Oh really? Do you any cites on the rates of upward mobility in the U.S?
In non-libertarian terms, it’s called (at least here in France) : the “freedom of the free fox in the free hen-house”.
As I already mentionned to you, libertarianism is entirely as detached from the reality of human nature as true communism. Actually I think it is more so, and that theresult of its implementation would be way worse (and I’m refering here to actual, not ideal implementation of communism, like say Stalinism).
Here in PR (we’re a US jurisdiction, remember) we have a similar provision – a termination “not for cause” (different from a wrongful termination but too many people think it’s the same) requires the payment of a severance that is vested on the basis of length of service. Termination “not for cause” is anything that’s not provoked by the employee, and claiming unspecified “business economic reasons” is usually enough. So you can fire at will, but you have to give the man an extra check with his pink slip. As mentioned before, in the USA when you’re terminated “at will”, if your work made you eligible for unemployment payments you will get them, and become eligible for whatever job-repositioning program may be available in your city/state (which may not be much).
And needless to say, if the employee has a specific fixed-length contract, or is under a labor union’s collective bargaining agreement, that document rules the hiring-and-firing. They DO have those in America, y’know.
I myself have never in 20 years worked in a position in which I acquire vested tenure – when I’ve worked for the government I haven’t been career civil service but “exempt service” i.e. at the pleasure of the nominating authority; when I’ve worked for private business I’ve been employed at-will, even when covered by the “redundancy” payment.
In real-world practice as far as I’ve observed, the larger number of those adversely affected by “employment at will” are those in situations where the employer relocates, reorganizes, or has to make payroll cutbacks or shut down shops. Few are cases of the boss firing someone just because she got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
It means limiting the ability to abuse from one’s power. Power isn’t limited to government and weapons. Being the individual owner of a smal business can give you, on your small scale, a tremendous power on your employees. That shouldn’t be left unchecked.
The debate began re France, but I think that, on the overall, it’s more, as usual, a US vs Europe argument.
So, let me get this straight. You are asking me for a cite that would prove my QUESTION? Is that really what you’re doing?
Erek
Needs are pertinent. Would you deny a man dying of thirst some water if you had more than you need yourself?
uh huh. And this valiant struggle would consist of? I think your wisdom needs to be shared with the world. How much profit is your evil company making and what is the stock exchange symbol?
My point (earlier, which at least one person read) was that France along with some other European countries are facing a crisis and may not be able to live up to that wonderful retirement plan very much longer.
Needs are only pertinent to wealth if wealth is finite. There is infinite wealth in a capitalist society and that is tied to the freedoms of both commerce and labor. If a man uses his labor to beg for water in front of a well, what should his compensation be?
That’s right! Prove your question if you want us to ask you an answer! This is the Dope, not some goofy fly-by-night discussion board!
I’m a worker, I don’t own any companies, I work for companies (on a contract basis, at present). I’m sure the companies I work for are greatly enriched by my efforts. Too enriched, probably.
You’re paid a guaranteed wage against hrs worked. Not only are stockholders not guaranteed a return on investment they risk losing all of it. If you’re sure they are making more than you believe they should than invest your money. You can then take your overly-enriched profit and give it to the poor. A win/win situation if ever I saw one.
Thanks for yout reply. But for an entity to remain healthy, and hopefully vibrant, it has to be allowed to act in its own best interest.
Oh, Pleeeeease do not make a comparison between unemployment in “Macdo” in France versus McDonnald workers in the US who, not only do not serve beer and wine with hamburgers, but do not get 6 weeks paid vacations and other benefits while flipping hamburgers.
I agree. Where we likely disagree is on what to check. Why a person should not have power over his own property, you have failed to make clear. Certainly, an employer should not be allowed to beat an employee with a stick to extract more work. But an employer should be allowed to decide who is an employee and who isn’t.
In most cases, I would give him some water, but why should I give him a job? The only needs pertinent to my company are my needs, and I’d like to decide what they are, than you very much.
For all its many faults, and those are many and grave indeed, in Denmark at least it is very easy to hire and lay off workers. Consequently there is a very fluid and dynamic job market and practically zero unemployment with many sectors experiencing an acute shortage of workers and the Danish state actively trying to lure people from Germany and Poland and the Baltic to come here and work – and yeah I’ve been seeing an increasing number of French too. Just south, Germany has some strict employer rules, apparently sometimes verging on life time guaranteed employment. Consequently they have a massive and staying unemployment problem and much less mobility on the job market. Nobody should be employed in the same company for 20 years. Also the strict rules in Germany and France have resulted in there being a record number (2-3 million last I saw) hired under some shady form of temporary position category, where they have even less rights than US workers. So you get a highly stratified society with those in “proper” work sitting cosily and easily on the fat trying their best to hold on to their ill gained rights and those outside being held in unemployment and misery or at best temporary positions, and desperately trying to get in; this is called solidarity.
I do wonder sometimes, if businesses that humans have created to serve us, might have taken on life of their own, that they now demand our servitude; what would be the point of a corporation that makes profit, but not enough to satisfy the shareholders; serves customers, but not particularly well; creates jobs, but not the kind that increase the quality of life of those performing them?
Honestly, I know I’ve got into trouble here before for daring to ask questions of market capitalism, but really, for what reason(s) do companies actually exist?
You’re absolutely right about “reasonable”. But there’s the other side of that coin. You (the owner) have a healthy company, doing well, making millions, but you decide you need a bigger boat this year so you fire someone to pay for it and expect the rest of the team to pick up the slack. I have great problems with that scenario. Unfortunately I don’t see a way to fix this without tossing away the baby with the bathwater.