# "At Will" employment. The French workers' reaction vs. Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727 "2005-10-04T13:39:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/161 "2005-10-07T19:30:31Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Yes, it is societie’s problem. For example, there are many Third World countries where little or no safety net exists for the poor. If you cannot find a job, you don’t eat. Very often in those countries, the wealthy have to live in walled enclaves. They must worry constantly about being kidnapped, or having their children kidnapped, by poor people trying to survive (or, more accurately, by the organized gangs that tend to arise under such circumstances. This is not like in the US where we have the occasional sicko kidnapping kids – in poor countries like Mexico, Brazil, etc., or where the social safety net has been ruptured like Iraq, kidnapping is a major undergound industry. Well, you know, I was born in Mexico…I’m kind of aware of the kidnapping problem that the rich have. Its a completely different problem than here in the US though so I’m not sure where you are going with that. The point though is we HAVE a safety net and no one is proposing getting rid of it. You seem to be proposing that not only should we have a safety net but we should make sure ole Joe has a lock on his job too…oh, and that he’s happy and all. I don’t see how thats societies problem. Societies problem ends at making sure Joe doesn’t starve (and only because we MAKE that our problem). We are doing that already, no? [QUOTEYou let a lot of those sparrows fall, sooner or later, you’re gonna have a sparrow problem.] Maybe the prospect of having to have a well-developed social safety net for displaced workers like Joe is so horrifying to you that it would be infinitely preferable to have to worry about your children being kidnapped every day. Seems to me the one would be infinitely preferable to the other. [/QUOTE] Um, no…not unless you pre-suppose not only that we are getting completely rid of the safety net we already have, but that the average standard of living is going to plumet to that in my home country…oh, and that our unemployment is going to go into double digit numbers. Where are these hordes of poor going to come from that are starving and rampaging in the streets Evil? I know you think things are bad in the US but really…you need to get a grip. Ask your brother in law in Nigeria what REAL poverty and a REAL fucked up situation is like. [QUOTEYou let a lot of those sparrows fall, sooner or later, you’re gonna have a sparrow problem.] You let a lot of those sparrows fall, sooner or later, you’re gonna have a sparrow problem. [/QUOTE] I disagree. WOrry about them to the extent you seem to be implying and we WILL have a problem. We’ll be in the same leaky and sinking boat as the more radical European nations you seem to idolize. -XT ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/162 "2005-10-07T19:38:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Partly for that reason I mentioned union contracts. A union strike can shut down a business just as surely as firing a person can endanger his financial position. An airline in my area (Northwest) recently filed for Chapter 11, for a number of reasons, including the extremely high cost of union wages, pensions, benefits and health care. Yes, but maybe the problem is rather that the workers in other “cheap” airlines don’t have good enough benefits. Of course, you can’t have your cake and eat it (or have the butter and the money of the butter, as we say), so better benefits for workers imply higher prices for plane tickets. It’s always a trade-off, and it depends on your priorities. (I’m going to let alone the related issue of globalization here because it gets huge threads on a regular basis) By the way, as you can guess, I’m all in favor of unions (and I’m myself a member of an union). Actually, I think they’re absolutely necessary in a healthy society, and I’m worried when I see them loosing ground (I mean when the number of persons unionized dwindle). Though I really don’t like the american system of unions, that I find undemocratic (being _obligated_ to join an union? And not even being able to choose which one?) and cumbersome (some posters explained to me how you could have your union deregistered and create another one instead, and the process seemed excedingly complicated and probably very difficult to actually implement). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/163 "2005-10-07T20:46:45Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Concerning productivity, I already mentionned in this thread (or maybe in another recent one) that actually though the productivity/year in the Us is significantly higher than in France, the productivity/hour is significantly higher in France than in the USA (for the record, the highest productivity/hour is to be found in Belgium). > So, this lower productity isn’t a consequence of inneficiency, but plainly a consequence of less hours worked. I could even argue that the french system is more efficient since the output is higher for an equal period of work. Sure, but greater productivity per hour isn’t a competitive advantage unless you are willing to work the same number of hours as me. Maybe you can get done in 35 hours what it take me 40, but if you are only willing (or are allowed) to work 35 hours a week and I work 45, then my company has greater productivity. > [@](#): > > Yes, but maybe the problem is rather that the workers in other “cheap” airlines don’t have good enough benefits. Of course, you can’t have your cake and eat it (or have the butter and the money of the butter, as we say), so better benefits for workers imply higher prices for plane tickets. It’s always a trade-off, and it depends on your priorities. > > (I’m going to let alone the related issue of globalization here because it gets huge threads on a regular basis). Sure - it depends on the point of view. But I don’t think you can disregard globalization in discussions like this, anymore than one airline can disregard what the other airlines are spending in benefits (an fuel cost, and everything else an airline needs to consider). Like it or not, many workers in many industries are competing with everyone else, and “everyone else” includes a lot of people who will work cheap in India or China or where ever. But what you say about trade-offs strikes close to the bone of the discussion. The major issue, ISTM, is who decides what the trade-off should be, and who pays for it. "Cause somebody always does. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/164 "2005-10-08T01:57:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure, but greater productivity per hour isn’t a competitive advantage unless you are willing to work the same number of hours as me. Maybe you can get done in 35 hours what it take me 40, but if you are only willing (or are allowed) to work 35 hours a week and I work 45, then my company has greater productivity. Err…No, it doesn’t. Except if I’m paid the same for 35 hrs than you are for 45 hours. Your company in this case has a greater production (or even the smae production if it hires more people), not a greater productivity. And producing more isn’t a competitive advantage. You just get a larger share of the market. If we both make identical widgets, and your work all day long while I work only half the time, your aren’t more competitive. You just make more money. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/165 "2005-10-08T05:08:50Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > You just make more money. I hate when that happens. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/166 "2005-10-08T08:11:10Z")
> [@John F](#): > > I guess it depends on who is measuring “adequately performing” Within the spirit of the OP, let’s balance the boss’ judgment/measurement of employees performance with the employees’ judgment/measurement of the boss’ performance. The dumbness/numbness is to succumb to the former and accept the threat of being fired at will, versus the latter, requiring a united front by the employees showing that the boss’ expectations are unreasonable and his/her vision of “adequate performance” is out of touch with reality. Harassment of employees by threatening them with the exercise of “At Will” option is akin to making them work harder for less, all under the slogan of “Improving Productivity”. Guess who is measuring “adequate performance” in the sweatshops. Let’s apply the “At Will” option equally to the “At Will” right of hard working employees firing and replacing an unreasonable/incompetent boss. > [@John F](#): > > Excellence suffers if we are forced to accept adequate. (You mean inadequacy?) And “Perfection” is the enemy of “Good Enough”. Look, if Excellence is your standard for employment, then make sure Mary understand your expectations before you offer her the job. Tell Mary up-front that the standard is 15 blivets. Get her to sign a prenuptial prior to accepting the job, clearly stating that if she does less than 15 blivets, she will be terminated. Now, if Joe does 17 blivets, then give Joe a big bonus as an inducement for Mary to work harder, but don’t fire Mary “At Will”, just because Joe happens to be a workaholic. > [@John F](#): > > companies of any size should have documentation to back up their decision Come on now, **John F**. You know very well that if the boss really doesn’t like Mary (for whatever reason), the boss can fill up Mary’s employment file with a lot of arbitrary documents, made up by HR department, showing why Mary should be dismissed. All it takes for the boss is to harass Mary in writing, saying that she consistently does below 17 blivets, and that her Performance Evaluation forms shows no improvement, even though Mary is forced to sign the Performance Evaluation forms while clearly writing that she disagrees with the boss’ judgment. The fact is that in the US, the boss is the judge and the jury when it comes to filling the employees’ files with convenient documents justifying “At Will” firings. Let’s face it, for every worker who is not “performing adequately”, there is a boss who “expects miracles” from his workers. There is no end to slave-loving pricks. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/167 "2005-10-08T13:17:05Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And producing more isn’t a competitive advantage. You just get a larger share of the market. If we both make identical widgets, and your work all day long while I work only half the time, your aren’t more competitive. You just make more money. Producing more and making more money = more productive. Not more productive per unit, just more productive overall. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Being more productive per unit (of time, or per worker, etc.) is not a goal in itself; it just allows you to make more money and grab more market share, all other things being equal. All other things usually aren’t, which is why some companies who are less productive per unit make money. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@John\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_F)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/168 "2005-10-08T14:25:01Z")
> [@Wake up call](#): > > Let’s apply the “At Will” option equally to the “At Will” right of hard working employees firing and replacing an unreasonable/incompetent boss. No, the incompetent boss will be fired by their boss. From everything I’ve seen upper management looks mainly for profit and productivity from it’s lower branches. If there is incompetence along the line there will be somebody tasked to handle it. If they do or not is another question. It’s also worth mentioning that _results rule_ so what might look like incompetence to some could still look sweet on various P&L statements and production reports. > [@](#): > > Look, if Excellence is your standard for employment, then make sure Mary understand your expectations before you offer her the job. Tell Mary up-front that the standard is 15 blivets. …Don’t fire Mary “At Will”, just because Joe happens to be a workaholic. I agree. Where we may not agree is on what is actually happening in the workplace. I think random, whimsical, and “for no good reason” firing is extremely rare. I think for the vast majority of these tales if we knew the whole story we would find some reasonable explanation for the termination. Perhaps the person that was fired on a whim in their eyes also had a long history of showing up to work late and calling in sick too often. The main thrust of business is to make a profit and if people are able to follow directions, comply with the policies, and produce results within the expected standards they are an asset to the company and will not be fired impulsively. It simply costs too much money to re-hire, re-train, re-equip, re-tool, re-place unless you have a reason. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/169 "2005-10-09T04:11:34Z")
> [@John F](#): > > The incompetent boss will be fired by their boss. Not true, because of the following: 1- [Peter Principal](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000BBIQTK/qid=1128816881/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7021695-7365660?v=glance&s=books) 2- Issues of [work/life balance](http://wlb.monster.com/articles/incompboss/) 3- There would be no [www.Badbossology.com](http://www.Badbossology.com) 4- Try a Google search on incompetent/unreasonable bosses and see for yourself how and why they are not fired by their bosses. > [@John F](#): > > I think random, whimsical, and “for no good reason” firing is extremely rare. Wrong again, because: 1- [Here and [url= http://hr.blr.com/display.cfm/id/16346] here](http://www.dieferlaw.com/employment.aspx)are a few examples of what is happening everyday in the US. And these are only examples of “At Will” employees bothering to file a suit and winning in court. Let alone hundreds of cases where the “At Will” employer gets away scot free. 2- There is no job security in the US, period. It is[the Law](http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=10150023153177). If you are a white color worker in the US, and you even TRY to form a union, you are “AT WILLed” and shafted before you know what happened. So, one should either just shut up and remain a slave to the whim of the employer, or find another employer (who could end up being worse than the previous one). 3- No one has a right to a job, just as no one has a right to use a piece of land (unless s/he can pay for it) to grow some vegetables or hunt down a deer for food. One wonders how long will it take before the right to breath air and drinking water are taken away. I agree that nobody owes me a living, but no one should play with my livelihood on an “At Will” whim. No wonder the French are pouring in the streets. 4- [Social responsibility of companies and employers](http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/loyalty.htm). There is more in running a business than just the P&L, growth and productivity, and the bottom line. How about “Good Will” as opposed to “At Will”? How about promoting loyalty rather than bad will? And finally, **John F** , I don’t care whether you are a capitalist, socialist or a communist. As a fellow human being, I hope you will never be “AT WILLed” without your consent, agreement, or your “will”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/170 "2005-10-09T13:32:00Z")
As I see it, the whole problem with “At Will” termination coupled with an inadequate social safety net, is that employers want to simply dump nonprofitable employees back into society with no cost to themselves. Society recognizes the value of employers and will often give huge benefits to employers when they move into an area … tax incentives, cheap accomodations at business parks, all sorts of accommondations with relations to water and sewer systems, etc. But when employers fire or lay people off, they place all kinds of strain on the social system as well. There is no widely accepted notion that such a strain exists. While I wouldn’t prescribe penalties for dumping employees … let’s face it, a business that is dumping employees wholesale is often on the ropes financially and penalizing them financially would only make it less likely that they could recover and kep the rest of their people employed. I think there should be a great expanded equivalent to unemployment insurance that would allow displaced workers to keep their homes while they look for new work. I would also look hard at healthy indusries that have extremely high employee turnover (I believe retail turnover where I live runs at 60%) to see if they aren’t gaming the system, “dumping” the social costs of extremely low wages on society at large to increase their profits. Here’s the thing I find intriguing – the people who are the most vociferous supporters of at will termination are often the most vociferous opponents of building up the social safety net. Interesting coincidence, eh? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/171 "2005-10-09T14:48:46Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think there should be a great expanded equivalent to unemployment insurance that would allow displaced workers to keep their homes while they look for new work. I would also look hard at healthy indusries that have extremely high employee turnover (I believe retail turnover where I live runs at 60%) to see if they aren’t gaming the system, “dumping” the social costs of extremely low wages on society at large to increase their profits. I can’t speak for retail, but for us, new hires cost us more than established employees. Even just considering SUTA and FUTA costs. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/172 "2005-10-09T16:36:04Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Here’s the thing I find intriguing – the people who are the most vociferous supporters of at will termination are often the most vociferous opponents of building up the social safety net. Interesting coincidence, eh? Well said, **Evil Captor**. Bravo. And may I add that for most of such people, their bible is Ayn Rand, and labor unions are just bad news. Reminds me of George Carlin’s statement: How come the most vociferous anti-abortionists are the ones that you wouldn’t want to fuck at the first place. Isn’t it ironic that these pro-lifers are generally pro capital punishment and pro NRA, eh? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/173 "2005-10-09T17:26:33Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Here’s the thing I find intriguing – the people who are the most vociferous supporters of at will termination are often the most vociferous opponents of building up the social safety net. Interesting coincidence, eh? Naw…the MOST intriguing thing is that the people who are the most vociferously against things like at will termination and who are constantly calling for stronger and stronger safety net systems are the ones who seemingly know the least about how business and a national economy actually works? 😛 I mean, since you are wanting to paint with a broad brush and all I figured I could play too. > [@Wake up call](#): > > And may I add that for most of such people, their bible is Ayn Rand, and labor unions are just bad news. Most, ehe? :dubious: -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@John\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_F)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/174 "2005-10-09T17:29:47Z")
> [@Wake up call](#): > > One wonders how long will it take before the right to breath air and drinking water are taken away. :eek: I honestly have not considered that. Your links were interesting but don’t do much to change my opinion for a few reasons. There are websites for general bitching in almost every walk of like. People like to blow off steam and website like bad bosses, customers suck, Walmart sucks, and (fill in the blank) sucks are not surprising. The law website was interesting and illustrates the point that we \*\*do \*\*have guidelines in place. Violating employment laws can cost an irresponsible employer seriously. Good! If they break the law they deserve to be punished. Searches for good bosses and incompetent workers also turn up results. The Peter Principal link shows an Amazon page where we can purchase a $3 book that has no reviews or details. :rolleyes: I was already familiar with the principal and when I became a boss for the first time I was reading every book I could find on management. I took Two Dale Carnegie courses, and was doing everything in my power to be effective and competent in my new position. All but one of my co-managers was IMO more competent than I was so personally I’m not sold on the concept. There are some things about it to consider but it would take a new thread. On “more to a company that P&L’s” I agree. My point was that it’s a primary focus of every company. It would be totally incompetent not to keep profitability front and center at all times. As a personal note I have a business model that will offer more employee workplace enhancements and life/work improvements than you would imagine. I started this company 6 years ago but as things have gone we did not go in a direction that will require the # of employees that makes this plan possible. I still like the concept and hope to launch something that will use those ideas soon. So I’m with you in a lot of ways…I just don’t like the idea of being forced to carry people that the company does not want/need to for whatever strategic reasons exist in that situation. “Getting at willed” - I hope it doesn’t happen to anybody to be honest. The bad news is that sometimes money is a factor and sometimes people just need to be removed for any number of reasons. I do worry about getting older and finding myself in a position where it will be harder to move on to the next opportunity if I had to. I try to use that fear to motivate me to make preparations and hope I’m doing the right things. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727/175 "2005-10-10T20:18:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Producing more and making more money = more productive. Not more productive per unit, just more productive overall. > > Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Being more productive per unit (of time, or per worker, etc.) is not a goal in itself; it just allows you to make more money and grab more market share, all other things being equal. All other things usually aren’t, which is why some companies who are less productive per unit make money. > > Regards, > Shodan I think we’re talking about the same thing, but I completely disagree with you. The goal is to make more production per unit. What’s the point of making 50% more stuff if it takes up 100% more ressources, for instance? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-will-employment-the-french-workers-reaction-vs-americans/324727.md?page=8)