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 as bad, in such a huge country and with different states offering tax incentives, people frequently find their jobs are moved to other, cheaper states and they either have to move/ may need to take a pay cut, or will lose their jobs.
Not fun with kids, a mortgage and a life. Some families find themselves split between states just trying to make ends meet. One of my coworkers is having to move to Florida for this reason - his wife was let go and can only find work there. Luckily he was able to find a similar position to the one he has down south so at least they can stay together.
There are pros and cons to living in a large country with separate states.
Yes, your job might move to another state and you might not want to.
However, don't forget the upside. If you yourself don't like the state you live in, or can't find a good job there, or feel your state's taxes are too high, you can move and start over somewhere else. You can change your landscape, climate, and general culture without ever having to leave the country or learn a new language.
As far as families being split between two states just to make ends meet, you are seeing the effects of a Great Recession. Prior to this economic mess, it was not so common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyB
Generally, no notice is required although companies will demand that employees give notice.
Employees are only expected to give two weeks notice.
Not all companies fire an employee and expect them to leave the same day. Many of them have the employee stay a few weeks. Some better jobs have severance packages. If you have a 401k, you take it with you. In some situations, a company has a policy of having the employee leave immediately because of security reasons.
There is no uniform policy among U.S. corporations.
If you could prove that you were fired because of who you voted for, you'd have a hell of a lawsuit. Voting freedom is sacred here.
LOTS of people express political views at work. It's very common. The only way you could get fired is if you started actually bothering other employees about it. If you could prove that you were fired for merely holding a political view your employer didn't like, you'd have a lawsuit.
You have to realize that even if a stupid law is on the books, like being fired for using birth control in Arizona (first I've heard of it), that it would not fly in court. There are many stupid laws on the books that are unenforced, and once someone mounts a legal challenge and wins, those laws become null and void.
Some laws will hold up in court and some won't. If you can prove your civil liberties were violated, then you win.
Um, you do realize that if a law is on the books, then yes, of course it will hold up in court, it's a LAW. Not to say that a law can't be challenged but judges have to follow the law, only the legislature can change the laws and Supreme Court is required to decide if the laws are unconstitutional.
And yes, you can in fact be fired for voting choices, strange and surprising and shocking as it may sound. Please show me the law that says you can't.
Funnily enough in the US people tend to assume rights that they just don't have. There is absolutely no right to a job or right to keep a job.
"Most people are familiar with the standard protected classes: race, sex, age, religion, etc. But beyond that, many people feel that if something is unfair, then it must somehow be illegal.
Yet that is often not the case, at least in employment law.
You can be fired for a host of reasons in at-will employment, such as for being a Cubs fan (an option I’m thankful my employers have decided to forego) or for not inviting someone to your happy hour (something you would never do, of course, because you like everyone you work with). And, perhaps most pertinently these days, you can usually be fired for being of the “wrong” political affiliation (not your political affiliation – the other one).
I was reminded of this the other day when I received a text from a friend (a diehard Democrat) who said her boss (a diehard Republican) had just described President Obama in some rather unflattering terms. My friend let the comment slide rather than get into an argument with her boss over his views of President Obama’s policies, in part because she was afraid she would lose her job.
When I saw her later that day, she asked me what recourse she would have should her boss one day fire her simply for being a Democrat. This is not just an academic question: in the past several months, there have been several news stories about employees who claim they were fired for their political beliefs, including a waitress in Illinois who claims she was terminated for wearing a Tea Party bracelet during her shift.
The answer to my friend’s question is that her hypothetical termination, if really just based on her political affiliation, is likely legal. Unlike federal or state government employees, private sector employees often have little recourse if they are fired for their political beliefs. Neither Title VII nor any other federal law governing the employment practices of private employers prohibits discrimination on the basis of political beliefs. And while some states, such as New York, do prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs or affiliation, many states have no such prohibition."
This discussion of being fired for political beliefs overlooks an important point: all of the people claiming discrimination were fired not for having a political viewpoint, but rather for expressing it while at work. I think it is reasonable to expect that people refrain from discussing politics (and other charged topics) while on the clock. My previous employer had a no discussing politics at work policy, and it was quite refreshing. At my current job, I usually pop in earphones when people start talking politics. Because really, we're not at work to express our personal beliefs; we're there to do our jobs.
Um, you do realize that if a law is on the books, then yes, of course it will hold up in court, it's a LAW. Not to say that a law can't be challenged but judges have to follow the law, only the legislature can change the laws and Supreme Court is required to decide if the laws are unconstitutional.
And yes, you can in fact be fired for voting choices, strange and surprising and shocking as it may sound. Please show me the law that says you can't.
Funnily enough in the US people tend to assume rights that they just don't have. There is absolutely no right to a job or right to keep a job.
If a state has a law that violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then the Constitution or Bill of Rights takes precedence and the state law does not stand. State laws are overturned on a regular basis for this reason.
We don't need a specific law to prevent firing because of voting choices. Voting rights are mentioned in several of the amendments to the Bill of Rights. Voting rights can't be denied or abridged by either the United States or the States. Do you really think an employer is empowered to interfere with voting?
The only way an employer could succeed in getting rid of an employee because of their vote, would be to make it look like they were fired for some other other legitimate reason.
I agree that there is no right to a job or to keep a job, but surely you are not suggesting that either of those rights exist in the U.K.? You might have more laws governing how someone is let go, but no one is guaranteed a job.
This discussion of being fired for political beliefs overlooks an important point: all of the people claiming discrimination were fired not for having a political viewpoint, but rather for expressing it while at work. I think it is reasonable to expect that people refrain from discussing politics (and other charged topics) while on the clock. My previous employer had a no discussing politics at work policy, and it was quite refreshing. At my current job, I usually pop in earphones when people start talking politics. Because really, we're not at work to express our personal beliefs; we're there to do our jobs.
Exactly. The day an employee gets told they are being fired for their political beliefs, is the day you will see a news story that won't die. And a court case.
I personally know of someone who was laid off during this recession. Knowing what I know about the circumstances, I believe he was not a favorite employee because he was so strident about his political beliefs, and he beat people over the head with them during work hours.
The employer didn't offer a reason for the lay off because lay offs are due to downsizing. It's not the same thing as being fired.
I do think that when they were looking at who they could stand to lose, they decided to lose this employee because of his personality. It wasn't his specific beliefs; it was his annoying conduct.
If a state has a law that violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then the Constitution or Bill of Rights takes precedence and the state law does not stand. State laws are overturned on a regular basis for this reason.
We don't need a specific law to prevent firing because of voting choices. Voting rights are mentioned in several of the amendments to the Bill of Rights. Voting rights can't be denied or abridged by either the United States or the States. Do you really think an employer is empowered to interfere with voting?
The only way an employer could succeed in getting rid of an employee because of their vote, would be to make it look like they were fired for some other other legitimate reason.
I agree that there is no right to a job or to keep a job, but surely you are not suggesting that either of those rights exist in the U.K.? You might have more laws governing how someone is let go, but no one is guaranteed a job.
I take it you didn't bother to read the link I posted to actual employment law as it contradicts what you've just said. While I admit that it might be unusual to fire someone for political choices and that it would be more likely that it would happen if the person was strident and annoying it is in fact perfectly legal.
"The principal federal anti-discrimination statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not protect an employee against discrimination on the basis of the employee's political views. For federal employees, the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. section 2301, prohibits the consideration of political affiliation in hiring and other employment decisions for most career civil service employees. Other federal regulations reinforce this principle for various government agencies. "
Employers aren't allowed to interfere with voting but voting can most definitely interfere with employment (assuming the employer knows who a person voted for). As employers can fire people for behaviour outside of work (except in 4 states) then conceivably, even if the person keeps quiet at work their membership to a political group or online postings and support can quite legally be a foundation for dismissal.
No the UK doesn't have the "right to have or keep a job" but they do have rights concerning unfair dismissal that aren't present in the States. They have a pretty efficient tribunal system in place for this.
It seems that common threads throughout this thread (pardon the pun) are dress code, pressure / intensity, and job security, all of which I have heard elsewhere.
One thing Americans receive in exchange for the supposed pressure and intensity of their work (and relative lack of vacation, which seems to be certain) and lack of job security is (somewhat ironically) a higher material standard of living. What would pass as "normal" in at least certain areas of the U.S. - two parents, two kids, three cars, a mini-McMansion on an acre of land in the suburbs and a cabin on a lake with a boat and ATV - would be considered living in the lap of luxury in the U.K. I suppose this is to be expected from a country with 80% of the GDP of the U.S. And even low-wage workers (those without health insurance or job stability) have iPhones, 60"+ flat-screen televisions, and "big boys' toys" such as snowmobiles and four-wheelers. An experience I suppose would be fascinating for a Brit would be to drive through a untidy trailer court, observe the dilapidation of the "mobile homes", and then see nice cars outside of them and a common place for stowing boats and snowmobiles.
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.
