# "Right To Fire" States **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 29, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588 "2003-12-29T15:29:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [December 31, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/61 "2003-12-31T01:28:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **Of course you would consider it fair and equitable if others were forced to please you but that is not the way the world works. You are not entitled to anything which others do not want to give you voluntarily and you entice them to give you things by giving something of value in exchange.** I wouldn’t call it fair and equitable if others were forced to please me – I’d like it a lot, but I wouldn’t be so stupid and self-iinterested as to think it was fair just because it benefited me. Do you think I’m advocating any such thing? Where did you get that idea? Maybe if you spelled things out a little, I’d understand. **If an employer has decided he does not want or need your services he should not be forced to continue to pay you. Either he has no need for the services you were giving, in which case I fail to see why he should be forced to continue to employ you, or he has decided someone else can do the job better, in which case I fail to see why you are entitled to keep the job and take it from a person who can do it better.** Or he’s an asshole and he’s threatened by his subordinate’s competence. Been known to happen. Or as is the case in right to work states, he just doesn’t like the way the guy ties his shoes. **There is a huge investment for each job created and the company needs employees producing to make money. An employer does not make money by firing people he needs. There is nobody in the world who knows better than the employer what person he needs for the job.** Have you ever actually worked anywhere? Your comments sound like they come from someone whose experience of work is purely theoretical. I’ve had employers I respected and employers I didn’t respect, and I’ve been in a positon to see what happens to others in the real world of work. And to sum up – shit happens. Shit happens a LOT. **I cannot see why the fact that the employee needs the employer’s money gives him any entitlement to it. The employer needs the job done just as badlly if not more and yet the employee is allowed to quit.** This is simply not true. In most cases, an employee who is let go faces much more dire consequences than the individual who lets the employee go. One is saying, “I need a new job or I lose my house/car/etc.” The other is saying “I need a new widget evaluator or we fall behind in production next quarter.” Which problem would YOU rather be faced with? Why should some management jerk be free to completely fuck over someone’s life just because he’s one rung up on the ladder? How is that fair? How is that reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/62 "2003-12-31T01:29:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LemonThrower \* > \*\*casino gambling and nickel slots are illegal in Georgia. One member of the Atlanta City Commission has proposed legalizing casino gambling but I believe this would require action by the state legislature. The Atlanta City Commission has taken on weightier issues, such as apartheid, WMD, etc. so I could be wrong. \*\* I didn’t mean to infer that the SDMB’er who posted about her labor problems was based here in Georgia. Just that she is a member of this board. Sorry for the confusion. Q ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/63 "2003-12-31T01:36:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > \*\*It should be noted (as zimaane said) that the flip side of employment at will is the right of the employee to quit at any time, for any reason. \*\* Actually, I’m pretty sure that an employee can some times be sued if his/her quitting causes great loss to the employer. Now I shall see if I can find a cite, _and_ read the rest of the replies to see if anyone else has touched on this idea. Sorry. 😉 Peace, mangeorge ---
**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:** [December 31, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/64 "2003-12-31T01:52:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gcarroll \* > \*\*To me, “Firing” and “laying off” don’t mean the same thing. Firing is aimed at a particular individual – the employer terminates you, personally, perhaps replacing you immediately. A layoff is the elimination of the position, at least for the time being. A company “laying off employees by the hundred and even thousands” is shrinking quite seriously. Companies generally don’t get smaller because they want to; they have a serious problem. Forbidding a company to reduce their workforce when economics dictate would (at least) cause much greater reluctance to hire permanent, full-time workers and probably increase the likelihood of total failure. \*\* Nobody in this thread has advocated that a company in dire straits shouldn’t be able to adjust – the whole complaint is against capricious or otherwise unfounded firings. And companies DO fire large numbers of people for reasons that are suspect at best on occasion. Do de name [Chainsaw Al Dunlap](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0066619807/102-3201831-6562509?v=glance) mean anything to ya? **This is simply factually incorrect. Very many non-wealthy people own shares, including most union members. Retirement plans tend to be built around stocks, for instance. Consider the concept of forcing the retirement fund to go bankrupt in order to prevent laying off workers rendered surplus by changing markets, mergers, or technology.** Ya know, I HAVE heard of regular people with their pension money in stocks who got screwed, but it was in right to work states like California – that Enron deal. Maybe treating employees humanely ins’t the huge danger to commerce that you seem to think it is. \*\*The alternative is to have the government guarantee/mandate continued employment (or at least, income and benefits), and retirement, even when the company goes under. This is socialism. It’s been tried before and generally does not work as well as hoped. \*\* No, that’s not the alternative. Who ever said it was? Look, it’s ok with me if you have fantasies like this, but don’t confuse them with my arguments. ---
**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:** [December 31, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/65 "2003-12-31T01:58:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\ ***Evil Captor** wrote > > Basically, you’re saying that it’s not fair that some people have more money than other people. And some people share this view with you. Some people even tried to build a multi-national economy based on that principal. Turns out, that way of thinking is a lie, and alot of people were hurt in that process. \*\* Of course it’s unfair that some people have more money than other people. Always has been, hopefully it won’t always be. However your notion that taking any notice of the central fact of capitalist society is somehow socialism is … quite a leap. Apparently, any attempt to ameliorate the suffering caused by capitalism run rampant is socialism. Must be interesting to live in such a binary world. ---
**Author:** ![county](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce7236/32.png) [@county](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/county)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/66 "2003-12-31T02:07:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\ ***county** wrote > > Hell, I put it right in the offer letter: > > Noone has a problem with it, and if they did, I don’t want them working here. I’m a good and fair employer, and for the most part my employees like me. But if they want to terminate their employment for whatever reason, they retain that right, and if I want the same, I also retain that right. \*\* How do you feel about their right to form a union? ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/67 "2003-12-31T02:24:13Z")
**county** wrote > [@](#): > > How do you feel about their right to form a union? Well, as you and I have discussed here a few times, I feel that unions are morally wrong, basically to the same degree that anti-competitive behaviour is. Just like the current discussion, I think the same rights should apply to both parties. I think it’s wrong for multiple companies to get together and collude to hold down wages, and I think it’s wrong for multiple employees to get together and collude to hold up wages. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/68 "2003-12-31T02:41:58Z")
By the way, noone’s asked, but I’ll tell you why we put the at-will clause in offer letters (although I’m sure it’ll come as no surprise to anyone). I’ve never fired anyone arbitrarily or capriciously. At least, that’s my stance; obviously you only have one side of things here. I’m a good employer, and I’m proud to have created many jobs (hundreds) over the years. I’ve also had the sad displeasure of firing 12 people over the years. And as a sidenote, to those who’ve never been in management, firing somebody is one of the toughest, most distasteful things you’ll ever do in your life, like dumping a girlfriend times 10. The person is typically someone you’ve known for years, someone you’ve known well, someone you’ve respected (otherwise they never would’ve been hired in the first place). To tell that person they are no longer welcome and you can find no way to make things better, knowing they’ve got to go home and tell their spouse, etc. is just a rotten experience. But I’ve digressed. The reason the “at-will” thing is in the offer letter: just because I don’t feel it was arbitrary doesn’t mean the former employee will feel that way, and nobody likes to be slighted. Nobody really wants to believe that they did something wrong; it had to be the bosses fault. And I’m just not interested in dealing with discussing it in a court-room. It’s a CYA thing. I do my best to make decent non-arbitrary, non-capricious decisions, and I don’t want legal hassles. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/69 "2003-12-31T02:44:30Z")
But multiple companies _do_ get together to hold down wages. They send lobbyists to Washington to keep the minimum wage in check. They also support corporation friendly politicians to guard against employee friendly legislation. Individual employees can’t afford such antics. These pro-employer arguements would hold more weight with me if employees had truely portable benefits. But we don’t, and most benefits are cumulative. We have a finite resource (40 yrs or so) and have to try to make the most of it. The employer/employee relationship is a contentious one, and it’s likely to remain so. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/70 "2003-12-31T03:02:29Z")
**mangeorge** wrote > [@](#): > > But multiple companies do get together to hold down wages. They send lobbyists to Washington to keep the minimum wage in check. Uh… Minimum wage is an artificial floor that goes against the desires of the market. It’s mere existence goes against what’s normal or fair. The only discussion is how unfair it is. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/71 "2003-12-31T03:29:22Z")
So I take it that in your worldview, Bill H., what the market wants = the definition of fair. An interesting moral standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/72 "2003-12-31T03:35:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\ ***mangeorge** wrote > > Uh… Minimum wage is an artificial floor that goes against the desires of the market. It’s mere existence goes against what’s normal or fair. The only discussion is how unfair it is. \*\* so your saying it’s fair to expect someone to live on less then $5.12 an hour? Have you ever tried to? why is an “artificial floor” unfair? Heck $5.15 won’t even keep you out of the poverty level. I think the fair thing to do is raise it to atleast 7 dollars an hour. ---
**Author:** ![county](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce7236/32.png) [@county](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/county)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/73 "2003-12-31T04:06:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\ ***county** wrote > > Well, as you and I have discussed here a few times, I feel that unions are morally wrong, basically to the same degree that anti-competitive behaviour is. > > Just like the current discussion, I think the same rights should apply to both parties. I think it’s wrong for multiple companies to get together and collude to hold down wages, and I think it’s wrong for multiple employees to get together and collude to hold up wages. \*\* So, it is your right to fire at will but it is morally wrong for employees to exercise their rights under the law. Seems a little “one way” to me. In any event I believe that it is morally wrong to take away (Or even have the right to take away) the livelihood of a human being in an arbitrary and capricious manner and I further suspect your views would change if you were on the “other end of the stick.” ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/74 "2003-12-31T05:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by netscape 6 \* > \*\*so your saying it’s fair to expect someone to live on less then $5.12 an hour? Have you ever tried to? why is an “artificial floor” unfair? Heck $5.15 won’t even keep you out of the poverty level. I think the fair thing to do is raise it to at least 7 dollars an hour. \*\* **Bill H.**'s point (and my point) is that instructing people what they may do with their property (capital, in this case) is always less fair than not artifically interfering. By the same token, artificially regulating labor is also unfair - an employee’s labor is a resource offered for sale, and they ought to be able to offer it unfettered. (Yes, that’s right, I don’t advocate slavery! Big surprise!) If you insist on a minimum wage per hour, then certain types of labor really do become quite expensive - e.g, the commission salesperson who has to be paid hourly when he doesn’t perform, even though by definition he has added value to neither the product, the company, or the consumer, or the piecework laborer who has to be paid even when his production is low. As far as “the market being fair” (a paraphrase) the market has somehow managed to generally agree with your estimate of a better wage. Part of my job is to review info on local wages, so that we can offer better than the average for comparable positions (we get better people that way, you see, because we get more and better applicants who want to stay longer); I rarely see wages below $7/hr. being offered, and those below tend to be geared toward the otherwise unemployable. FTR, **county** , I have indeed been on the other end of the stick. The first job I had as an adult paid the then minimum wage, which was $4.25. It was pretty tough living on that. Guess what - nobody gave me an entitlement, and I never asked for one; instead I made a point of seeking to improve myself as an employment prospect, as anyone else can do. The result is that I am in greater demand than others, make more money, and have more potential job stability. I also have to do a lot more. I work for every single cent, and I do it because the other way sucked. Any other person could do the same, if they wished. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/75 "2003-12-31T05:39:31Z")
I’ve _never_ known _anyone_ to “make it” entirely on their own earning minimum wage. Not for long. And I’ve been there. There’s always help from a relative, a friend, mooching meals, couch surfing, or something similar (or possibly illegal) going on. I got help, and I appreciate it. Minimum wage = about $800/mo, gross. (Your $7/hr zooms it up to 1200/mo).That’s especially bad when the worker is expected to save some money because he/she can lose their job at the employer’s whim. Now I expect to see someone sit here and show how someone _else_ can survive and thrive on that. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/76 "2003-12-31T06:32:25Z")
**Princhester** wrote > [@](#): > > So I take it that in your worldview, Bill H., what the market wants = the definition of fair. > > An interesting moral standpoint. “Fair” is not a moral concept. (neither was my other carefully chosen word, “normal”): Fair. adj.: showing lack of favoritism By definition, fair is something without influence from either side. Without an artificial requirement, people would be paid less than minimum wage. **netscape 6** wrote > [@](#): > > so your saying it’s fair to expect someone to live on less then $5.12 an hour? Don’t get me started about working at minimum wage. My first job was for $2.85/hour, and at the time minimum wage was $3.15. I’ve held plenty of other jobs at minimum wage or very low wage. And it sucked. badly. But I thought then – and I think now – that the best solution wasn’t to pass laws paying me more than I was worth, but rather to work hard and make something of myself. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/77 "2003-12-31T08:59:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Some Guy \* > \*\*\*\*Bill H.\*\*'s point (and my point) is that instructing people what they may do with their property (capital, in this case) is always less fair than not artifically interfering. By the same token, artificially regulating labor is also unfair - an employee’s labor is a resource offered for sale, and they ought to be able to offer it unfettered. (Yes, that’s right, I don’t advocate slavery! Big surprise!) If you insist on a minimum wage per hour, then certain types of labor really do become quite expensive - e.g, the commission salesperson who has to be paid hourly when he doesn’t perform, even though by definition he has added value to neither the product, the company, or the consumer, or the piecework laborer who has to be paid even when his production is low. > \*\* Most places will fire you if you can’t (or won’t) satisfactorarly do your job, or atleast change your task to something you can do okay. If a company keeps an employee whom does not do their job well at that job despite losing money who’s fault is that? > [@](#): > > **As far as “the market being fair” (a paraphrase) the market has somehow managed to generally agree with your estimate of a better wage. Part of my job is to review info on local wages, so that we can offer better than the average for comparable positions (we get better people that way, you see, because we get more and better applicants who want to stay longer); I rarely see wages below $7/hr. being offered, and those below tend to be geared toward the otherwise unemployable.** Maybe else where, here right now the only jobs are only minimum jobs, The facories have slowed down so they are mostly letting people go and little hiring. I know, I’m on unemployment and looking for a job. Next month I’ll be getting certified to repair computers. That should help me find a job quite a bit, but if I did not have that skill I would be stuck at mickeedees or the likes of till the economy picked up. That would not even pay my bills. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/78 "2003-12-31T09:08:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\ ***Princhester** wrote > > “Fair” is not a moral concept. (neither was my other carefully chosen word, “normal”): > > Fair. adj.: showing lack of favoritism > > By definition, fair is something without influence from either side. Without an artificial requirement, people would be paid less than minimum wage. > > \*\* I would call the fact that without unions the company is in a much better bargaining position favoritism. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/79 "2003-12-31T11:04:45Z")
Unions exist to create unfair advantage for one party. period. You can make a case that this unfair advantage is morally correct, but you can not argue that they are fair, because by dictionary definition, they are not. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588/80 "2003-12-31T12:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\*Unions exist to create unfair advantage for one party. period. You can make a case that this unfair advantage is morally correct, but you can not argue that they are fair, because by dictionary definition, they are not. \*\* Okay let me restate it’s shifted unfairly in favor of the company without unions. Simply because it’s usually alot easier for a company to find another employee then it is for a worker to find another job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-fire-states/221588.md?page=5)