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 whole "fire you for no reason at all", while true, is something that just sounds good to say. Because there's always a reason. And if you fire someone for "no" reason, the hidden reason is probably not legit.
...but I'm sure most of the well-seasoned (mostly management) employees posting on C-D know that.
The whole "fire you for no reason at all", while true, is something that just sounds good to say. Because there's always a reason. And if you fire someone for "no" reason, the hidden reason is probably not legit.
...but I'm sure most of the well-seasoned (mostly management) employees posting on C-D know that.
Right. In practice, people aren't fired for no reason. Sometimes the reason is a problem on the side of the company (in which case it's really a layoff and not a firing). But good employees are few and far between. I mean really reliable people who do their work, don't cause drama, don't ask a billion questions, don't create more work for others, actually meet deadlines, etc. If you're one of those employees, chances are extremely good that you will not be fired unless there's something pretty egregious (theft, disclosure of company secrets, etc.). A great employee isn't going to be fired for taking "too much" PTO or whatever. Unless the employer is an idiot (which can happen), they know when they've got a good deal with an employee who benefits the company.
The whole "fire you for no reason at all", while true, is something that just sounds good to say. Because there's always a reason. And if you fire someone for "no" reason, the hidden reason is probably not legit.
...but I'm sure most of the well-seasoned (mostly management) employees posting on C-D know that.
Yes, we will not fire anyone without cause even though everyone is an at-will employee. Every termination is looked at as if it is going to go to litigation and, except for the most egregious of offenses, there is a clear trail of training, re-training, counseling/coaching, and discipline before it gets to the termination step. I have also seen several senior management people (at other employers) terminated because they were "at-will" successfully sue their former employers, with the judge finding the terminations arbitrary and capricious.
Point made. I deserve nothing, so anything I get, I should be grateful..
You don't seem to grasp that employers hire employees because they need certain work performed. They aren't hiring employees as a social service to help employees have happy lives. They are paying you for your labor.
You're right, it's one-sided. In favor of the employee. All of the things you listed involved the employer paying the employee and receiving no labor in return. Of course they would want to minimize this. Do you typically pay for services you don't receive? If your babysitter/lawnmower/stylist/etc. said they had something to do and couldn't provide their service this week would you still pay them for the service? So what exactly do you "deserve"? When you "get" time off what are you giving for it in return?
Do you typically pay for services you don't receive? If your babysitter/lawnmower/stylist/etc. said they had something to do and couldn't provide their service this week would you still pay them for the service?
Hmmm. So maybe employers should start paying employees at the end of each day. They pay for the labor they got that day, and the employee gets compensated for what they did that day. People can take off whenever they want--they just don't get paid for it. That would be a game changer for sure.
Like others in this thread, I think your examples are not actually all that anti-employee, and certainly aren't "for no reason." Thoughts below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYSD1995
For example:
- Benefits start after 90 days (discriminates against families and caregivers) - I fail to see how this is discriminatory. Also, in my experience (Which is obviously not universal) 401k starts after 90 days but things like medical start much sooner, like the first day of the month following employment. And that largely has to do with making administration a little more manageable.
- Caps and other restrictions on PTO (why? if you are worried about accrual, have minimum vacations or an office closure) - You don't want people banking this for years only to take 4 months off or cash it all out at the end. The idea is to give people a break to recharge. These policies help incent people to use PTO in the way it is meant to be used without overburdening other when someone decides to save up so much that it is overly burdensome on their colleagues to cover their work in their absence.
- Holiday schedules bare minimum - 9-11 days (USA, the whole country is closed except us) - These are free days off, enjoy them. Why should employers provide more than this if they don't need to for a competitive advantage in the marketplace for talent?
- PTO accrual starts on day one so essentially you are barred from taking a vacation in the first year (super common) - I actually don't even understand this criticism. Are you saying PTO should be a block grant on Day 1? No - new hires could take it all in the beginning and walk and good luck recouping the unearned portion. I will say this - I do find those pure annual use it or lose it policies, when coupled with a prohibition on borrowing PTO, abusive because it is impossible to take PTO early in the year and you necessarily leave some unused at the end of the year since it accrues through the very last day. Thankfully there are few employers that do this, but I worked for one of them. Luckily our department head had an unofficial practice to correct this, but that simply shouldn't be necessary,
- Anti moonlighting policies, even though the manager will negotiate you down in the hiring process (super common, I always negotiate this away) - I'm not sure what you mean by "negotiating down" in this context, but well structured moonlighting policies make sense since you don't want to have to schedule around other employers or having employees' work impacted by another job. An overly broad blanket prohibition I would agree is problematic, particularly for part-time employees.
- Forced to use paid leave before unpaid leave (this seems ridiculous) - Why is this ridiculous? Again, they don't want people amassing PTO to a point where it is not manageable. There is no requirement that employers allow you ANY unpaid time off, so if you have the option be grateful for it. Remember the interests of your colleagues that are covering for you in your absence are also relevant here.
I agree with the following post, which I think has a better list of truly employee-unfriendly policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
I agree that some of the policies cited are disadvantageous to the workers, and workers would be better off if they were different. For instance, where I work we have no limit on sick time accrual and a very generous limit on vacation time accrual (ten weeks max, no more than one week carried forward per year), and those policies benefit employees who have been here a long time (39 years for me, so far). That means they are also an incentive for loyalty and longevity.
I actually came here expecting to see common policies that are not only oppressive, but some are illegal, such as:
==>prohibition on discussing salary with other employees
==>requiring wait staff to make up for breakage or customer nonpayment in restaurants
==>requiring doctor's note for short sick leaves
==>requiring employees to share accommodations on business travel
==>requiring receipts for small reimbursement requests.
I'm sure we can all think of others, but there are plenty of things employers do, some of them illegal, some legal, that make life harder for employees without significantly benefiting the employer. I think it is short-sighted for employers to do this.
- Anti moonlighting policies, even though the manager will negotiate you down in the hiring process (super common, I always negotiate this away)
First, I never negotiate things like this. I just ignore them. If they want to fire me for having a completely legal side hustle, let them. I will happily take them to court. Well-established precedent that such policies are illegal.
Second, all policies are written to benefit the employers--anti-moonlighting, no salary discussions, doctor's notes. These are mostly scare tactics. They keep you from fighting for higher pay, keep you dependent on them as your sole source of income, keep you from taking sick leave (which is an overhead expense for them). Even when written, few companies bother enforcing them. And if they do enforce them, they will assume you are too scared or poor to fight them on it.
Point made. ***I deserve nothing, so anything I get, I should be grateful.***
I agree with you here. Some folks have Stockholm syndrome and seem to revel in it like bathing in a bathtub of essential oils.
My employer is crap.
No paid sick time.
No accrued PTO. You earn less than 3.33 hrs of vacation every month so that by the time December rolls around - when they like to close for the week between xmas and NYE - you're either paid your full vacation for the week they close or you operate in the negatives all year long for vacation and "owe" them. If you leave before the year is out, they dock your check for vacation you may have taken. Then you default to zero again on 1/1.
Raises are given on an "I like you today" basis, every December.
This is among many other issues, with the staunch arrogance that they "don't need to compete" with other employers. This is a sickening mindset of the small business owner, and at the past 3 consecutive small businesses I have worked.
I agree with you here. Some folks have Stockholm syndrome and seem to revel in it like bathing in a bathtub of essential oils.
My employer is crap.
No paid sick time.
No accrued PTO. You earn less than 3.33 hrs of vacation every month so that by the time December rolls around - when they like to close for the week between xmas and NYE - you're either paid your full vacation for the week they close or you operate in the negatives all year long for vacation and "owe" them. If you leave before the year is out, they dock your check for vacation you may have taken. Then you default to zero again on 1/1.
Raises are given on an "I like you today" basis, every December.
This is among many other issues, with the staunch arrogance that they "don't need to compete" with other employers. This is a sickening mindset of the small business owner, and at the past 3 consecutive small businesses I have worked.
I only stay because it's a short drive.
Oh wow. What field/industry are you in? I work for a smallish business but they're not bad. Not amazing, but not bad.
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.
