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.
The problem comes up when you want to apply for another job after quitting your old one. Your boss can throw you out the door in 5 minutes and it doesn't affect him one bit, but if you don't give a two-week notice, it's going to be a lot harder for you to find work again.
By the way, if anyone here considers themselves middle-class, thank the GI bill and the unions.
I am thankful for a union in the fact that theres need to be a very good reason to fire me
Luckily it never happens.
I dont like the insecurity of being fired at anytime
No thanks ( to hell with peoples businesses)
If we look at our socialist friends in Europe. They got what most Americans want in terms of labor protection but at the cost of high unemployment especially for younger generation. If you got no degree in Europe you can forget about getting into corporate. Which is the cause of huge income inequalities there and over 20% unemployment rate for people under 30. European countries are afraid of hiring, so they outsource a lot of their high skilled jobs overseas.
Europe is made up of numerous countries.
Germany—the premier auto-making country—is a capitalist country, yet they have low unemployment. And they do have unions (actually, IG Metall, one large union, which in Germany is collaborative instead of adversarial.)
How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much
"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany's big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."
As for being able to get into a highly competitive, upper management corporate position in Germany, sure you'll need a university degree (unless you are the company founder), but that's true here, too. And I see nothing at all wrong with that. And of course, the company leaders will be older as they will have been with the company longer, too.
As of June 2016, Germany's unemployment rate was 4.2%. The U.S. was similarly low at 4.9%.
France was higher, at 10.5%
I am thankful for a union in the fact that theres need to be a very good reason to fire me
Luckily it never happens.
I dont like the insecurity of being fired at anytime
No thanks ( to hell with peoples businesses)
Every industry is different, of course. It sounds like your industry is one where products and customer orders are at least somewhat predictable (say, defense). Or perhaps for a governmental entity. At any rate, it sounds like the business has existed for a long time so the business model is tested and works. Good for you.
I've only worked in industries where things change so much that there is no way to know if any person's skillset is right for two years down the road. So there is no way to provide any type of assurance. If you're, say, a union pipefitter, and your employer no longer needs pipefitting because it fundamentally changed its business, well there is no need for your skills. (OK, the high tech equivalent: if you're an electrical engineer who designs ASICs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applic...grated_circuit), and the employer decides to just be a software tools company, there is no need for your skills.)
What would be the suggested alternative to at-will employment? Surely you aren't suggesting that companies be forced to keep employees they don't want?
The alternative to at-will employment is the requirement for just cause when firing someone:
Montanna is the only state that uses just cause, every other state uses "at will."
I'd be curious to hear from people who have either been employees or employers in Montana to know how noticeable this difference is in practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolovefromANFIELD
I like the fact that I can fire someone just because I wake up one morning and decide that I hate the world.
A competent employee will, however, like the fact that he/she can tell me to go pound sand for the very same reason.
Doing either of these doesn't guarantee that an employee or an employer is competent. In fact, both can be dumb moves.
Montanna is the only state that uses just cause, every other state uses "at will."
I'd be curious to hear from people who have either been employees or employers in Montana to know how noticeable this difference is in practice.
As an employer, this does not prevent us from terminating an employee (in Montana) without just cause, it only means we have to do it within the statutory exemptions which increases our SUI rate. The state really doesn't care if we get rid of an employee without just cause so long as we pay them their fees to permit us to do so. Of course, I can build a 'just cause' case like many other employers do, but that takes time and energy. Paying the state to let me avoid just cause is every so much easier and simpler.
So let's clear this up. There is no right to a job. No right to have a job. No right to keep a job. A job is a purely voluntary and free association between a person and a business that should be able to be ended by either party for any or no reason. Either party should be able to end the relationship at any time. So at-will employment that goes both ways is the correct, moral, natural, and most efficient setup. Interfering with that freedom is often seen, and always fails. The biggest example of abject coercional failure in the employment sector is the wholesale destruction of the economy that we saw when unions were in control. The reason we have no more manufacturing? Unions and their tyranny. Thankfully, those days appear to be receding into a disgraceful malevolent sunset. And with it, the inefficiency, the lack of productivity, the entitlement, and quite often the wanton violence when someone dared to attempt freedom.
At-will employment that goes both ways is the only moral arrangement. We need to embrace economic freedom and push for universal at-will employment. Unions should be legal, but purely voluntary. No coercion. No compulsion. Only rational persuasion and demonstration of tangible benefit. But never a closed shop of any kind.
If this is true then how do you explain textile and furniture manufacturers in the South moving overseas when those industries were never unionized?
So let's clear this up. There is no right to a job. No right to have a job. No right to keep a job. A job is a purely voluntary and free association between a person and a business that should be able to be ended by either party for any or no reason. Either party should be able to end the relationship at any time. So at-will employment that goes both ways is the correct, moral, natural, and most efficient setup. Interfering with that freedom is often seen, and always fails. The biggest example of abject coercional failure in the employment sector is the wholesale destruction of the economy that we saw when unions were in control. The reason we have no more manufacturing? Unions and their tyranny. Thankfully, those days appear to be receding into a disgraceful malevolent sunset. And with it, the inefficiency, the lack of productivity, the entitlement, and quite often the wanton violence when someone dared to attempt freedom.
At-will employment that goes both ways is the only moral arrangement. We need to embrace economic freedom and push for universal at-will employment. Unions should be legal, but purely voluntary. No coercion. No compulsion. Only rational persuasion and demonstration of tangible benefit. But never a closed shop of any kind.
Pretty much this. Tried to rep - but evidently I need to spread the love.
As for the OP on removing at-will.
Will the employee have to do the same? I think this is the issue. Most want just-cause for employers only. But still maintain at-will for the employees. Sort of ironic that people whine about things not being fair, but then propose solutions that are completely self-serving.
And how do we think employers will react to such a change? Does anyone actually think reality works in a vacuum? You don't think employers' will change their behavior to minimize the impact to them? I would bet that if you take at-will away from the employer, it will actually be much worse for the job seekers. You think interviewing for jobs is complex now. Imagine having to hire a lawyer when you look for jobs.. because that's what it'll end up being. Remove at-will, and everything will likely become contracts based.
Montanna is the only state that uses just cause, every other state uses "at will."
I'd be curious to hear from people who have either been employees or employers in Montana to know how noticeable this difference is in practice.
Doing either of these doesn't guarantee that an employee or an employer is competent. In fact, both can be dumb moves.
Competence herein refers to freedom. Freedom for both an employer and an employee to make a decision they both feel is in their best interest without any undue pressure from anyone or anything, including unions and the government.
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.
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.
