It sounds like one of those situations where workers' rights backfire by making it so onerous to hire and fire them that it's safer not too, just in case you end up with a dud, or a role evaporates. It's a tricky balance and I don't claim to know where the sweet spot is in terms of worker's vs. employer's rights, but we may have overshot.
Similarly, I see a problem wrt tenants' rights where it becomes so difficult to evict a tenant that no landlord will take a risk on someone who appears to be even slightly risky. It ends up with hordes of unhoused people at the bottom of the "desirable tenant" spectrum getting bumped onto the street in affluent cities, because no landlord will take a chance on the middle, let alone the bottom. Again, obviously tenants need rights, but it seems like many jurisdictions have overshot the sweet spot.
These things are so complex and have so many facets. I'm not confident that excessive tenants' rights are truly a problem, but I it's possible.
Similarly, I see a problem wrt tenants' rights where it becomes so difficult to evict a tenant that no landlord will take a risk on someone who appears to be even slightly risky. It ends up with hordes of unhoused people at the bottom of the "desirable tenant" spectrum getting bumped onto the street in affluent cities, because no landlord will take a chance on the middle, let alone the bottom. Again, obviously tenants need rights, but it seems like many jurisdictions have overshot the sweet spot.
These things are so complex and have so many facets. I'm not confident that excessive tenants' rights are truly a problem, but I it's possible.