Sorry, u/BONERR4EVERR – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20BONERR4EVERR&message=BONERR4EVERR%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/127uelz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If your manager doesn’t want to deal with you, isn’t the company de facto better off if you are fired? If your manager is wrong in his assessment, he can be fired. And so on up the chain.
The board is typically appointed by equity. If it took a board resolution to let you go, what the hell sort of employment protections are you looking for?
Employment laws are some of the best intentioned laws we have that generate some of the worst, most perverse outcomes. The labor market is made artificially less dynamic than it otherwise would be.
People complain that they can’t get their foot in the door at companies now. Well of course not, because now every new hire is a potential employment lawsuit if it doesn’t work out. If you are fired, you can find an attorney willing to sue your employer on some basis. And these lawsuits get expensive and are bad PR so they usually result in quick settlements.
I'm not sure what you mean by that but yes. I don't have a doubt in my mind that employee protections are important. There's a lot of situations where unions, safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws, child labour protection, have allowed the general public to raise their living and working standards. If you don't know about manufacturing practices in the early part of the 20th century, it would make you sick. Business owners will use up human lives in the most horrific ways without labour protections.
I know that life, in general, in the early part of the twentieth century would make most people sick by modern standards. That was my question. What employment laws do you think solved problems that wouldn’t have been solved simply by technology progress or changing social dynamics (like child labor).
So today we have more regulations behind employee protection and life,in general, is better than life back then. Are you sure that the two are completely unrelated? People demanded better wages and safer homes and workplaces and forced government to make regulations. Why is this not considered a social dynamic? Or a driving force for better and safer technology? Regulations punish poor safety standards in the workplace which incentivized owners to find safer equipment and practices. If you want to talk about child labour laws, factory owners prefered to hire children as they were much cheaper than adult labourers. Children trust and listen to adults and are generally more obedient, especially if they have no food or clothes. They can't stand up for themselves or resist abuse from an adult. Their hands are small and can reach into parts of machines. And when the child loses their legs or hand to the machine, business men simply replace them with more children. There were no regulations and there never would have been any until photography became more popular. Someone started photographing mangled, destitute children and the photos started getting public attention. So it's not like the general public thought it was acceptable back then. They just didn't really think it was a problem. Today, the general public still think it's wrong to exploit children but now we have pressured the gov to make laws. If we eliminated those laws we would certain slip back to those dark times.
I’m asking specifically which ones? Like OSHA wasn’t created until 1970, well after all those turn of the century factories had been quite modernized. Child labor laws came into existence at a time when the US didn’t need children working in factories anymore because adults were reeling form the Great Depression and needs jobs. It seems pretty far fetched to think that a law, as opposed to a dramatic change in the way society was structured, is what stopped widespread child labor.
I wasn't talking about any specific country. Although it seems unlikely to me that the US only thought of child protection laws in the 70s. Are you sure you have your facts straight?
>Who holds a board of directors accountable?
Shareholders.
If they fire you and the company ends up doing worse, you know they made the wrong choice.
If they fire you and the company does better, it was probably for the best.
It ignores the ethics of stripping someone of their livelihood. When your only concern is getting more profit than last year, you end up not caring how you get it so long as the end results are legal and relatively invisible to you.
Nobody owes anyone a job. There is no ethical concern when it comes to offering someone a job and then realizing that person isn't a good fit for the job or the culture. If it was a racial issue or gender issue or really any protected class issue, that's a different story. If you're a white cis gendered male under 40 years old, you just need to accept the fact that they didn't want you there anymore. It could literally be them removing you to hire a diversity hire and you really have no recourse. Live with it and move on. If you have any capacity to take critical feedback, you might just ask them if they have any advice for your next employment opportunity on how you can improve. It doesn't sound like OP has that though... Seems they are defiant and believe they are right and the Board of Directors is wrong. I wish him luck on the next company but expect the same type of outcome....
You're still talking out your ass. Even with a contract, employment is conditional. It has a duration and terms for termination of employment. They might owe you a severance, but they don't owe you a job. You're a fool for responding so irresponsibly without having a clue what you're talking about.
>Even with a contract, employment is conditional.
That doesn't mean all conditions are employment are automatically ethical. Ignoring the legality of it, would it be ethical for an employer to stipulate in the contract that they can fire you if they find out you're Jewish or voted for a certain way in an election?
Why is it ethical to strip someone of their livelihood and access to healthcare because you think they could do a better job than they're currently doing?
It's not a big problem in Germany, at all, where they aren't allowed to do that.
What is unethical about it?
If I pay you to do a job, and you cannot perform that job up to adequate standards, I should be able to stop paying you.
Are you saying its ethical to continue to take money from someone when you don't hold up your end of the agreement?
>What is unethical about it?
They're relying on that money to feed, shelter, and clothe them and their family. You're saying that doesn't matter because you care more about profits.
Caring more about profits than people is unethical.
>I pay you to do a job, and you cannot perform that job up to adequate standards, I should be able to stop paying you.
You should have done better at hiring, then. That doesn't give you the ethical right to fire them. Unless you only care about profits over people.
>Are you saying its ethical to continue to take money from someone when you don't hold up your end of the agreement?
Not right away, and not without giving them a chance to improve, no.
What is not holding up their end of the bargain? You described someone who just isn't as good as you thought. That isn't the same as not holding up your end of the bargain. That's a vague, unfalsifiable claim. It also means absolutely nothing. You could easily be lying about your expectations.
Poor performance is way different than not showing up to work for a week. They aren't paying you based on your actual skill. They're paying you the lowest amount you were willing to accept.
>They're relying on that money to feed, shelter, and clothe them and their family. You're saying that doesn't matter because you care more about profits.
Caring more about profits than people is unethical.
And if the company goes under, how many more people lose their jobs?
>You should have done better at hiring, then. That doesn't give you the ethical right to fire them. Unless you only care about profits over people.
At least you admit that person was probably a poor hire.
So you think its ethical to continue to take money from people when you cannot perform the job.
>Not right away, and not without giving them a chance to improve, no.
We don't know the full story - if the person was incredibly inept or if this was a huge mistake. You don't need to give a second chance to everyone. Its nice, but not always a possibility.
>What is not holding up their end of the bargain? You described someone who just isn't as good as you thought. That isn't the same as not holding up your end of the bargain.
I pay you to do a job, and if you perform the job at a substandard quality, that is you not holding up your end of the bargain.
>Poor performance is way different than not showing up to work for a week. They aren't paying you based on your actual skill. They're paying you the lowest amount you were willing to accept.
Poor performance means a lot of things. And your skill is what allows you to negotiate for more money. If me and you get hired at the same position, you should be able to leverage your existing experience to negotiate for more money than me.
How about this - I have a car to sell you. It doesn't run, and is about 20 years past needing to be turned into scrap. I will sell it to you for $15,000. I could really use the money. If you don't buy it, its because you care more about profits than people.
>And if the company goes under, how many more people lose their jobs?
Name one time this has happened in the last 10 years because of one employee's poor performance. This is a myth that is never going to happen.
>So you think its ethical to continue to take money from people when you cannot perform the job.
Cannot perform? Like at all? Sounds like you need to train them better. Better start up some training time with them.
Yes, it's fine so long as you're actually trying. It's their fault for hiring you. They now tied your survival to their company. I believe they should need a lot more than just "you're not very good" after the contracts are signed.
>How about this - I have a car to sell you. It doesn't run, and is about 20 years past needing to be turned into scrap. I will sell it to you for $15,000. I could really use the money. If you don't buy it, its because you care more about profits than people.
Did you sign a contract saying you'd buy it (employment contract)? If so, then yes.
Ensuring a basic standard of living is the governments job, not your employer. Your life doesnt become your employers responsibility just because they hired you to do a job.
I disagree. Too much is tied to employment. Especially access to healthcare. When you tie whether someone gets treatment that will determine if they live or die to employment, the employer becomes obligated.
While that may be true, that's how it is. So my ethical evaluation takes that into account. That isn't the only thing that makes it unethical in my eyes, but it's not a point in favor of it.
It's not like companies don't embrace healthcare being tied to their employment, either. They like that they hold that much power over employees. It allows them to exploit them more. Do what I say or you may get injured or sick, and then what will you do!?
People go homeless because they lose their job. People also go untreated because of it.
Employers have a major ethical obligation to employees, in my eyes.
It is. We're talking about how it *should* *be*. I've given plenty of reason for my stance and not seen a convincing argument against it. So I still think it should be that way.
>CMV: It **SHOULD** **BE** a hell of a lot more difficult to fire someone
Emphasis mine.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention.
Modern corporations only care about maximizing next quarter’s profits, so the board can all get massive 8 figure bonuses.
Idk. I own shares in many companies. I care about long term profits. If you bought shares on the stock exchange tonight. What would you care about?
Actually doesn’t matter this is off topic and nothing to do with OPs view
If you think you have things figured out better than the Board, then you do not belong at the company. If you are correct, then it's a good outcome for you. If they are correct, then they took action in their interest as they see it.
As a manager and business owner, I have found quite a few times people who were *horrendously bad* at their job were shocked to be let go, because they thought they were great. Even after being told multiple times they weren’t meeting expectations.
If it is applicable, the shareholders. In some cases the applicable labor department of the government. But generally the BoD is the top of the chain until board elections come around.
Hiring people is a costly process in general because the amount time taken for paid training, so companies already face financial setbacks to fire and retrain someone new who won't be as productive in the beginning. So there needs to be a big enough motivation to fire someone. Like they are intolerable to work with, really suck at work, can't afford to pay for that many workers, or just putting the company at risk of shutting down.
Just cause there is no legal implications does not mean there are no financial consequences. Like lawyers and unions. Every company has a different culture and structure. Throwing that out of wack would just make companies decline and slow down growth. Also there are no legal implications for people lying on their resumes or boasting about work experiences they never really had. It is a two way street. Seen plenty of candidates that make themselves look better than they actually are. Fair enough companies fire them if they find out they lied and were frauds.
Wouldn’t it be fraud to accept a job if signing the offer comes with you acknowledging everything you gave as employment history is true, and you had lied on the resume given?
So the simple answer is that the company is doing what they believe to be in the best interest of the company. The company potentially employs 10s or hundreds or thousands of employees. Potentially offers a product to thousands or millions of consumers. Has a stock owned by thousands or millions of investors. So what is in the best interest of a company, to employ and provide a service to many many many people outweighs the benefit it brings you.
The company also did not take away your livelihood, they just stopped being the one providing it. You are free to seek employment elsewhere now.
So what is an inconvenience to you, should not hold precedence over what is the in the best interest of a group of people multiple times (maybe millions of times) larger than just you.
>If you can't prove that firing someone will be beneficial to the company, you should not be legally allowed to fire someone.
How do you quantify that? If someone smells bad and other people don't work as well, is that enough? If someone is catty and turns the office into high school lunchroom, is that enough?
I had to fire my best employee once. Business took a dive and I just couldn't afford him. Firing him wasn't "beneficial" at all. It was just a necessity.
If I have an employee, should he have to prove to me that it's beneficial for him to quit? Or should people just be allowed to do what they *believe* is best for them and or their business?
> But you should need to be able to prove it.
If I'm the sole owner of the organization, why should I be forced to employ someone I don't want to work with?
Have a better hiring process then, if you think you want to work with someone enough to offer them a job, you should have a very strong reason for going back on that commitment. Firing an employee means nothing to the owner whereas they could be destroying their former employees livelihood. There should be more protection for employees because the penalty for firing someone is negligible compared to the penalty for being fired.
> Have a better hiring process then
Have you ever had to actually hire people before? No one is going to disclose *exactly* how they're going to behave as an employee and, debatably, almost every interviewee is actively trying to deceive you into believing they will be perfect when they actually won't be. Most interviews are ticking the boxes to make sure you have the minimum core competencies coupled with a "vibe check" but it's essentially a first date, at best.
But isn't that what a probationary period is for? I'm European and here you usually start with a six month probationary period. During those six months, the employment can be ended by both sides relatively easily and quickly. After the six months are over, there are more protections for the employee and the employer needs to have a legit reason to fire you. I think six months should be long enough to expect the employer to have a good enough sense if they want to keep working with that employee.
>But isn't that what a probationary period is for?
Yes. OP posted this because he got smoked from 2 jobs in 6 months and thinks that it should have been harder to fire him.
Yes, most jobs have them then it gets progressively harder to fire someone.
As someone who worked government where unless someone does something blatantly illegal its REALLY hard to fire someone I'm not sure people would love working with some of the comically incompetent people you end up with but can't get rid of. Like Im not advocating for fire anyone whenever but theres more nuance then "no ones allowed to be fired"
Yeah I've seen two cases so far where someone was causing problems at work and actively antagonizing people and it was very difficult for the employer to get rid of them. They eventually did get rid of them, but it was a process. I still think it's good to have protections in place, but yeah, it's a nuanced subject and there are so many different scenarios, that there isn't really a one size fits all rule.
Right and if they’re a terrible employee after those vibe check interviews you should have ample proof that they are not a fit for the job/lied profusely in their interview, or have missed the minimum standards for the role. Not saying you should never be able to fire someone, but there should be a much higher minimum standard for cause.
Me hiring people has nothing to do with this.
> Me hiring people has nothing to do with this.
It absolutely does because, if you had experience here, you'd know that a good interview does not guarantee a good employee at all.
>Right and if they’re a terrible employee after those vibe check interviews you should have ample proof that they are not a fit for the job/lied profusely in their interview, or have missed the minimum standards for the role. Not saying you should never be able to fire someone, but there should be a much higher minimum standard for cause.
If the employee gets hired and decides they don't want the job anymore, should they be forced to continue working for me until they have a good enough reason to leave?
Again personal anecdotes mean nothing to the larger point, I don’t disagree that a good interview doesn’t mean a good employee, but I already addressed that.
No the employee should have the right to leave whenever. The companies existence does not depend on that employee remaining in that job like it does for the employee. If it does, the owner welcome to sell their labor under the same protections as their employee (higher standards for firing people). Workers livelihood relies on their abilities to sell their labor, and therefore should have more rights to remain in their job than a company should to coerce an employee to stay in their position against their will - that’s wage slavery.
Anyone that thinks firing someone “means nothing to an owner” has no clue what it’s like to own a business or manage people. Firing is an absolute last resort, and I don’t know a single person who takes doing so lightly. Everyone deliberates and stresses over it for months, or even longer, prior to doing over it. It is no small thing.
I agree with you here, but some people just interview really really well. Its not always easy to tell how good someone will do.
When you interview and hire people, what are some techniques that you use to help suss out bullshit?
It depends on the job for sure, technical interviews, calling references. I don’t think there are many jobs that, with a base level of qualifications for that position, issues that didn’t come up in a standard hiring process cannot be overcome in a couple weeks of training - effort on both parts to make it work.
I’m addressing the original post for which the reason for the firing was they “weren’t the right fit” I agree that there should be some standard for the employee to meet. However the employer should have evidence that they are not meeting the standards, and if we accept what you say in your other comment that they’ve deliberated over it for months they should have no problem providing that evidence.
Was it during a probationary period or have you been thete a while?
I'm all for strict rules on firing but the trade off is usually a probationary period to figure out if things will work in the long run. I'm also fine with probationary periods but think most interviews need to be less stringent.
Aren't you the same guy malding over the Phillies? Have you thought about anger management counseling? It could be that "not a good fit" just means that you're stressing everyone out by being angry all the time.
LMFAO dude got fired because he’s always on Reddit bitching about something. I think you found your cause right there. They probably have more info than they told you, they just said “not a good fit” to be nice and not hurt your feelings
How do you combat the workers who aren't being productive? In government jobs (in the US) more government employees die than are fired each year. They also have a well earned reputation for not being great at their jobs, being slow and just about everything else negative.
In most cases the US has one of the more efficient/effective work forces, highest salaries and other desirable qualities of any workforce. Why would we change this? If a company couldn't just fire me, I would probably be paid considerably less and changing jobs would be harder. Companies wouldn't be incentivized to grow, and everyone would just become "contractors" and problem solved right?
If it were much harder to fire people then companies would be much more reluctant to hire them. This would mean much higher unemployment, less job mobility, and young people would have a much harder time getting started in their careers.
It isn't that easy to fire someone (at least where I live). But that sucks too, cause unless you REALLY mess up (like by not showing up to work at all) the boss can't fire you. But neither can you quite easily, cause if you quite on your own, they gonna take away your welfare. So the result is that you have a workforce that doesn't enjoy their job and just does the absolute bare minimum like showing up to work, but not much more than that.
You can simply not show up one day, and quit that way. You've got that power but want to refuse someone else that power? By force? No.
Instead of looking to government to fix your problems, why not take a look inward and see what you can change in yourself to make you a better team player?
lets take this to an extreme, there is a gold mine near my house, it was active in the 1940s, then the gold petered out, should the mine be forced to keep on the miners even when there is no more gold?
It would result in a lack of production. those people could be more productive elsewhere.
Our goal isn't to feed one person, but to make sure there is enough food that people don't starve.
Welcome to America! For the most part the US has "at will" clauses in all contracts. If you're not in a union you likely have an at will clause in your contract.
Many nations (and Montana oddly enough) do not have this and it is more difficult to fire someone.
If they required cause in order to fire someone (which appears to be what you're looking for), what is to stop a company from just documenting some superfluous excuse which also satisfies your "benefit to the company" criterion in order to fire you?
In other words if a company wants to fire you "cause" isn't a difficult obstacle to overcome.
> Luckily, I found another job (at least one offer) the next day, so I'll be fine.
I mean, in basically any first world country if you get fired you get unemployment payments so you'll be fine either way?
> But employers should not be able to have the liberty of firing employees that freely.
In basically any first world country they aren't?
Are you by any chance exclusively talking about that one specific first world country that is the land of the free?
I once worked for a small company that hired through a local temp agency. This was a small factory that didn’t require highly skilled laborers for many of its jobs which made my job as a supervisor very difficult most times. Most of the employees sent to me from that temp service would work long enough to get one pay check and then quit. So the turn around there was already pretty high. They sent me one guy that worked for me for about 2-3 days before he came to work one morning and started puking all over the floors. He was a wine-o so he was sick from drinking the night before and he was having withdrawals. I kindly had him follow me to the cleaning closet. I showed him where mop and bucket were located and where to fill the bucket with water and had him clean his vomit off the floors. Once he finished that I had him follow me to the front door, I asked him to clock out, and then I told him to never return. Yes, you really should be able to fire someone immediately if need be. I could go on with a ton of other examples too. Is firing always justified? Absolutely not and yes some places do take advantage of that.
Having under performers stay employed negatively impacts anyone in society that has to deal with that organization. Teachers unions are notorious for this. Every school has terrible teachers, and great teachers. Both make the same. Students and their parents have to suffer through the shit ones who basically cannot be fired.
The workers do too. Picking up slack from those who under perform. Those who excel at their jobs suffer from an inability to be properly compensated for it. They’re paid as if they are average. There is no incentive for their good work.
>Those who excel at their jobs suffer from an inability to be properly compensated for it.
I'm in a union and I get regular wage increases. If shitty workers also get an increase males no difference to me. The possibility of getting fired at any time for any reason or no reason is a danger to allnworkers. This is bad for society because most of us are workers.
Do you think the money grows on trees? If someone shitty gets a raise, that’s less available for you. People good at their jobs generally are not getting fired.
>If someone shitty gets a raise, that’s less available for you.
You're assuming the company wouldn't just keep it. It's not like corporations are in a hurry to hand out raises.
>People good at their jobs generally are not getting fired.
Depends. Better to hedge your bets.
>You're assuming the company wouldn't just keep it. It's not like corporations are in a hurry to hand out raises.
Every company I've ever seen has an available Bonus or Raise pool, of which they distribute. Which means less money for the best employees when they have to give raises to the worst.
If raises are standard, it also hurts you. I give heavy bonuses/raises to my best employees, 20+% at a time sometimes. It does you a disservice to not be able to earn those.
>Depends. Better to hedge your bets.
What bets? There has never, ever, been a point in my career where I'd worry about getting fired. If it happens, it happens. Big deal. 'm not going to give up large chunks of earning potential to avoid something I'm not even remotely worried about.
- It's not always easy to get hard evidence. For example, let's say you have a team of people who are tasked with a creative project. One person on that team has a way about them that makes others less comfortable sharing ideas. Maybe they dominate the conversation. Maybe they change the topic too quickly to let an idea be fully explored. Maybe they are just a worrier and tend to get people in too conservative/safe of a mindset. ... All of these things would deeply hinder the team's ability to be creative, but it's kind of hard to directly prove. Heck, you might not even be able to precisely describe what about them it is. To truly prove it, you'd have to put that person on several different teams and see them hinder each. This is not feasible for many roles and companies. It inherently wastes a lot of resources (to do the "test" and to require enough "failures" to have the data to see this person is objectively the common thread). And not matter how much data you get it's still subjective. You can still argue that this particular project was just harder.
- Sometimes it's truly just subjective. Let's say I'm making a video game and I hire an artist. The artist tries and tries but their art style is just... not what I'm looking for. They're studying. They're redrawing. They're asking questions. They're an objectively talented artist, they just are not producing what I want them to... and I, as a non-artist, cannot really articulate why. Should I be allowed to fire them in favor of another artist who immediately is on the same page with me? Or should I have to keep on this artist that isn't doing what I want? How do I "prove" they failed me when a key part of their role is taking things I as a non-artist can't articulate well and turning it into a product I want?
- To the extent that you believe a person deserves notice/rights around being fired, you believe that it's part of an employers job to care about an employee's well being. But, if you think that, wouldn't "cultural fit" be something important for you to police *for your employees' well being*? Like if my office is all people who are casual, joke around, give gifts, etc. and the new person is telling them to dress more formal, stick to work topics and formal speech, etc. then even though you're not "wrong" necessarily or hindering some objective measure of productivity, they may be reducing quality of life for all of those other employees. If I care about my employees feeling emotionally and psychologically good, I'm going to want to make sure the people I bring together get along and bring out the best in each other.
In the professional communities, firings after the probationary period only happen when there has been some form of misconduct or poor performance. Probationary periods have been present in most of the positions that I've held in both the private and public sectors.
That said, all U.S. states are "at will" meaning they can fire you for any reason.
GOOD employers will not fire people without cause. They won't fire without cause due to the following reasons:
1. It hurts the reputation of the company,
2. it hurts the morale of the other employees,
3. in some cases it opens the company up to lawsuits, and
4. it damages the company's ability to find new hires.
Look for reputable companies and make yourself more marketable (through education).
it is everywhere else! In some countries (Germany is one, as I understand it) 12 months notice is required to terminate an employee if they've been with the company long enough
Dude, My father works in the government, and in one of his districts this guy literally plays Fortnite in his cubicle instead of doing his work, was confronted, no change, was reprimanded, no change, only after video evidence was he suspended.
Another guy faked an allergy to any type of fragrance(literally anything). He sued the agency and WON. They had to construct him his own office/bathroom with a SEPARATE ac unit, and this guy is literally a paper pusher, not even a district lead. Then they caught the guy, and he was fired.
Now, think about how insane the employees were going when their bosses had to “file paperwork” and take months, or even years, to fire someone that isn’t doing their job, or is inconveniencing all of their coworkers.
The point is making it difficult to fire people can have disastrous consequences.
Some European countries have such systems that make it a lot harder to fire people. On the whole they don't work out so well; are they better than the current US system? Maybe, maybe not, it's unclear. It does cause considerable drag on their economy, makes unemployment somewhat worse. Companies there are very reluctant to hire people when they need them because it's so hard to fire them later.
As with many things there are tradeoffs.
If you only require a moderately lengthier explanation, then does that really accomplish the goals, or does it just make the business make up a fake justification that plausible and unverifiable enough to count?
Also, sometimes there simply isn't hard evidence; sometimes the evidence is soft or vague. Ever watch a tv show with a good ensemble cast? It can be hard to say exactly how or why a cast works well together, even though you can tell THAT they have good chemistry. Similarly you might see that some people just don't work well together even if it's hard to say why.
One of the major reasons for vagueness is lawsuit defense. The US is a litigous place; and explanations as to why someone was fired leave more reason to argue, or to claim that there was an untoward reason. This is why companise prefer giving no explanation or a vague one; it's harder for the employee to sue over. And while a good number of wrongful termination suits are just, there are some that are'nt and som ejerks who just file such suits without merit; but actually proving them meritless in court is still a sizeable time and expense.
Have you ever worked in customer service? IF so, think about the worst people you ever had to deal with, and imagine what the process is like to fire such an individual when explanations are required.
In your situation, if your boss came to you and said "Here's why we're letting you go", would you accept it? Maybe you specifically would, but most people would not. For most people, you could give concrete evidence of why they're being fired (such as consistently being late to work) and they'd still fight it. They'd want to share all kinds of reasons and excuses why the events that led to their firing happened, and most likely would even want to throw colleagues under the bus.
These fights are a waste of time and money. You give someone a reason, they're going to nitpick it, try to fight it, maybe even try to get a lawyer involved to fight for their job. It's much easier for an employer to say "We're letting you go, it's not working out" and give no reason. Then there's nothing to fight and no reason to try to nitpick, and the dismissal is taken care of much more quickly.
I am sorry you got let go, and you have my sympathies. I have been fired, and I know it sucks. That said, I have also had to fire people, and that sucks too. With very rare exception, it costs the boss a lot to fire someone, so most won't make the choice likely.
Hiring someone new is often a roll of the dice, and while the replacement is being brought up to speed, they are not as good a return on the investment as they will be once fully trained.
So, there shouldn't be an artificial difficulty for a boss firing someone when there are already built-in burdens associated with firing them already.
The owner of a company gets to decide what is beneficial to them, so the willingness to fire someone is all the proof that is necessary.
More importantly, it's about the freedom of association. We have the right to associate with whom we want, which means we also have the right to end associations we do not want. That's a right worth respecting and protecting, but like most rights, its protection comes with costs. Meanwhile, liberty does not afford you the right to a relationship with anyone, not even a business relationship such as employee-employer.
Should you need a similar level of hard evidence to justify quitting your job without penalty? This works both ways. Yes, employers can usually fire employees fairly easily for any reason, or no reason. Likewise, employees can usually walk away from their job for any reason or no reason.
The price of freedom is increased risk. You can’t expect to be free and also completely isolated from the vicissitudes of life.
Furthermore, having such stringent regulations around employment termination would suppress the job market. Look how quickly you were able to find another job. I can almost guarantee that would not have been the case for you if your potential new employer had to consider the fact they may be legally barred from letting you go. Just ask the Europeans how hard it can sometimes be over there to get your foot in the door at an organization. The stringent regulations and employment contracts are a big contributor to that issue.
How about instead, we make it so you don't need to be employed to live? Then you can get fired, or quit, or whatever, and it's not that big a deal. You could even take some time to learn a new skill or start your own business without worrying that you'll starve on the street.
There must be a balance. Most people come at this from the perspective of a large corporations screwing over average civilians, but employers exist on all levels. There's also small mom and pop shops that realistically could be ruined by a bad employee.
It’s not a matter of me “accepting it.”
It’s a matter of each termination should be reported to some state board (preferably the same state board handling unemployment compensation)
This is my proposition:
Example:
A company decides to layoff an employee to outsource his duties overseas.
Despite the money savings, the company was not losing money prior to the outsourcing and layoff
That termination would not be allowed and the employee would be reinstated with back pay.
Example 2:
An anti-alcohol policy is clearly inked in a company handbook.
An employee was documented to be inebriated on company time for the 3rd time. In his company file was noted a verbal warning, a written warning. This incident is also documented as the “dagger” as to why he was terminated.
This termination IS allowed.
Example 3:
A boss decides to fire an employee because he’s “not working out” and “not growing into the role.”
Despite citing that as his reason, he has no concrete evidence.
Termination not allowed, employee reinstated.
Example 4:
A company is hemorrhaging money. They’ve well-documented all cost cutting measures they’ve taken prior and how they remain in the red.
They produce a projection that shows that if they lay off 20 employees, they’ll become profitable, but only if every reasonable cost cutting measure was exhausted prior.
Terminations allowed.
Sorry, u/BONERR4EVERR – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20BONERR4EVERR&message=BONERR4EVERR%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/127uelz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If your manager doesn’t want to deal with you, isn’t the company de facto better off if you are fired? If your manager is wrong in his assessment, he can be fired. And so on up the chain.
Honestly, this was a board decision to let me go, but I think it was the wrong one. Who holds a board of directors accountable?
The board is typically appointed by equity. If it took a board resolution to let you go, what the hell sort of employment protections are you looking for? Employment laws are some of the best intentioned laws we have that generate some of the worst, most perverse outcomes. The labor market is made artificially less dynamic than it otherwise would be. People complain that they can’t get their foot in the door at companies now. Well of course not, because now every new hire is a potential employment lawsuit if it doesn’t work out. If you are fired, you can find an attorney willing to sue your employer on some basis. And these lawsuits get expensive and are bad PR so they usually result in quick settlements.
I don't think you should throw the baby out with the bath water with employment protections. Working without them has always been far worse.
Has it? I mean relative to the just the standard human condition?
I'm not sure what you mean by that but yes. I don't have a doubt in my mind that employee protections are important. There's a lot of situations where unions, safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws, child labour protection, have allowed the general public to raise their living and working standards. If you don't know about manufacturing practices in the early part of the 20th century, it would make you sick. Business owners will use up human lives in the most horrific ways without labour protections.
I know that life, in general, in the early part of the twentieth century would make most people sick by modern standards. That was my question. What employment laws do you think solved problems that wouldn’t have been solved simply by technology progress or changing social dynamics (like child labor).
So today we have more regulations behind employee protection and life,in general, is better than life back then. Are you sure that the two are completely unrelated? People demanded better wages and safer homes and workplaces and forced government to make regulations. Why is this not considered a social dynamic? Or a driving force for better and safer technology? Regulations punish poor safety standards in the workplace which incentivized owners to find safer equipment and practices. If you want to talk about child labour laws, factory owners prefered to hire children as they were much cheaper than adult labourers. Children trust and listen to adults and are generally more obedient, especially if they have no food or clothes. They can't stand up for themselves or resist abuse from an adult. Their hands are small and can reach into parts of machines. And when the child loses their legs or hand to the machine, business men simply replace them with more children. There were no regulations and there never would have been any until photography became more popular. Someone started photographing mangled, destitute children and the photos started getting public attention. So it's not like the general public thought it was acceptable back then. They just didn't really think it was a problem. Today, the general public still think it's wrong to exploit children but now we have pressured the gov to make laws. If we eliminated those laws we would certain slip back to those dark times.
I’m asking specifically which ones? Like OSHA wasn’t created until 1970, well after all those turn of the century factories had been quite modernized. Child labor laws came into existence at a time when the US didn’t need children working in factories anymore because adults were reeling form the Great Depression and needs jobs. It seems pretty far fetched to think that a law, as opposed to a dramatic change in the way society was structured, is what stopped widespread child labor.
I wasn't talking about any specific country. Although it seems unlikely to me that the US only thought of child protection laws in the 70s. Are you sure you have your facts straight?
I just read an article that says there have been child labour laws for a century in the USA already.
>Who holds a board of directors accountable? Shareholders. If they fire you and the company ends up doing worse, you know they made the wrong choice. If they fire you and the company does better, it was probably for the best.
And this is the problem. The shareholders only care about maximizing short term gains.
Why is that a problem? Its a business.
It ignores the ethics of stripping someone of their livelihood. When your only concern is getting more profit than last year, you end up not caring how you get it so long as the end results are legal and relatively invisible to you.
Nobody owes anyone a job. There is no ethical concern when it comes to offering someone a job and then realizing that person isn't a good fit for the job or the culture. If it was a racial issue or gender issue or really any protected class issue, that's a different story. If you're a white cis gendered male under 40 years old, you just need to accept the fact that they didn't want you there anymore. It could literally be them removing you to hire a diversity hire and you really have no recourse. Live with it and move on. If you have any capacity to take critical feedback, you might just ask them if they have any advice for your next employment opportunity on how you can improve. It doesn't sound like OP has that though... Seems they are defiant and believe they are right and the Board of Directors is wrong. I wish him luck on the next company but expect the same type of outcome....
>Nobody owes anyone a job. Once employment contracts are signed, I disagree.
You're still talking out your ass. Even with a contract, employment is conditional. It has a duration and terms for termination of employment. They might owe you a severance, but they don't owe you a job. You're a fool for responding so irresponsibly without having a clue what you're talking about.
>Even with a contract, employment is conditional. That doesn't mean all conditions are employment are automatically ethical. Ignoring the legality of it, would it be ethical for an employer to stipulate in the contract that they can fire you if they find out you're Jewish or voted for a certain way in an election? Why is it ethical to strip someone of their livelihood and access to healthcare because you think they could do a better job than they're currently doing? It's not a big problem in Germany, at all, where they aren't allowed to do that.
What is unethical about it? If I pay you to do a job, and you cannot perform that job up to adequate standards, I should be able to stop paying you. Are you saying its ethical to continue to take money from someone when you don't hold up your end of the agreement?
>What is unethical about it? They're relying on that money to feed, shelter, and clothe them and their family. You're saying that doesn't matter because you care more about profits. Caring more about profits than people is unethical. >I pay you to do a job, and you cannot perform that job up to adequate standards, I should be able to stop paying you. You should have done better at hiring, then. That doesn't give you the ethical right to fire them. Unless you only care about profits over people. >Are you saying its ethical to continue to take money from someone when you don't hold up your end of the agreement? Not right away, and not without giving them a chance to improve, no. What is not holding up their end of the bargain? You described someone who just isn't as good as you thought. That isn't the same as not holding up your end of the bargain. That's a vague, unfalsifiable claim. It also means absolutely nothing. You could easily be lying about your expectations. Poor performance is way different than not showing up to work for a week. They aren't paying you based on your actual skill. They're paying you the lowest amount you were willing to accept.
>They're relying on that money to feed, shelter, and clothe them and their family. You're saying that doesn't matter because you care more about profits. Caring more about profits than people is unethical. And if the company goes under, how many more people lose their jobs? >You should have done better at hiring, then. That doesn't give you the ethical right to fire them. Unless you only care about profits over people. At least you admit that person was probably a poor hire. So you think its ethical to continue to take money from people when you cannot perform the job. >Not right away, and not without giving them a chance to improve, no. We don't know the full story - if the person was incredibly inept or if this was a huge mistake. You don't need to give a second chance to everyone. Its nice, but not always a possibility. >What is not holding up their end of the bargain? You described someone who just isn't as good as you thought. That isn't the same as not holding up your end of the bargain. I pay you to do a job, and if you perform the job at a substandard quality, that is you not holding up your end of the bargain. >Poor performance is way different than not showing up to work for a week. They aren't paying you based on your actual skill. They're paying you the lowest amount you were willing to accept. Poor performance means a lot of things. And your skill is what allows you to negotiate for more money. If me and you get hired at the same position, you should be able to leverage your existing experience to negotiate for more money than me. How about this - I have a car to sell you. It doesn't run, and is about 20 years past needing to be turned into scrap. I will sell it to you for $15,000. I could really use the money. If you don't buy it, its because you care more about profits than people.
>And if the company goes under, how many more people lose their jobs? Name one time this has happened in the last 10 years because of one employee's poor performance. This is a myth that is never going to happen. >So you think its ethical to continue to take money from people when you cannot perform the job. Cannot perform? Like at all? Sounds like you need to train them better. Better start up some training time with them. Yes, it's fine so long as you're actually trying. It's their fault for hiring you. They now tied your survival to their company. I believe they should need a lot more than just "you're not very good" after the contracts are signed. >How about this - I have a car to sell you. It doesn't run, and is about 20 years past needing to be turned into scrap. I will sell it to you for $15,000. I could really use the money. If you don't buy it, its because you care more about profits than people. Did you sign a contract saying you'd buy it (employment contract)? If so, then yes.
Ensuring a basic standard of living is the governments job, not your employer. Your life doesnt become your employers responsibility just because they hired you to do a job.
I disagree. Too much is tied to employment. Especially access to healthcare. When you tie whether someone gets treatment that will determine if they live or die to employment, the employer becomes obligated.
Healthcare should not be tied to employment and emergency medical services should not be a commodity you have to purchase
While that may be true, that's how it is. So my ethical evaluation takes that into account. That isn't the only thing that makes it unethical in my eyes, but it's not a point in favor of it. It's not like companies don't embrace healthcare being tied to their employment, either. They like that they hold that much power over employees. It allows them to exploit them more. Do what I say or you may get injured or sick, and then what will you do!? People go homeless because they lose their job. People also go untreated because of it. Employers have a major ethical obligation to employees, in my eyes.
[удалено]
I simply don't believe that. They are legally obligated to that. That doesn't mean they are ethically obligated
[удалено]
It is. We're talking about how it *should* *be*. I've given plenty of reason for my stance and not seen a convincing argument against it. So I still think it should be that way. >CMV: It **SHOULD** **BE** a hell of a lot more difficult to fire someone Emphasis mine.
That simply isn’t true. Unless the shareholder plans in selling out soon they just want as much money as possible.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention. Modern corporations only care about maximizing next quarter’s profits, so the board can all get massive 8 figure bonuses.
Idk. I own shares in many companies. I care about long term profits. If you bought shares on the stock exchange tonight. What would you care about? Actually doesn’t matter this is off topic and nothing to do with OPs view
If a board let you go, then it wasn't "too easy" to fire you mate.
If you think you have things figured out better than the Board, then you do not belong at the company. If you are correct, then it's a good outcome for you. If they are correct, then they took action in their interest as they see it.
As a manager and business owner, I have found quite a few times people who were *horrendously bad* at their job were shocked to be let go, because they thought they were great. Even after being told multiple times they weren’t meeting expectations.
If it is applicable, the shareholders. In some cases the applicable labor department of the government. But generally the BoD is the top of the chain until board elections come around.
Generally the shareholders
>If your manager is wrong in his assessment, he can be fired. How does this help the person who was wrongly fired?
Hiring people is a costly process in general because the amount time taken for paid training, so companies already face financial setbacks to fire and retrain someone new who won't be as productive in the beginning. So there needs to be a big enough motivation to fire someone. Like they are intolerable to work with, really suck at work, can't afford to pay for that many workers, or just putting the company at risk of shutting down. Just cause there is no legal implications does not mean there are no financial consequences. Like lawyers and unions. Every company has a different culture and structure. Throwing that out of wack would just make companies decline and slow down growth. Also there are no legal implications for people lying on their resumes or boasting about work experiences they never really had. It is a two way street. Seen plenty of candidates that make themselves look better than they actually are. Fair enough companies fire them if they find out they lied and were frauds.
Wouldn’t it be fraud to accept a job if signing the offer comes with you acknowledging everything you gave as employment history is true, and you had lied on the resume given?
So the simple answer is that the company is doing what they believe to be in the best interest of the company. The company potentially employs 10s or hundreds or thousands of employees. Potentially offers a product to thousands or millions of consumers. Has a stock owned by thousands or millions of investors. So what is in the best interest of a company, to employ and provide a service to many many many people outweighs the benefit it brings you. The company also did not take away your livelihood, they just stopped being the one providing it. You are free to seek employment elsewhere now. So what is an inconvenience to you, should not hold precedence over what is the in the best interest of a group of people multiple times (maybe millions of times) larger than just you.
>If you can't prove that firing someone will be beneficial to the company, you should not be legally allowed to fire someone. How do you quantify that? If someone smells bad and other people don't work as well, is that enough? If someone is catty and turns the office into high school lunchroom, is that enough? I had to fire my best employee once. Business took a dive and I just couldn't afford him. Firing him wasn't "beneficial" at all. It was just a necessity. If I have an employee, should he have to prove to me that it's beneficial for him to quit? Or should people just be allowed to do what they *believe* is best for them and or their business?
Honestly you didn't actually explain why you think so firing someone and replacing them with a better worker is always beneficial to the company
But you should need to be able to prove it. You can't just make up bullshit to steal my livelihood away from me.
> But you should need to be able to prove it. If I'm the sole owner of the organization, why should I be forced to employ someone I don't want to work with?
Have a better hiring process then, if you think you want to work with someone enough to offer them a job, you should have a very strong reason for going back on that commitment. Firing an employee means nothing to the owner whereas they could be destroying their former employees livelihood. There should be more protection for employees because the penalty for firing someone is negligible compared to the penalty for being fired.
> Have a better hiring process then Have you ever had to actually hire people before? No one is going to disclose *exactly* how they're going to behave as an employee and, debatably, almost every interviewee is actively trying to deceive you into believing they will be perfect when they actually won't be. Most interviews are ticking the boxes to make sure you have the minimum core competencies coupled with a "vibe check" but it's essentially a first date, at best.
But isn't that what a probationary period is for? I'm European and here you usually start with a six month probationary period. During those six months, the employment can be ended by both sides relatively easily and quickly. After the six months are over, there are more protections for the employee and the employer needs to have a legit reason to fire you. I think six months should be long enough to expect the employer to have a good enough sense if they want to keep working with that employee.
>But isn't that what a probationary period is for? Yes. OP posted this because he got smoked from 2 jobs in 6 months and thinks that it should have been harder to fire him.
Ah, got it. Thanks
Yes, most jobs have them then it gets progressively harder to fire someone. As someone who worked government where unless someone does something blatantly illegal its REALLY hard to fire someone I'm not sure people would love working with some of the comically incompetent people you end up with but can't get rid of. Like Im not advocating for fire anyone whenever but theres more nuance then "no ones allowed to be fired"
Yeah I've seen two cases so far where someone was causing problems at work and actively antagonizing people and it was very difficult for the employer to get rid of them. They eventually did get rid of them, but it was a process. I still think it's good to have protections in place, but yeah, it's a nuanced subject and there are so many different scenarios, that there isn't really a one size fits all rule.
Right and if they’re a terrible employee after those vibe check interviews you should have ample proof that they are not a fit for the job/lied profusely in their interview, or have missed the minimum standards for the role. Not saying you should never be able to fire someone, but there should be a much higher minimum standard for cause. Me hiring people has nothing to do with this.
> Me hiring people has nothing to do with this. It absolutely does because, if you had experience here, you'd know that a good interview does not guarantee a good employee at all. >Right and if they’re a terrible employee after those vibe check interviews you should have ample proof that they are not a fit for the job/lied profusely in their interview, or have missed the minimum standards for the role. Not saying you should never be able to fire someone, but there should be a much higher minimum standard for cause. If the employee gets hired and decides they don't want the job anymore, should they be forced to continue working for me until they have a good enough reason to leave?
Again personal anecdotes mean nothing to the larger point, I don’t disagree that a good interview doesn’t mean a good employee, but I already addressed that. No the employee should have the right to leave whenever. The companies existence does not depend on that employee remaining in that job like it does for the employee. If it does, the owner welcome to sell their labor under the same protections as their employee (higher standards for firing people). Workers livelihood relies on their abilities to sell their labor, and therefore should have more rights to remain in their job than a company should to coerce an employee to stay in their position against their will - that’s wage slavery.
Anyone that thinks firing someone “means nothing to an owner” has no clue what it’s like to own a business or manage people. Firing is an absolute last resort, and I don’t know a single person who takes doing so lightly. Everyone deliberates and stresses over it for months, or even longer, prior to doing over it. It is no small thing.
I agree with you here, but some people just interview really really well. Its not always easy to tell how good someone will do. When you interview and hire people, what are some techniques that you use to help suss out bullshit?
It depends on the job for sure, technical interviews, calling references. I don’t think there are many jobs that, with a base level of qualifications for that position, issues that didn’t come up in a standard hiring process cannot be overcome in a couple weeks of training - effort on both parts to make it work.
Training is never going to overcome a lack of motivation or work ethic.
I’m addressing the original post for which the reason for the firing was they “weren’t the right fit” I agree that there should be some standard for the employee to meet. However the employer should have evidence that they are not meeting the standards, and if we accept what you say in your other comment that they’ve deliberated over it for months they should have no problem providing that evidence.
How can I prove that another person I haven't hired yet would be better than a current employee?
Was it during a probationary period or have you been thete a while? I'm all for strict rules on firing but the trade off is usually a probationary period to figure out if things will work in the long run. I'm also fine with probationary periods but think most interviews need to be less stringent.
Aren't you the same guy malding over the Phillies? Have you thought about anger management counseling? It could be that "not a good fit" just means that you're stressing everyone out by being angry all the time.
LMFAO dude got fired because he’s always on Reddit bitching about something. I think you found your cause right there. They probably have more info than they told you, they just said “not a good fit” to be nice and not hurt your feelings
Why do you think a company should be forced to buy your labor if they don't want to?
How do you combat the workers who aren't being productive? In government jobs (in the US) more government employees die than are fired each year. They also have a well earned reputation for not being great at their jobs, being slow and just about everything else negative. In most cases the US has one of the more efficient/effective work forces, highest salaries and other desirable qualities of any workforce. Why would we change this? If a company couldn't just fire me, I would probably be paid considerably less and changing jobs would be harder. Companies wouldn't be incentivized to grow, and everyone would just become "contractors" and problem solved right?
If it were much harder to fire people then companies would be much more reluctant to hire them. This would mean much higher unemployment, less job mobility, and young people would have a much harder time getting started in their careers.
It isn't that easy to fire someone (at least where I live). But that sucks too, cause unless you REALLY mess up (like by not showing up to work at all) the boss can't fire you. But neither can you quite easily, cause if you quite on your own, they gonna take away your welfare. So the result is that you have a workforce that doesn't enjoy their job and just does the absolute bare minimum like showing up to work, but not much more than that.
WRONG employers shouldn't have to employ anyone, they don't want.
You can simply not show up one day, and quit that way. You've got that power but want to refuse someone else that power? By force? No. Instead of looking to government to fix your problems, why not take a look inward and see what you can change in yourself to make you a better team player?
lets take this to an extreme, there is a gold mine near my house, it was active in the 1940s, then the gold petered out, should the mine be forced to keep on the miners even when there is no more gold? It would result in a lack of production. those people could be more productive elsewhere. Our goal isn't to feed one person, but to make sure there is enough food that people don't starve.
Welcome to America! For the most part the US has "at will" clauses in all contracts. If you're not in a union you likely have an at will clause in your contract. Many nations (and Montana oddly enough) do not have this and it is more difficult to fire someone. If they required cause in order to fire someone (which appears to be what you're looking for), what is to stop a company from just documenting some superfluous excuse which also satisfies your "benefit to the company" criterion in order to fire you? In other words if a company wants to fire you "cause" isn't a difficult obstacle to overcome.
> Luckily, I found another job (at least one offer) the next day, so I'll be fine. I mean, in basically any first world country if you get fired you get unemployment payments so you'll be fine either way? > But employers should not be able to have the liberty of firing employees that freely. In basically any first world country they aren't? Are you by any chance exclusively talking about that one specific first world country that is the land of the free?
I once worked for a small company that hired through a local temp agency. This was a small factory that didn’t require highly skilled laborers for many of its jobs which made my job as a supervisor very difficult most times. Most of the employees sent to me from that temp service would work long enough to get one pay check and then quit. So the turn around there was already pretty high. They sent me one guy that worked for me for about 2-3 days before he came to work one morning and started puking all over the floors. He was a wine-o so he was sick from drinking the night before and he was having withdrawals. I kindly had him follow me to the cleaning closet. I showed him where mop and bucket were located and where to fill the bucket with water and had him clean his vomit off the floors. Once he finished that I had him follow me to the front door, I asked him to clock out, and then I told him to never return. Yes, you really should be able to fire someone immediately if need be. I could go on with a ton of other examples too. Is firing always justified? Absolutely not and yes some places do take advantage of that.
If this is true, then employees also can't leave at the drop of a hat. Which would you prefer?
Now you see the advantage of being unionized? With union representation, direct firing is more difficult.
Doesn’t that point out to you one of the huge negatives of unions? That underperformers are protected.
It’s a positive for them! Lmao
For the under performers maybe. No one else
[удалено]
Those stupid and lazy are the ones it’s a positive for duh!!
Negative for who?
Businesses. Society. Workers who aren’t bad.
How does it benefit society or workers?
Having under performers stay employed negatively impacts anyone in society that has to deal with that organization. Teachers unions are notorious for this. Every school has terrible teachers, and great teachers. Both make the same. Students and their parents have to suffer through the shit ones who basically cannot be fired. The workers do too. Picking up slack from those who under perform. Those who excel at their jobs suffer from an inability to be properly compensated for it. They’re paid as if they are average. There is no incentive for their good work.
>Those who excel at their jobs suffer from an inability to be properly compensated for it. I'm in a union and I get regular wage increases. If shitty workers also get an increase males no difference to me. The possibility of getting fired at any time for any reason or no reason is a danger to allnworkers. This is bad for society because most of us are workers.
Do you think the money grows on trees? If someone shitty gets a raise, that’s less available for you. People good at their jobs generally are not getting fired.
>If someone shitty gets a raise, that’s less available for you. You're assuming the company wouldn't just keep it. It's not like corporations are in a hurry to hand out raises. >People good at their jobs generally are not getting fired. Depends. Better to hedge your bets.
>You're assuming the company wouldn't just keep it. It's not like corporations are in a hurry to hand out raises. Every company I've ever seen has an available Bonus or Raise pool, of which they distribute. Which means less money for the best employees when they have to give raises to the worst. If raises are standard, it also hurts you. I give heavy bonuses/raises to my best employees, 20+% at a time sometimes. It does you a disservice to not be able to earn those. >Depends. Better to hedge your bets. What bets? There has never, ever, been a point in my career where I'd worry about getting fired. If it happens, it happens. Big deal. 'm not going to give up large chunks of earning potential to avoid something I'm not even remotely worried about.
The OP definitely should work in a union shop. It's why I avoid working for union shops.
This is the purpose behind Unions.
To protect the underperformers and reward them equally to the high performers?
[удалено]
Or just people they had no work for
[удалено]
There are many valid reasons for firing someone. Lack of work is a key one. I’ll never be convinced unions are a positive.
[удалено]
Much of which I don’t benefit from, and I find a net negative, not positive.
- It's not always easy to get hard evidence. For example, let's say you have a team of people who are tasked with a creative project. One person on that team has a way about them that makes others less comfortable sharing ideas. Maybe they dominate the conversation. Maybe they change the topic too quickly to let an idea be fully explored. Maybe they are just a worrier and tend to get people in too conservative/safe of a mindset. ... All of these things would deeply hinder the team's ability to be creative, but it's kind of hard to directly prove. Heck, you might not even be able to precisely describe what about them it is. To truly prove it, you'd have to put that person on several different teams and see them hinder each. This is not feasible for many roles and companies. It inherently wastes a lot of resources (to do the "test" and to require enough "failures" to have the data to see this person is objectively the common thread). And not matter how much data you get it's still subjective. You can still argue that this particular project was just harder. - Sometimes it's truly just subjective. Let's say I'm making a video game and I hire an artist. The artist tries and tries but their art style is just... not what I'm looking for. They're studying. They're redrawing. They're asking questions. They're an objectively talented artist, they just are not producing what I want them to... and I, as a non-artist, cannot really articulate why. Should I be allowed to fire them in favor of another artist who immediately is on the same page with me? Or should I have to keep on this artist that isn't doing what I want? How do I "prove" they failed me when a key part of their role is taking things I as a non-artist can't articulate well and turning it into a product I want? - To the extent that you believe a person deserves notice/rights around being fired, you believe that it's part of an employers job to care about an employee's well being. But, if you think that, wouldn't "cultural fit" be something important for you to police *for your employees' well being*? Like if my office is all people who are casual, joke around, give gifts, etc. and the new person is telling them to dress more formal, stick to work topics and formal speech, etc. then even though you're not "wrong" necessarily or hindering some objective measure of productivity, they may be reducing quality of life for all of those other employees. If I care about my employees feeling emotionally and psychologically good, I'm going to want to make sure the people I bring together get along and bring out the best in each other.
In the professional communities, firings after the probationary period only happen when there has been some form of misconduct or poor performance. Probationary periods have been present in most of the positions that I've held in both the private and public sectors. That said, all U.S. states are "at will" meaning they can fire you for any reason. GOOD employers will not fire people without cause. They won't fire without cause due to the following reasons: 1. It hurts the reputation of the company, 2. it hurts the morale of the other employees, 3. in some cases it opens the company up to lawsuits, and 4. it damages the company's ability to find new hires. Look for reputable companies and make yourself more marketable (through education).
it is everywhere else! In some countries (Germany is one, as I understand it) 12 months notice is required to terminate an employee if they've been with the company long enough
Dude, My father works in the government, and in one of his districts this guy literally plays Fortnite in his cubicle instead of doing his work, was confronted, no change, was reprimanded, no change, only after video evidence was he suspended. Another guy faked an allergy to any type of fragrance(literally anything). He sued the agency and WON. They had to construct him his own office/bathroom with a SEPARATE ac unit, and this guy is literally a paper pusher, not even a district lead. Then they caught the guy, and he was fired. Now, think about how insane the employees were going when their bosses had to “file paperwork” and take months, or even years, to fire someone that isn’t doing their job, or is inconveniencing all of their coworkers. The point is making it difficult to fire people can have disastrous consequences.
Some European countries have such systems that make it a lot harder to fire people. On the whole they don't work out so well; are they better than the current US system? Maybe, maybe not, it's unclear. It does cause considerable drag on their economy, makes unemployment somewhat worse. Companies there are very reluctant to hire people when they need them because it's so hard to fire them later. As with many things there are tradeoffs. If you only require a moderately lengthier explanation, then does that really accomplish the goals, or does it just make the business make up a fake justification that plausible and unverifiable enough to count? Also, sometimes there simply isn't hard evidence; sometimes the evidence is soft or vague. Ever watch a tv show with a good ensemble cast? It can be hard to say exactly how or why a cast works well together, even though you can tell THAT they have good chemistry. Similarly you might see that some people just don't work well together even if it's hard to say why. One of the major reasons for vagueness is lawsuit defense. The US is a litigous place; and explanations as to why someone was fired leave more reason to argue, or to claim that there was an untoward reason. This is why companise prefer giving no explanation or a vague one; it's harder for the employee to sue over. And while a good number of wrongful termination suits are just, there are some that are'nt and som ejerks who just file such suits without merit; but actually proving them meritless in court is still a sizeable time and expense. Have you ever worked in customer service? IF so, think about the worst people you ever had to deal with, and imagine what the process is like to fire such an individual when explanations are required.
In your situation, if your boss came to you and said "Here's why we're letting you go", would you accept it? Maybe you specifically would, but most people would not. For most people, you could give concrete evidence of why they're being fired (such as consistently being late to work) and they'd still fight it. They'd want to share all kinds of reasons and excuses why the events that led to their firing happened, and most likely would even want to throw colleagues under the bus. These fights are a waste of time and money. You give someone a reason, they're going to nitpick it, try to fight it, maybe even try to get a lawyer involved to fight for their job. It's much easier for an employer to say "We're letting you go, it's not working out" and give no reason. Then there's nothing to fight and no reason to try to nitpick, and the dismissal is taken care of much more quickly.
I am sorry you got let go, and you have my sympathies. I have been fired, and I know it sucks. That said, I have also had to fire people, and that sucks too. With very rare exception, it costs the boss a lot to fire someone, so most won't make the choice likely. Hiring someone new is often a roll of the dice, and while the replacement is being brought up to speed, they are not as good a return on the investment as they will be once fully trained. So, there shouldn't be an artificial difficulty for a boss firing someone when there are already built-in burdens associated with firing them already. The owner of a company gets to decide what is beneficial to them, so the willingness to fire someone is all the proof that is necessary. More importantly, it's about the freedom of association. We have the right to associate with whom we want, which means we also have the right to end associations we do not want. That's a right worth respecting and protecting, but like most rights, its protection comes with costs. Meanwhile, liberty does not afford you the right to a relationship with anyone, not even a business relationship such as employee-employer.
This guys isn’t changing his mind. Guaranteed!
Should you need a similar level of hard evidence to justify quitting your job without penalty? This works both ways. Yes, employers can usually fire employees fairly easily for any reason, or no reason. Likewise, employees can usually walk away from their job for any reason or no reason. The price of freedom is increased risk. You can’t expect to be free and also completely isolated from the vicissitudes of life. Furthermore, having such stringent regulations around employment termination would suppress the job market. Look how quickly you were able to find another job. I can almost guarantee that would not have been the case for you if your potential new employer had to consider the fact they may be legally barred from letting you go. Just ask the Europeans how hard it can sometimes be over there to get your foot in the door at an organization. The stringent regulations and employment contracts are a big contributor to that issue.
How about instead, we make it so you don't need to be employed to live? Then you can get fired, or quit, or whatever, and it's not that big a deal. You could even take some time to learn a new skill or start your own business without worrying that you'll starve on the street.
There must be a balance. Most people come at this from the perspective of a large corporations screwing over average civilians, but employers exist on all levels. There's also small mom and pop shops that realistically could be ruined by a bad employee.
[удалено]
It’s not a matter of me “accepting it.” It’s a matter of each termination should be reported to some state board (preferably the same state board handling unemployment compensation) This is my proposition: Example: A company decides to layoff an employee to outsource his duties overseas. Despite the money savings, the company was not losing money prior to the outsourcing and layoff That termination would not be allowed and the employee would be reinstated with back pay. Example 2: An anti-alcohol policy is clearly inked in a company handbook. An employee was documented to be inebriated on company time for the 3rd time. In his company file was noted a verbal warning, a written warning. This incident is also documented as the “dagger” as to why he was terminated. This termination IS allowed. Example 3: A boss decides to fire an employee because he’s “not working out” and “not growing into the role.” Despite citing that as his reason, he has no concrete evidence. Termination not allowed, employee reinstated. Example 4: A company is hemorrhaging money. They’ve well-documented all cost cutting measures they’ve taken prior and how they remain in the red. They produce a projection that shows that if they lay off 20 employees, they’ll become profitable, but only if every reasonable cost cutting measure was exhausted prior. Terminations allowed.