Learn Hardcore Finnish: Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti. - If a company fires an employee, that should always be negotiated honestly.

Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.

If a company fires an employee, that should always be negotiated honestly.

Breakdown of Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.

What is the role of jos here, and why is irtisanoo in the present tense instead of some conditional form?

Jos means if and introduces a conditional clause (an if-clause).

In Finnish, it is normal to use the present tense in the jos‑clause and the conditional in the main clause:

Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.
If a company fires an employee, that should always be negotiated honestly.

Pattern:

jos
- present tense → main clause with conditional (here: pitäisi).

You would not say jos yritys irtisanoisi työntekijän, siitä pitäisi… in this kind of general rule sentence. That sounds more hypothetical/specific. Here, we are talking about a general principle: whenever a company fires someone, X should happen.

What exactly does yritys mean here, and why is it in this form?

Yritys can mean:

company, business
attempt, try

In this sentence it clearly means a company, because of the context irtisanoo työntekijän (fires an employee), which fits companies, not attempts.

The form yritys is the nominative singular, used for the subject of the clause:

yritys irtisanoo = the company fires

What does irtisanoa mean, and how is it used grammatically?

Irtisanoa means to dismiss / fire / terminate the employment of.

It is a transitive verb (it takes a direct object).
Basic structure: irtisanoa + object (person)

In our sentence:

yritys = subject
irtisanoo = 3rd person singular (he/she/it fires)
työntekijän = object (the person fired)

So: yritys irtisanoo työntekijän = the company fires an employee.

Conjugation example (present tense):

minä irtisanon – I fire
sinä irtisanot – you fire
hän / se irtisanoo – he/she/it fires
me irtisanomme – we fire
te irtisanoitte – you (pl) fire
he irtisanovat – they fire

Why is it työntekijän and not työntekijä or työntekijää? What case is this?

Työntekijän is in the genitive form, and here it functions as a total object (often also called the “genitive object” in modern descriptions).

Rough rule of thumb:

A whole, completed, definite object = genitive form (here: työntekijän)
A partial/ongoing/indefinite object = partitive form (would be työntekijää, not used here)

Firing someone is a complete, one-time act affecting the whole person’s employment, so the object is total, and you use the genitive:

yritys irtisanoo työntekijän – the company fires the (whole) employee

So työntekijän shows that the employee is the whole completed target of the action.

What does siitä refer to, and why is that pronoun used?

Siitä is the elative form (out-of-case) of se (“it / that”).

Here, siitä refers back to the entire situation or action in the preceding clause:

The company firing the employee → that matter / that action = siitä

So it means roughly about that / about it:

siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti
≈ there should always be honest negotiation about it

Using siitä instead of repeating the whole phrase makes the sentence more natural and avoids repetition. In more explicit language, you could also say:

Siitä irtisanomisesta pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.
(One should always negotiate honestly about that dismissal.)

Why is pitäisi used instead of pitää? What nuance does it add?

Pitää in this kind of structure expresses obligation / necessity (like “must / have to”).

The conditional form pitäisi softens it to mean should / ought to rather than strict “must”:

Siitä pitää neuvotella. – One must / has to negotiate about that.
Siitä pitäisi neuvotella. – One should / ought to negotiate about that.

So pitäisi adds:

softness / recommendation
a sense of moral or normative obligation rather than a hard requirement

In this sentence, it presents a general ethical or procedural guideline: it should always be negotiated honestly.

Why is there no explicit subject in siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti? Who is doing the negotiating?

This is an impersonal or passive-like construction.

There is no explicit subject like yrityksen (of the company) or heidän (they).
The structure is: [complement] + pitäisi + neuvotella

This expresses something like English “there should be negotiation” or “one should negotiate”. It’s a general statement, not aimed at any named person:

siitä pitäisi neuvotella
≈ there should be negotiation about it
≈ people / the parties should negotiate about it

If you wanted to make the subject explicit, you could say:

Yrityksen ja työntekijän pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.
The company and the employee should always negotiate honestly.

Why does neuvotella take siitä (elative) and not another case?

The verb neuvotella (to negotiate, to discuss) typically takes its topic in the elative case:

neuvotella jostakin / siitä – to negotiate about something / about it

So:

neuvotella siitä = negotiate about it
neuvotella asiasta = negotiate about the matter

Other examples with elative:

Puhumme siitä huomenna. – We will talk about it tomorrow.
Keskustelimme asiasta pitkään. – We discussed the matter for a long time.

So siitä neuvotella is required by the verb’s argument structure: neuvotella + elative.

Can the word order in siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti be changed?

Yes, Finnish word order is relatively flexible, and different orders can slightly change emphasis:

Siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.
(neutral; about that is the topic)
Aina pitäisi neuvotella siitä rehellisesti.
(emphasis on always)
Rehellisesti siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella.
(emphasis on honestly)

All are grammatically correct. The original order highlights siitä (about that) as the main topic of the sentence.

What is the role of aina and rehellisesti, and is their placement fixed?

aina = always (frequency adverb)
rehellisesti = honestly (adverb from adjective rehellinen = honest)

In the original:

siitä (about that)
pitäisi (should)
aina (always)
neuvotella (negotiate)
rehellisesti (honestly)

Typical positions:

aina usually appears near the verb: pitäisi aina neuvotella
rehellisesti often follows the verb phrase, but can be moved earlier for emphasis.

Examples:

Siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.
Siitä pitäisi neuvotella aina rehellisesti.

Both are fine; the difference is very small and mostly about rhythm/emphasis.

Could the sentence be rephrased with asiasta instead of siitä? Would the meaning change?

Yes, a very natural alternative is:

Jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän, asiasta pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti.

Here asiasta = about the matter / about this issue.

Difference:

siitä: refers more directly back to the specific event just mentioned (that firing).
asiasta: slightly more abstract (about the matter / about the issue).

In practice, the meaning is almost the same, and both are very natural in this context.

Can we swap the clauses and say: Siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti, jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän?

Yes, you can:

Siitä pitäisi aina neuvotella rehellisesti, jos yritys irtisanoo työntekijän.

Finnish allows both orders:

Jos X, Y.
Y, jos X.

Swapping them doesn’t change the basic meaning. The choice is mostly about style and focus. The original form (Jos yritys irtisanoo…) puts the condition in front and sounds like a general rule or principle.