You're wrong for doing what's best for you, instead of what's best for an unreasonable employer such as this author. At least, according to this author, that is.
Also, notice that the "Japanese Salaryman" model is not only completely unworkable for high productivity, highly creative projects such as tech startups - it doesn't really apply here. That model, and all models like it in Europe and elsewhere, has two sides - the employee doesn't leave, and the company doesn't (easily) let him go. Needless to say, nobody in his right mind would suggest implementing the latter part, least of all the author who comically insists on the former part.
In other words, what we have is an employer who insists on applying half of a completely irrelevant model to his particular line of business.
The local model (based on the European one) makes it very hard on the employer to fire a worker... it's more like it costs a lot for a company to let him go than that it doesn't want to.
It also makes job switching harder, for both sides - you lose all the benefits when you switch - for the first 3 months, you are on "trial" and can be fired at will, after that you lose the extra free days (we get 1 extra day of vacation every 4 years with the same company), and the firing money the company has to pay doubles every year (up to a maximum)
Also, notice that the "Japanese Salaryman" model is not only completely unworkable for high productivity, highly creative projects such as tech startups - it doesn't really apply here. That model, and all models like it in Europe and elsewhere, has two sides - the employee doesn't leave, and the company doesn't (easily) let him go. Needless to say, nobody in his right mind would suggest implementing the latter part, least of all the author who comically insists on the former part.
In other words, what we have is an employer who insists on applying half of a completely irrelevant model to his particular line of business.