> Perhaps it's a contributing factor to the long stagnation of the Italian economy
Perhaps.
But doesn't explain stagnation in Japanese economy where there are no Italian unions.
Or why France did much better despite having even stronger work protections laws than Italy and wilder strikes (the gilet jaunes for example) or those happened last year against the pension reform where the workers of public transportation went on strike - for weeks - without even announcing it.
Even countries like Germany, Singapore, Switzerland and Finland are doing worse than Pakistan in the GDP growth race.
My point was than if there are stronger work protection laws somewhere else and the laws of your country are weaker, they are not very strong, they are moderately strong.
Because in my country you can't be fired for using the work email for that.
Communicating with other workers using their work email is absolutely allowed, courts ruled about it several times [1].
I usually receive trade unions (there are several of them) communications on my work email from the unions' work email, because they have been authorized by the company to send them.
In this case she wrote directly to workers using work email, but having no union or labor protection laws it doesn't make any difference whether she could or couldn't, she could be fired anyway without having to provide any reason.
In countries where there are strong laws protecting workers she would have written to the union members and they would have done the same thing: write directly to the workers.
Of course she did it at Google so it is different, but here the strict procedures to call a strike are only necessary if a public service that requires continuity risk to be interrupted, otherwise unions are only required to alert the company that the strike is going to happen, but have no requirement whatsoever on how to organise it.
Which sound logical to me,strong protection means IMO freedom to collectively counter the actions of the company, if that's not allowed the protection is not strong.
[1] Court of Catania, Labor Section, February 2, 2009 "The RSU employee can send trade union communications by e-mail to the employees of the company during their working hours and to their company e-mail address using his personal e-mail address"
You can as an employer walk away whenever you want, you just don't get the salary for the difference between the notice and when you left.
Example: if you have to give 30 days notice (very common in Italy) and leave on the spot, after your resignation have been accepted, you have to give the company the equivalent of 30 days of pay.
Which is exactly the money they should give you aniway if you stayed for the entire notice time.
But usually the employer and company find an agreement before coming to that.
> they could claim wrongful termination in this scenario and likely be awarded the pay they would have received for the missing notice period.
Correct.
That's what happens in Italy for example and I believe in large parts of Europe (I know for sure France, Germany, Sweden and Spain)
The missing pay is granted anyway, but with a wrongful termination the employer will most likely obtain a fair compensation.
A couple decades ago I was awarded a year of salary + the 3 months of notice we agreed upon when I was hired, for a wrongful termination after an acquisition.
Perhaps.
But doesn't explain stagnation in Japanese economy where there are no Italian unions.
Or why France did much better despite having even stronger work protections laws than Italy and wilder strikes (the gilet jaunes for example) or those happened last year against the pension reform where the workers of public transportation went on strike - for weeks - without even announcing it.
Even countries like Germany, Singapore, Switzerland and Finland are doing worse than Pakistan in the GDP growth race.
My point was than if there are stronger work protection laws somewhere else and the laws of your country are weaker, they are not very strong, they are moderately strong.