Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-04-2011, 09:57 AM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,765 posts, read 40,091,372 times
Reputation: 18068

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
Nobody has said that you would be 'bound by law to keep every employee that you hired'. But the employment at will rule, means that you can fire any employee, for any flimsy, frivilous excuse. And that should be abolished. If an employer can prove that an emplyee is no good, and has been warned in writing that their job is in jeopardy, then the employee should be fired.

On the other hand, you shouldn't be allowed to terminate an employee, for a flimsy reason, that isn't based on their behavior, or perfromance. Get it??
What if that employee doesn't get along with the other employees in their department? A productive and happy workplace is not only about having the right job skills and work ethic, but also everyone getting along and being a solid team. If an employee just doesn't fit in with the whole team, then they have to go.

And about that Casual Friday incident, unless you can post pictures of what you wore that day and what your co-workers were wearing, we can't really side with you as to the frivolity of that firing.

And from reading many of all the posts and threads you've made on C-D, it seems to me that you have a problem getting along with other people, including your co-workers. It must be something in your personality that pushes people's buttons the wrong way. Just like the way you throw in too many emoticons at the ends of your posts. Or keep bringing up issues of rampant discrimination in the workplace, or racial discrimination wherever you've lived. And your sense of entitlement is also very irritating. No one owes you a job. And no potential employer owes you relocation funds either. No one owes you an affordable single bedroom apartment in a safe neighborhood in a major city. And if you were such a friendly regular person, where are your close friends living? And why don't you move to a city where they are and stay with them until you get on your feet?

Racism in so-called 'progressive' cities.

Should a single person making less than $50K a year rent in a major city?

And I guess that you've loved to be able to collect Social Security benefits in four short years. However, you're going to find that those monthly checks aren't going to be enough to live on. You'll have to have roommates.

Should the early the retirement age be lowered to 52.

 
Old 02-04-2011, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,052,382 times
Reputation: 2756
I want to get rid of employment at will.

I got fired from my last job for putting up pictures of naked women
on my cubical walls. I mean, it's MY cube, I should be able to
put up what I want. If people don't like it, they don't have to look!

I had another friend who got fired for patting women on the butt.
C'mon ... that's not threatening and if the women didn't want to
get patted on the butt, they shouldn't wear those sexy clothes.

There was this other guy who got fired for wearing fishnet shirts
and flip-flops at work all the time. He also never took a bath and
stunk to high-heaven. I'm glad he got fired because he was stupid
and kept setting stuff on fire - he said; by accident. -- ssssure it was!
 
Old 02-04-2011, 10:09 AM
 
1,296 posts, read 2,222,456 times
Reputation: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober138 View Post
I understand your point quite well. I just do not agree with it.
Well then you have to agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. But I DO have a problem, with any posters (and you know who you are) that constantly follow me from thread to thread, launching personal attacks against me, dredging-up things I posted on other threads, and otherwise making this thread about ME, and getting way off topic. So as long as you don't do anything like that, then that's cool. We can have a friendly debate, but as long as it doesn't stoop to the level of viciousness, then I'm okay with firendly disagreements.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: North of Nowhere, South of Everywhere
1,095 posts, read 1,144,000 times
Reputation: 1926
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReturningWest View Post
I would like to see a procedure instituted to avoid BS firings that are so rampant today.

For instance:

A processes of warnings, how will an employee KNOW they are not doing good work or management is unhappy for what every reason unless they are informed and have the opportunity to improve instead of being summarily thrown out the door.

This process would curb the frivolous firings for things like; I don't like the color of your socks or personality conflicts between a particular manager and employee. This process would also retain the employer right to fire, but gives each side a moment to not react in a knee jerk fashion and an opportunity to retain an employee who might be a good worker but has an issue or two or move the employee to another department away from the manager personality conflict.
I agree with this cause it shows both sides tried to resolve the issue and that the employee knows that management has issues with there work performance. You can work hard and go that extra mile and never know that you might be lacking in some area and this would help you improve instead of being told your fired.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 10:59 AM
 
8,679 posts, read 15,244,892 times
Reputation: 15342
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
The 'employment at will' doctrine in the workplace, has vastly shifted the balance of power, in favor of the employer. Even if an employer is clearly discriminatory in their hiring and firing practices, the 'employment at will' statute, lets the employer get away with discrimination.

In today's job market, where it's so hard to get (and keep) a job, isn't it time that the 'employment at will' rule, be eliminated in the workplace? Don't employees, especially these days, deserve more workplace empowerment??

I think "employment at will" is a crock of you-know-what. The term has now been abused and used as an excuse for power-tripping employers who seek to exploit, cajole, and threaten workers.

I'm not saying that every job should include a contract. Just that I think there should always have to be just cause for firing someone--poor performance, etc.--especially after employees pass a 90-day introductory probation. The most ethical companies put their employees on things like performance improvement plans and give people a chance to correct their mistakes. Unfortunately, now many employers use the "at-will" excuse to fire people for being five minutes late when really it's just a personality thing or an ego trip, which is not only barbaric, but stupid, when you think of what turnover costs a company.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:13 AM
 
8,679 posts, read 15,244,892 times
Reputation: 15342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes View Post
It's not often knee-jerk. It might seem knee-jerk to the employee who is fired, but often the firing is very calculated by the manager. I have known many managers who ran to HR demanding a way to get rid of someone. Once a manager has decided that he/she no longer wants an employee, the employee really has no hope, regardless of what the employee does to improve. Your suggestion just adds more steps to the process, but the end result would still be the same.
This just illustrates how unethical "at will" employment really is, because it would seem that you know many managers who make lousy hiring decisions and then run to HR to fix the messes they've made.

If a manager hires and fires a bunch of employees--and runs to HR all the while--the company should strongly consider getting rid of the manager because the manager does not know how to select appropriate candidates to fill open jobs, nor does the manager know how to resolve conflicts or build teams. As that is what managers do for a living, botching it means the manager is incompetent. Put the manager on a performance improvement plan, and if it continues, get rid of the manager.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: North of Nowhere, South of Everywhere
1,095 posts, read 1,144,000 times
Reputation: 1926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yzette View Post
This just illustrates how unethical "at will" employment really is, because it would seem that you know many managers who make lousy hiring decisions and then run to HR to fix the messes they've made.

If a manager hires and fires a bunch of employees--and runs to HR all the while--the company should strongly consider getting rid of the manager because the manager does not know how to select appropriate candidates to fill open jobs, nor does the manager know how to resolve conflicts or build teams. As that is what managers do for a living, botching it means the manager is incompetent. Put the manager on a performance improvement plan, and if it continues, get rid of the manager.
This.
If a company is firing and hire a lot of people that is going to cost them more money in the long run then it would just to hire one person and keep them on and provide a performance review if they have issues so they can redeem themselves and may actually make more money for the company.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 11:40 AM
 
41 posts, read 72,758 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I want to get rid of employment at will.

I got fired from my last job for putting up pictures of naked women
on my cubical walls.

I had another friend who got fired for patting women on the butt.

There was this other guy who got fired for wearing fishnet shirts
and flip-flops at work all the time.
All could be reasonable and just reasons for firing; indeed you'd could fired for such things even if protected by a union contract. If you're trying to make a case for employment at will you're not doing it very well.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 12:45 PM
 
2,017 posts, read 5,631,228 times
Reputation: 1680
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
Apparently, you don't see a lot of things! You can't tell me, that you can't get a temp worker, to replace someone who leaves without notice. Do you know how many people are looking for jobs right now?!

You sound like you want all of the advantages of being an employer, without any of the responsibilities that you owe your employees. Well it doesn't work that way. And if you don't get along with an employee, that could be due to your own attitude towards them. And you should try to mend the relationship. You need to take ownership, of your relationships with your employees.

It's not 'tying the hands' of the employer, to create a more just, humane workplace. If you think that way, then you don't deserve employees. Their efforts help to make the employer well-off. The least that you can do, is treat your employees fairly, and only fire them for reasons related to their performance, misconduct, or the financial situation of your business.

And I don't appreciate some of you posters, accusing me of playing the 'race card'. This thread isn't about race, it's about the employment at will rule. So you posters need to make sure, that you stay on topic, and don't make the thread about ME.
Artwomyn-- out of curiosity what is your line of work? I am not trying to be too personal here, but I think you and I are in different circles potentially.

Here is my point.

I was promoted into a different position with my company. I have over 5.5 years experience with my company and this niche industry.

I started work in this new job about almost 6 months ago and I am STILL not up to speed-- even though the work is not too different from what I was doing before-- but it is different enough that I am still not completely ramped up in my job. I guest-imate it will be about a year before I am seasoned enough in this new role to be considered at that level of work.

What this means is that it is a loss of productivity for my employer-- they are paying me a good rate and I am still slower than the other seasoned employees.

I can't fathom how difficult it would be for someone who is not even familiar with our product even if they have some of the industry experience (I see this everyday actually with people who dont know our product and how difficult it is for them-- and it takes months and months and in some cases years for them to really get it).

So my point-- there is still a cost to the employer-- a body is not going to just cover that up whether that body is a perm hire or a temp.
 
Old 02-04-2011, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,713 posts, read 9,675,913 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huascar View Post
Fired for reasons unrelated to performence. It happens.

Let me get something straight; are you defending an employers right to fire employees unjustly or are we just trying to define what's unjust? Do you perhaps think that by definition there's no such thing as an unjust firing?
These questions are irrelavant. When it comes to this issue, what is" fair" or" just" or" right" simply does not matter. All that matters is whether or not the action was legal.

You may not like this; you may disagree with it from a moral standpoint. But that is the simple reality of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top