Learn Hardcore Finnish: Esimies päätti palkata uuden harjoittelijan, vaikka ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt. - The supervisor decided to hire a new trainee, even though it was not necessary to hire anyone right now.

Esimies literally means “superior” (the person who is above you in the hierarchy). In this context it’s best translated as manager, supervisor, or boss, depending on the workplace.

A few points:

It is not grammatically gendered; it can refer to a man or a woman.
Colloquial pomo is closer to “boss” in a casual tone.
In normal running text it’s written esimies (lowercase); here it’s capitalized only because it starts the sentence.

What tense is päätti, and how does it compare to English?

Päätti is the imperfect (past tense) of päättää (“to decide”).

Esimies päätti = “The manager decided.”
It usually corresponds to English simple past (“decided”), not to “has decided.”
Finnish doesn’t distinguish between “decided” and “has decided” in the same way English does; context covers that nuance.

Why is it päätti palkata, with palkata in this form?

In Finnish, many verbs take another verb in the basic infinitive (the dictionary form) as a complement.

päättää tehdä jotain = “to decide to do something”
So: päätti palkata = “decided to hire”

Palkata is the basic infinitive of palkata “to hire.”
You don’t add endings here (like palkkaamaan) after päättää in this meaning; päättää + basic infinitive is the normal pattern.

Why is it uuden harjoittelijan and not just uusi harjoittelija?

Uuden harjoittelijan is in the genitive-accusative form because it is a total object of a completed action in the past.

Breakdown:

uusi harjoittelija = “a new trainee” (nominative)
uuden harjoittelijan = the same phrase in genitive

In this sentence:

The manager fully carries out the act of hiring one specific new trainee.
A singular, total object of a finished action in the past typically appears in the genitive (harjoittelijan), and adjectives agree (uuden).

Compare:

Esimies palkkaa uuden harjoittelijan. – “The manager hires / is hiring a new trainee.” (present)
Esimies palkkasi uuden harjoittelijan. – “The manager hired a new trainee.” (imperfect; same object form as in your sentence)

Could the object be in some other case, like harjoittelijaa?

Yes, but the meaning changes:

palkata uuden harjoittelijan (genitive)
→ One specific trainee, action seen as complete / total.
palkata harjoittelijaa (partitive)
→ Typically suggests the hiring is ongoing, incomplete, or indefinite.
E.g. Esimies oli palkkaamassa harjoittelijaa. = “The manager was in the process of hiring a trainee.”

In your sentence, the idea is a clear, completed decision to hire one new trainee, so uuden harjoittelijan is natural.

What does vaikka do here? Is it the same as “even though”?

Yes. Vaikka introduces a concessive clause: something that is true but contrasts with the main clause.

Esimies päätti palkata uuden harjoittelijan, vaikka …
= “The manager decided to hire a new trainee, even though / although …”

So vaikka ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt means “even though it wasn’t necessary to hire anyone right now.”

Why is there a comma before vaikka?

Finnish typically places a comma before most subordinate clauses, including those introduced by vaikka.

Main clause: Esimies päätti palkata uuden harjoittelijan
Subordinate clause: vaikka ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt

The comma marks the boundary between the main clause and the vaikka-clause, similar to how English often uses a comma before “although/even though” in this position.

What does the structure ketään ei ollut pakko palkata literally mean?

Literally, it’s something like:

ketään – “anyone, anybody” (in the partitive)
ei ollut – “was not”
pakko – “compulsion, obligation; must”
palkata – “to hire”

Put together more literally:
“Anyone it-was-not a must to hire” → “It wasn’t necessary to hire anyone.”

Key points:

pakko is a noun meaning “compulsion/obligation” but is used in a fixed pattern to express necessity:
- On pakko tehdä = “(One) must do / It is necessary to do”
- Ei ollut pakko tehdä = “It was not necessary to do / didn’t have to do”
The construction is impersonal: there’s no explicit “it” as a subject in Finnish.

Why is it ketään and not kukaan?

Kukaan and ketään are forms of the same pronoun “anyone / no one,” but they’re used differently:

kukaan = nominative form, used mainly in positive questions or with certain structures:
- Onko täällä kukaan? – “Is anyone here?”
ketään = partitive form, and in practice it appears:
- in negative sentences, and
- after many verbs where the object becomes partitive.

In negative clauses, Finnish usually switches to the partitive form:

En näe ketään. – “I don’t see anyone.”
Ketään ei ollut pakko palkata. – “It wasn’t necessary to hire anyone.”

So ketään is required here because of the negation (ei).

Is the word order ketään ei ollut pakko palkata fixed, or can it be changed?

The order is flexible, but word order affects emphasis and naturalness.

Possible variants:

Ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt.
(Your sentence; neutral, slightly emphasizing ketään.)
Ei ollut pakko palkata ketään juuri nyt.
Also very natural; many speakers might say it this way. It emphasizes the whole idea of “no obligation to hire anyone.”

All of these are grammatical:

Ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt.
Ei ollut pakko palkata ketään juuri nyt.
Juuri nyt ei ollut pakko palkata ketään.

Finnish allows reordering for focus, but in writing you will most often see one of the first two.

Why does the verb palkata appear twice? Is that normal?

Yes, it’s normal, and the two instances serve different functions:

päätti palkata uuden harjoittelijan
- palkata here is the actual action decided on: to hire a new trainee.
ketään ei ollut pakko palkata juuri nyt
- palkata here is part of the necessity expression with pakko:
  (ei ollut pakko) palkata = “(it) was not necessary to hire.”

It’s quite natural in Finnish for the same verb to occur in both the main clause and a subordinate clause, even if English might avoid repetition with pronouns or different wording.

What nuance does juuri nyt add, compared to just nyt?

nyt = “now”
juuri nyt = “right now / at this very moment / at this particular time”

So:

ei ollut pakko palkata ketään nyt – “it wasn’t necessary to hire anyone now”
ei ollut pakko palkata ketään juuri nyt – “it wasn’t necessary to hire anyone right now, at this specific moment (even if it might be necessary later)”

Juuri narrows the time reference and often adds a sense of “exactly / specifically / just”.