Average Joe does have the choice to seek work in a union shop and be covered by an employment contract if he so chooses. The fact that most employment is ‘at will’ is because most workers and employers prefer it that way. Even if employment is ‘at will’ any business that fired productive workers for no reason would be out of business soon enough, so it doesn’t happen that often.
Employers are no more ‘imaginary entities’ than are employees. All businesses, from Bob’s Landscaping to IBM are owned by someone who depends on the profit from that business for their livelihood.
As an “average” worker, if you like the contract approach better than the at will employment approach, what you would do is go into business for yourself. For example, if you currently work in housekeeping at a hotel, you could be fired at will (any reason, or no reason at all, as long as it’s not a prohibited reason). But if you go into business for yourself as a housekeeper, you can and probably will get people to sign a contract. For example, they commit to paying you to clean their house for 6 months at a certain price. If they need to cancel, they have to pay a penalty, possibly up to the full 6 months (depending on what you can negotiate with your customers). Not every skill is suitable for self-employment, but many are.
The ways at will employment might get modified are very unlikely to include a guarantee of employment. They are more likely to include financial penalties for the employer.
Gfactor, Many companies lose money or go under and the government does not step in to save them. They represent the savings of many people who risked them hoping to make a profit and lost them. Why do you feel entitled to the protection others do not enjoy? Why do you feel entitled to other people’s money which they do not want to give you? Do you realize a lot of American jobs are created by foreign capital? If you restrict the conditions under which the operate you will lose massive amounts of investment which will go elsewhere. Investors have choices, they have options other than giving you their money against their will. They can invest in China or they can spend it on booze, hookers, sailboats and fast cars. Restricting the freediom to fire only means one thing: fewer offers to hire. Look at any country in europe and you will see a direct correlation between difficulty in firing and unemployment.
In any case, I will repeat what I have said many times: I do not owe you a job, nobody owes you a job. I may offer you a job under terms agreeable to me and you are free to accept or reject. If you have no services I want or need I am not obligated to keep paying you any more than you are obligated to work for me. If you can’t find a job I am so sorry but it is not my problem. maybe you can do something someone needs but in the meantime don’t expect me to pay you for something I don’t want or need. I am not a charity.
The “employment at will” doctrine in America is unique in the industrialized nations of the world. It is also archaic. With this doctrine the employer is free to fire a worker (removing his livelihood, health insurance, means to care for his family etc.) simply because the employer wants to give the job to a mistress, relative or whoever.
In other industrialized nations there are national process’ to appeal unreasonable firings.
In the U.S. your best source of protection from unreasonable treatment is a union. Then the employer must deal with the worker as a human being, providing dignity and respect, not because the worker deserves such treatment, but because the worker demands it.
Why is the right to fire someone unreasonable? Since we’re all fair-minded people here, I assume that those against this right are also against the right of an employee to quit at will?
I guess I wasn’t clear. The “employment at will” doctrine is not a state issue, it is national policy. All states. Currently I know of no state that has any pending legislation to change this doctrine within the state. To do so would require the state to create a some sort of forum to review firings.
If this thread doesn’t die, I suspect it will need to be moved to the Pit as I don’t see it heading in the direction of providing a factual answer to the question - actually that has already been done.
As an employer - not the owner of my business, but responsible for all hirings and firings at the store I manage, I have to take serious issue with this attitude that people are somehow entitled to draw wages from my employer and my payroll budget. Why should I be forced to inconvenience myself (by having to go through the process of justifying the removal of dead weight) in order to avoid inconvenience to another? If there’s any need to choose a balance, it should be in favor of property owners being free to dispose of their property as they see fit - that’s all “at will” employment laws protect.
The “at will” doctrine is very much abused. As a person with a lot of privy to information I have seen people laid off simply because “They make too much money.” The Director of Sales in the last hotel I worked at was simply let go (after 15 years) because he had too much paid time off, and made too much money. Let’s hire someone cheaper.
“at will” to me also puts the employer at a great advantage. For instance if an employer doesn’t give you two weeks severence pay he really isn’t entitled to two weeks notice. That was the whole original idea behind severence. Now if you don’t give two weeks notice. Boom bad reference. So where’s the “at will” there. It’s kind of like saying “you don’t have to pay taxes. We’ll put you in jail, but that’s your choice.” It isn’t “really” a choice.
I have seen sexual harrassment go unpunished, I myself have been fired twice because I was gay. The new manager comes in doesn’t like homosexuals boom fired. The one guy that fired me screwed up so bad the owner of the company fired him 8 months later and asked me to come back. Like I would really want to work for some place that would let something like that happen to begin with.
I’ve seen places fight EVERY last unemployment claim. My last job I got laid off from I knew they did this, so I got a letter from H/R stating I was let go not for any reason disqualifying me for rehire and…yes…the fought the claim. The judge looked at the letter and thru it out. But it was a wasted of time. Now supposing I was stupid enough not to have asked for that letter, or intimidated.
I have been doing outside consulting and auditing for hotels since I got laid off and it would astound you at the corruption and lies companies put forth to fire people. And truthfully the biggest reason companies have to fire people is they do a LOUSY job at hiring people. These people have no business getting the job to begin with.
Basic rules:
If you like your job 51% of the time, shut up and do your job after all it’s a job.
Whatever your company does to anyone -manager, director, associate, peon, they will do to you.
3)If you get turned down for a promotion more than twice, you in all reality won’t get anywhere in that company, time to start looking.
Lastly NEVER believe H/R. If you feel you are right a lot of times a simple letter on a lawyers letterhead does wonders. (I have explained here before how my last company refused to do anything about a blatent case of sexual harrassment. I had a lawyer write a simple letter, within two days both the offender and the H/R director who did’t do anything about it were fired.
I know the economy is lousy but instead of complaining DO something about it. Start looking for a job, put in for a transfer.
In Australia, we have what is known as the “unfair dismissal” jurisdiction. You cannot fire someone on grounds that are “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”.
You can fire someone on grounds of genuine redundancy. In other words, an employer is never placed in a position of having to keep someone on who they have no use for (which is an answer to the posts of others above who espouse the “freedom” school of thought which argues that “employment at will” is essential because an employer should not be forced to pay for something they don’t want).
You can fire someone if they are incompetent, although it may be considered a harsh, unjust or unreasonable decision if you don’t give them any feedback, don’t provide appropriate training etc but just fire outright.
You can employ people on limited term contracts, at the end of which an employeed cannot utilize the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, because they have not been dismissed, their contract has just ended.
So in short, it is quite possible to find a middle ground between “employment at will” and “employment as sinecure”.
Actually no one on this thread, including me and I’m pro-union, has espoused “employment as sinecure” - what some people have done is rant on about that for whatever reason.
It is archaic to be the only industrialized nation in the world that provides no recourse for arbitrarily taking away a workers livelihood, health benefits etc. In fact it is uncivilized.
Even if employment is ‘at will’ any business that fired productive workers for no reason would be out of business soon enough, so it doesn’t happen that often.
So you feel that all those large employers that have been laying off employees by the hundreds and even thousands over the last few years got only the “deadwood” – they kept all the really good employees. Riiiiiight.
**Employers are no more ‘imaginary entities’ than are employees. All businesses, from Bob’s Landscaping to IBM are owned by someone who depends on the profit from that business for their livelihood. **
IBM and other large corps are owned by shareholders who don’t give a damn about anything but the price of the shares they own. Basically, we’re talking about an employee’s entire income source vs. whether or not wealthy shareholders can buy a new boat.
Do ya think the employer just doesn’t care about the money it has to spend to hire? Of course it does! Employers only hire reluctantly, at any time, because they need things done. Jeebus, the way you guys talk you’d think employers were going on gleeful employee shopping sprees and hiring all sort of people just for fun, and just because they’re free to fire them later.
Y’know, we fought a war a few years ago about this notion that people are property. Thanks for showing how “at will” laws basically depend on the notion that people are property and can be disposed of accordingly – albeit unintentionally.
“It is archaic to be the only industrialized nation in the world that provides no recourse for arbitrarily taking away a workers livelihood, health benefits etc. In fact it is uncivilized.”
First, the US protects health care benefits under COBRA.
Second, I doubt the US is the only inddustrialized nation to honor freedom of contract. I would be surprised if Hong Kong or Mexico for example did not have a similar rule. When you say “industrialized nation,” do you mean all industrialized nations or just the socialist countries in Europe?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sailor * Gfactor, Many companies lose money or go under and the government does not step in to save them. They represent the savings of many people who risked them hoping to make a profit and lost them.
And many more companies receive government subsidies and tax breaks only to “reinvest” them in higher executive salaries. Others screw up, screw investors and get bailed out. This country has antitrust and securities laws that restrict the conduct of companies, but recent administrations have let violations go unpunished with a wink and a nod. Again, you are asking us to feel sorry for bloodless, soulless entities and the people who believe in them. People who “risked” their “savings” on a company did so expecting the government to make sure that they weren’t buying a pig in a poke. If the government did it’s job, then the savings-riskers got a fair gamble for their money. If the government didn’t, the people should take that up with the government.
** Why do you feel entitled to the protection others do not enjoy? Why do you feel entitled to other people’s money which they do not want to give you? Do you realize a lot of American jobs are created by foreign capital?**
I don’t. When did I make that claim?
I don’t, but it seems corporations like Enron do. They obtained money from investors by misrepresenting their financial status. I bet those who risked their savings on Enron stock would not have wanted to give their savings to Enron had they known the truth about its financial status. But Enron felt (here I go anthropomorphizing) entitled to other people’s money. Is that ok with you?
** If you restrict the conditions under which the operate you will lose massive amounts of investment which will go elsewhere. **
Uh oh. A free-marketeer. So should we just let corporations do whatever they want? Wait, I think we tried that. It didn’t work. More important, I made this point earlier. It is a truism that a change in the regulatory structure will change corporate behavior.
I’m not even suggesting a change in the “employment at will” doctrine. In fact, I think that the implied contract doctrine was a failed experiment. And I am ambivalent about unions.
My point was merely that we ought not compare the “freedom” of a corporation with the “freedom” of a real person.
** Investors have choices, they have options other than giving you their money against their will. They can invest in China or they can spend it on booze, hookers, sailboats and fast cars. Restricting the freediom to fire only means one thing: fewer offers to hire. Look at any country in europe and you will see a direct correlation between difficulty in firing and unemployment.**
I’m not sure this is right. Do you have any authority for this proposition? I can’t believe that all other factors remain the same between european countries.