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.
just another reason why finding, growing and maintaining a meaningful rewarding career in florida is so difficult. it doesnt matter who you are, you can be fired on a whim for anything and good luck finding another job.
Yep. Get fired simply because the boss doesn't like you (let's be honest, that's what a good portion of firings are REALLY about), and you will be damaged goods for the rest of your working life. Nobody wants someone who has been fired.
You will always have to explain the firing in interviews and you will ALWAYS have to answer "yes" for the "have you ever been terminated or asked to resign?" question, just because some random person (a boss) went on a power trip one day. You didn't even have to engage in any real misconduct.
The employer definitely has the upper hand in that kind of arrangement. He will not be hurt one bit after firing you. You will be replaced by the end of the week. Meanwhile, you could run through your savings and possibly end up on the street.
I've given some serious thought to moving up north and trying to get a union job for peace of mind. Unions have their downsides, but at least they need a real reason to get rid of you.
Yep. Get fired simply because the boss doesn't like you (let's be honest, that's what a good portion of firings are REALLY about), and you will be damaged goods for the rest of your working life. Nobody wants someone who has been fired.
That has nothing to do with the right-to-work law..., you, the op, and various other posters in this thread do not know what it is. All it is in a nutshell is it means an employer can't force you to join a union. If you're not in a union anyway the right-to-work law doesn't effect you in any way shape or form. Also a lot of the states with the best economies are right-to-work states by the way.
Should someone that turns lugnuts at GM be able to have a 30 year career turning lugnuts with a pension and a retirement health care plan? Should a cashier at Publix or Walmart be able to have a 30 year career with retirement benefits of health care and a pension? My take is no.
Should those people have any benefits, pensions, retirement at all, or those are for the papepushers only? Maybe a firing squad after 55 y.o.? Are you familiar with the concept of a pyramid at all? Please, explain, how Wal-Mart could possibly provide "upwardly mobile" opportunities for 2 millions+ of its cashiers. Where those 2+ millions of cashiers could possibly "advance" within WalMart if they all try hard, play by the book, and better themselves?
This thinly disguised social racism (just like yours) will make this country unfit for human habitation pretty soon. Humans absolutely must designate lower castes of people, deny them decent wage, living conditions, retirement. In the past they used color of your skin, today they use your occupation.
Last edited by RememberMee; 11-28-2012 at 09:59 PM..
Nobody seems to have mentioned this but maybe its a given or its being alluded to between the lines.
The point that I would like to add is that just about all of the "goodies" that getting a "job" is about are a function of Time.
For instance, people who are looking for a job often cite such pay-offs as "developing a career", getting married, having kids, buying a house, buying a car and getting involved in their communities. All of these things are a function of Time on the job and having a stable employment situation. How do people who are in the Middle Class get a chance to have "the American Dream" if their employment situation is just one step away from the door 24/7?
Yes...I agree that "employment-at-will" works against incompetence and deadwood. Well and Good. However, if all the goodies that our Economic Model depend on LONG term employment and such employment is not a certainty then I submit that a large number of our citizenry are set-up to have little of what the well-connected or well-born enjoy as a birthright.
Personally I don't think this has much to do with Unions ans joining a Union. IMHO I think this "at-will employment" stuff is just a way of employers being able to cherry-pick who they want to work for them and for as long as they want. Sure the employee can quite but in some areas of our country employment was well up to 15% and people are not always able to just pick-up and move dues to family or community constraints. There's something very wrong with this model.
Instead of looking at one side of "at-will" (which is evidently what the OP is referring to), how bout looking at the entire concept? It allows EITHER party to terminate the employment for no reason. And while supply and demand typically gives employers more leverage, I certainly would not prefer the opposite scenario where I can't quit unless I have a "valid" reason.
Instead of looking at one side of "at-will" (which is evidently what the OP is referring to), how bout looking at the entire concept? It allows EITHER party to terminate the employment for no reason. And while supply and demand typically gives employers more leverage, I certainly would not prefer the opposite scenario where I can't quit unless I have a "valid" reason.
Oh...absolutely! Responsible behavior needs to be a 2-way street. And just for the record, I can safely report that I have witnessed the OTHER side of the issue as well. People impatient to get up the Corporate ladder will flit from one position to another in an effort to move high and fast. This usually leaves companies in dire straights as far as their projects go and also creates no small problems in providing those much-sought separation packages (aka: "Golden Parachutes").
My only reason for commenting is that people who WANT to make a commitment to a particular course of action or plan for their future can be stymied by not being able to depend on their employment/income. I think its reasonable to expect that a person ought be able to work without the constant threat of being let go dangling over their head constantly. Whatcha think?
SOmetimes I question people's stupidity, and if they know how to google things??? You post on a subject you claim to be passionate about, yet you don't even have a clue about what it even is. Right-to-work has nothing to do with being able to let people go.
This is why I firmly believe you should have to pass a test to be allowed to vote! What if this poster was voting for someone based on this issue!
Should those people have any benefits, pensions, retirement at all, or those are for the papepushers only? Maybe a firing squad after 55 y.o.? Are you familiar with the concept of a pyramid at all? Please, explain, how Wal-Mart could possibly provide "upwardly mobile" opportunities for 2 millions+ of its cashiers. Where those 2+ millions of cashiers could possibly "advance" within WalMart if they all try hard, play by the book, and better themselves?
This thinly disguised social racism (just like yours) will make this country unfit for human habitation pretty soon. Humans absolutely must designate lower castes of people, deny them decent wage, living conditions, retirement. In the past they used color of your skin, today they use your occupation.
You quit your job and get a new one like everyone else. Or you go to college like everyone else. No one gets a job a wal-mart expecting to "advance." It's not Wal-Marts responsibility to solve the worlds perceived inequities. People who work at Wal-Mart full time do get benefits. They are actually basically the exact same as what target and other stores pay. Please explain to me how union or not, walmart workers would have upward mobility opportunities?
You quit your job and get a new one like everyone else. Or you go to college like everyone else. No one gets a job a wal-mart expecting to "advance." It's not Wal-Marts responsibility to solve the worlds perceived inequities. People who work at Wal-Mart full time do get benefits. They are actually basically the exact same as what target and other stores pay. Please explain to me how union or not, walmart workers would have upward mobility opportunities?
With all that superb education of yours you still cannot comprehend concept of a pyramid. OK, let me help you, just imagine that USA is one big Wal-Mart. Most of the jobs in Wal-Mart USA are non management and low paid (that's even if you have a job). Bottom 40% of workers in Wal-Mart USA owns whopping 0.5% of nation' wealth and 3% of nation' income, top 20% own 90% of wealth. Yet, your delusion suggests that provided proper efforts (just like yours, because you are such remarkable human being) bottom layers of the pyramid we call USA could collectively move up to the upper layers. It's beyond laughable. Nope, there is no top without bottom. There is no your decent wage/income without forcing lower layers of the pyramid to work for less (than you). Laws of hierarchy are clear and immutable, you must have X number of lesser monkeys per each top monkey.
It's very pleasant to spend 1 hour of your life working in order to secure 1000 hours of service a lesser human being. It's tempting to assign such a remarkable exchange rate to your own genetic superiority, intelligence, efforts, upbringing, invisible hand, whatever. Better yet to deny significant portion of population means of survival (job, for example) and grab resources they would have used for yourself, then call for invisible hand to justify this sort of expropriation. But those are secondary and tertiary things. Foundation of such skewed exchange rate - coercion, violence, repressive apparatus of a state. In a truly free world without coercion under penalty of starvation etc. no human being would spend 1000 hours working in order to get 1 hour of your service. Anglos exterminated Indians because they were self-sufficient and impossible to turn into wage slaves unlike imported Irish etc.
There is NO law of nature saying that Wal-Mart cashiers should be paid peanuts unlike you (whatever you do) and WM management. Wal-Mart cashiers deprived of independent means of subsistence/survival can be forced to work for peanuts and so can you (trust me). It's called wage slavery for a reason. You just try to justify the plight and incomes of the bottom layers of wage slaves. Guess what, full fledged slave owners of the past did something similar to justify their standing in the pecking order of human beings.
Last edited by RememberMee; 11-29-2012 at 09:01 AM..
SOmetimes I question people's stupidity, and if they know how to google things??? You post on a subject you claim to be passionate about, yet you don't even have a clue about what it even is. Right-to-work has nothing to do with being able to let people go.
This is why I firmly believe you should have to pass a test to be allowed to vote! What if this poster was voting for someone based on this issue!
Right to work (what an Orwellian euphemism) usually goes hand in hand with "at will employment" (another Orwellian euphemism). If a state is "right to work" it is usually "at will employment" state and vice verse. Correlation is absolutely remarkable, thus both terms are interchangeable from stand point of a wage slave.
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.
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.
