

I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.

Germany has the legal concept of Mitbestimmung [1] and Betriebsverfassungsgesetz legislation [2]

US Laws = European common sense. You did stick us with the protestants after all :-)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Constitution_Act

We have 3 days without notice, it is a very big company, however, so maybe an outliner.

I know I'm a spoiled engineer but if a company ever required a doctor's note I'd just come to work sick, walk into my boss's office and cough as hard as I could directly in their face.

Actually, I'd just not take that job.

Trust is great, but society consists of many complex interlocking systems, so at least some level of verification and attestation is needed.

Besides: Doing that knowingly and intentionally would likely qualify as assault (besides being a morally shitty thing to do).

If you don't trust me don't hire me. I could cause all kinds of issues for your company. I won't because I'm trustworthy. If you treat me as untrustworthy by not trusting that I'm sick when I say I'm stick then you don't trust me. If you don't trust me I'm not working for you.

It's extremely common in Germany, it's a form letter, and you get two versions, one for yourself with details, one for your employer which lacks details, especially the reason.

If they're unionized, why don't they all walk out now, in solidarity after a memo like that? I mean, it's the perfect time--You can practically see management's desperation leaping out of the screen. WTF is with that? Speak a magical incantation and suddenly labor rules don't matter? "I declare Double Secret Operation Emergency! Due to the emergency that we caused and we magically invoked, here's how we're going to beat you..."