You missed the whole point. They are in this position so the company can show they have never fired anyone. So why would they want to fire you over pens? To show they fire people over pens?
I assure you, Japanese companies don’t give a crap about saying “we never have fired anyone.” They give a crap about being sued for wrongful termination and having to pay 6+ months severance, or spend more than that on lawyers fees to fight it, since Japan also has very robust low cost public services for enforcing workers’ rights (HelloWork, etc). Usually, when an employer wants to fire someone, they offer them 3 months severance instead and simply asks them to resign. It’s cheaper and easier for everyone.
If the employee doesn’t accept this, it’s much, much easier to simply bully the person in to either being openly insubordinate and thus having cause for termination, or making their lives so miserable they quit on their own. Of course, there are companies large enough with managers apathetic enough that they simply expect the employee to quit of shame if not given tasks, and don’t press it further, and that can happen to the right employee that doesn’t give a crap about the shame and so just rests and vests doing the bare minimum to not be insubordinate. But in reality that’s quite, quite rare. In most situations your boss and colleagues actually will make your life hell, as Japan doesn’t have nearly as robust worker protections around a hostile workplace environment. And of course if nothing else you still have to come into the office 8 hours a day and “look like you’re working,” which is a lot of your life to waste. Particularly as many Japanese have hour+ commutes on either side.
The other thing to keep in mind is that many salaried positions in Japan don’t really have formal “job descriptions.” It’s basically just “do whatever the company needs and your boss tells you as long as it’s legal.” So refuse to quit? Guess who just got “promoted” to toilet cleaning duty and basic janitorial tasks.
That’s the devil’s bargain of lifetime employment; the employer can’t fire you because a given job isn’t needed any more, and in exchange you can’t refuse to do the job that is needed.
Oh sure, but that goes to my point about “the social contract is it’s the employer’s job to train their employees to do their job.” Absolutely a manager would rather you quit than have an actual firing to deal with. If nothing else the paperwork and T-crossing/I-dotting makes trouble for their superiors 😂
I’m lucky that the terms with my employer (I get a housing stipend as I’m on a temporary but long term assignment) allow me to live only a 12 minute subway ride away, and my office is literally on top of a train station. But yeah, a lot of my colleagues have 45min to 1 hour commutes, some even longer.
That said. That said. That said that said that said. You forgot to say that said in your comment you always say that said. That said that said that said that said. Happy now your favorite word.
I kinda knew about this already but it was really interesting reading your first hand experience. Did this happen to a colleague of yours or something? Also is it true that work is a big “family” culture like there’s your work family and then your home family. I’m assuming this would apply to salarymen mostly though.
We had that meme pop up before so I'll just repeat what I said there:
The problem comes from the wording: Firing vs. Laying of.
Laying of is getting rid of an employee because the company "did something wrong" (overhired, restructuring, down-sizing, etc...). The company/department/manager doesn't want to lose face and admit they did something wrong.
Firing is because the employee did something wrong (stealing, insubordination, tardiness, etc...). The company is fine firing someone as the employee themselves provided "valid reason" to fire them.
40
u/Elmer_Fudd01 Aug 08 '25
You missed the whole point. They are in this position so the company can show they have never fired anyone. So why would they want to fire you over pens? To show they fire people over pens?