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.
2 weeks is typical, but not a legal requirement. "Has to" is 100% inaccurate. No legal notification period exists.
When you are fired for cause, having you stay would present a risk to the corp, so I would hope she was not allowed to stay then.
I am not going to argue about the "semantics" here, but Employment at Will looks out for the interests of the employer first of all, not employee. To pretend that it's "equal" is just that - a pretense, sorry.
I am not going to argue about the "semantics" here, but Employment at Will looks out for the interests of the employer first of all, not employee. To pretend that it's "equal" is just that - a pretense, sorry.
Disagree. I know far, far more employees over decades who have quit, versus the quantity fired.
Without Employment At Will, folks who quit a job for a better one could get sued for any economic impact their not being there cost the first employer.
I have utilized Employment At Will several times, as an employee.
No it's not "nonsense" as much as you'd like to believe.
The employee has to notify the employer, to give him/her couple of weeks to find the replacement, and in case of searching for a new job, the last word is still with the employer, who will ( or won't) give the positive references to its former employee ( keeping those two last weeks in mind including.)
Question; did this woman get her two weeks to look for a new job, or not so much?
Did the nitwit give her employer two weeks notice that she was going to act like a fool soon??? And there is no law that requires an employee to give two weeks notice, anyone can quit at any time, unless there is some contractual arrangement made that says otherwise. And if you can show an employer that they can profit from you, the last employer's reference will mean very little one way or the other.
"Proletarians" always see themselves as victims of employers, failing to realize that in reality, the employee is really in business for themselves. They are free to sell their supposed value to any prospective employer or other members of society. They are also free to refuse to sell their labor to employers or others if they choose to. Their "labor" is their "business". Somehow they always see themselves as exploited, which they are to create profit for the employer, but it is their choice to be exploited by an employer, rather than to develop a skill, value, product, or service on their own to offer in the marketplace to other people.
If you must work for someone else, you are simply a tool. Tools are only valuable under the control of, and skilled application by, those who create something with those tools. By themselves, tools are completely useless. Which tools always seem to forget when they rage against the evils of their employers who are the only ones who have found a valuable use for them.
If the exploited proletariat wish to receive full compensation for their value and have control over their own fate, they must create something of value for the end customer, directly to the consumer. If they cannot do this on their own, they must subjugate themselves to those that can. (And they should be thankful that someone has taken their uselessness, and found a way to allow them to earn something from their fellow man.)
Disagree. I know far, far more employees over decades who have quit, versus the quantity fired.
Without Employment At Will, folks who quit a job for a better one could get sued for any economic impact their not being there cost the first employer.
I have utilized Employment At Will several times, as an employee.
Those are the *unintended consequences* of Employment at Will, that originally was supposed to benefit first of all the employer. The employees whose skills are in demand though, have SOME leverage with employer. But that doesn't extend to the rest of them.
She still doesn't get it and never will, and is quite proud and defiant of what she did, even at one point posting that picture on her social media account.
"Priceless?"
No, as we can see with the current example, the price is put on "freedom of speech," even if not through the government.
This whole "employment at will" protects first of all the employer; the employee on another hand often works not because of "employment at will," but because he/she needs to eat.
I suspect we are heading to times, when each and every claim of "freedom" in America is going to be tested for its genuineness.
This always happens in these situations.
You like the first persons views so when someone else reacts to them you feel that the first person has freedom of speech but that the second one (her employer) shouldn't have their rights.
I guess if I run a vegan smoothie shop in NYC that my employees decision to wear a MAGA hat, comment on ladies butts or otherwise offend my clientele that you'd be just fine with firing the employee.
Irony of the thread title....including the word fascist.
No it's not "nonsense" as much as you'd like to believe.
The employee has to notify the employer, to give him/her couple of weeks to find the replacement, and in case of searching for a new job, the last word is still with the employer, who will ( or won't) give the positive references to its former employee ( keeping those two last weeks in mind including.)
Question; did this woman get her two weeks to look for a new job, or not so much?
Utter BS. 2 weeks notice is a "courtesy" at best. LMAO...I mean seriously, if I jsut stop coming to work as of Monday what are they going to do, come and drag me off in chains?
I know many people that have just flipped the bird and walked off work, ironically had a guy tell me that story last night about working at a major retailer in college that wanted them to work past midnight out of the blue when they had finals the next morning.
You're not even making coherent points, yep...nevermind...people that cannot hold a thoughtful intelligent position (and I appreciate a WIDE range of viewpoints) go on ignore.
I wonder how the "highly offended" liberals would have reacted if the chick was flipping off Obama?
It doesn't matter what "highly offended liberals" would think, the question is, how would they act?
Because a lot of people here are getting confused apparently between stating an opinion and taking action.
This is not one and the same thing. What the biker did was expressed her opinion.
The employer however took an action, thus punishing her for expressed opinion.
In society with truly free speech this shouldn't be happening.
This is not one and the same thing. What the biker did was expressed her opinion.
The employer however took an action, thus punishing her for expressed opinion.
.
Wrong again. The Employer has Free Speech rights, too, and expresses them by disassociating the business from those whose POV actions run counter to the business. I applaud how quickly it responded. No one has a right to any job past the point either employer or employee decide to opt out.
PS: Flipping the bird is an action. It is not verbal.
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.
