NationStates Jolt Archive

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as

At-will employment is a creation of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

I don't know, if the employee has the freedom to quit without providing a reason, the company should be able to do the same. It's a completely mutual agreement; the company agrees to pay you a salary and benefits in exchange for your work. It would be completely unfair to allow one party to have more power than the other, especially since there isn't always a good reason to fire a person. Sometimes, it just has to be done for the good of the company as a whole. At-will employment is pretty successful, especially given that the US unemployment rates are all significantly lower than similarly-sized nations without such laws. Both sides have the freedom to choose their own conditions, and generally maximizing economic freedom is a very good thing for everyone involved.

It's important to remember that companies don't get rid of workers for the hell of it; an employee is a multi-million dollar investment that can take a significant amount of time to integrate in to the company, and if you cut workers for no reason you'll end up with a major shortage of workers that will hurt the company badly almost immediately.

I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.


Ridiculous assertion. An employer pays for your labor - therefore they get to state the exact requirements of it. If they do not want to continue paying for it for any reason, they should not be forced to do so.

It sucks.

Nothing is worse than getting fired from a job, and not being told why you were let go.
Also, many employers use this as a screen for discrimination.

No we didnt fire you for being ______, your an at-will employee, and we dont have to give you a reason.

It also means they can fire you for speaking out against unfair working conditions.

I hate the idea that employers need special rights or protection in some ways, I think the idea of conciliation and arbitration needs to come back, a common claim these days that in deregulated workplace their is more flexibility, but in fact it gives employers more power, they can simply say you can sign this contract which halves penalty rates and takes away holidays or your fired. People fail to realize that even in a regulated workplace employers are still in a position of power over employees, naturally this will occur, so government interference is required to balance the rights of employees, deregulation can only give more power to employers. Australia once had a good system (prior to Howard) of the Industrial Relations Commission, which handled with judicial tribunal powers all industrial disputes, it was also the wage setters and had a wide ranging amount of powers. This was the greatest safeguard of workers rights.

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as



I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

So it bothers you if an employer stops paying someone that they no longer want to pay, but an employee who cuts out simply because he doesn't like the dress code, leaving the employer and coworkers working overtime is A-OK?

I hate the idea that employers need special rights or protection in some ways, I think the idea of conciliation and arbitration needs to come back, a common claim these days that in deregulated workplace their is more flexibility, but in fact it gives employers more power, they can simply say you can sign this contract which halves penalty rates and takes away holidays or your fired. People fail to realize that even in a regulated workplace employers are still in a position of power over employees, naturally this will occur, so government interference is required to balance the rights of employees, deregulation can only give more power to employers. Australia once had a good system (prior to Howard) of the Industrial Relations Commission, which handled with judicial tribunal powers all industrial disputes, it was also the wage setters and had a wide ranging amount of powers. This was the greatest safeguard of workers rights.

Everything you have described is also a drastic undermining of union powers as well. You are making labor dependent upon petitioning the government to get what they want, rather than allowing them the ability to take what they want through collective action.

This is one thing I don't get with being able to be fired at will... How do you make any plans? If you know you could be fired, tomorrow, effective immediately, how can you seriously rely on having a job on Wednesday?

At least if I get fired I have to be given so much notice, and there has to be some reason for doing so (after the initial period of employment, often six months, when either party can just say "bugger this for a game of soldiers"). I can be confident that, as long as I do what I'm supposed to, I'm not going to be fired for the forseeable future.

I could be made redundant, if the company no-longer wants anybody to do my job any more, but they have to give me notice and redundancy pay (as I've worked for them for longer than a year), and I don't believe they're allowed to hire anyone to replace me (that would, after all, completely defy the point of redundancy).

So, yeah... How does this provide any assurance to the employee that they'll remain employed?

Everything you have described is also a drastic undermining of union powers as well. You are making labor dependent upon petitioning the government to get what they want, rather than allowing them the ability to take what they want through collective action.

Well since a body like this would only exist with such powers while a union/labor party was in government, there is no need for unions when the state can act in a much more efficient manner in this way.

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as



I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

I think this particular system will only work in a prefectly balances labour market situation : As long as there are percisely enough workers to fill the positions.
Once you have unemployment figures climbing, employers will abuse the system in order to save on wages, forcing people to keep jobs in unfair conditions.
If you have underemployment, employees might use their value to drive wages up far enough to drive companies out of business entirely.


Europe has labour laws benefitting mostly the employees, which are based on the assumption that unemployment is much more likely to happen than underemployement, and therefore the weaker of the two parties (in this case the employees) need extra protection.

So, yeah... How does this provide any assurance to the employee that they'll remain employed?

Pretty easy, actually. Firing workers is not something that is done lightly by any stretch; it is neither cheap nor easy to find and retain qualified workers in the job market, so any time you get rid of workers you may be costing yourself significantly in the longer term. So, unless you screw up or do a terrible job, they're not going to get rid of you unless the company is in poor financial condition...which might be a sign it's a good time to leave anyways.

Companies don't fire workers for no reason, even under at-will conditions; it is simply a terrible business decision to do so. The expense of doing so isn't really warranted unless there's a good reason to do so to begin with.

Europe has labour laws benefitting mostly the employees, which are based on the assumption that unemployment is much more likely to happen than underemployement, and therefore the weaker of the two parties (in this case the employees) need extra protection.

And Europe has severe problems with both, in fact far worse than the situation in the United States. The labor market in the US is significantly healthier and faster growing than the one in Europe, especially for entry-level graduates and other positions that are normally the most vulnerable to swings in economic conditions. I mean, if you can't get jobs for college graduates, you're going to suffer a massive shortage of skilled workers combined with high unemployment as the older, experienced ones retire.

If anything, the European model doesn't work well at all, seeing as how severe the unemployment and underemployment problems are. Those have put a lot of pressure on wages and living standards, especially considering economic growth is vital to supporting social programs.

Pretty easy, actually. Firing workers is not something that is done lightly by any stretch; it is neither cheap nor easy to find and retain qualified workers in the job market, so any time you get rid of workers you may be costing yourself significantly in the longer term. So, unless you screw up or do a terrible job, they're not going to get rid of you unless the company is in poor financial condition...which might be a sign it's a good time to leave anyways.

Companies don't fire workers for no reason, even under at-will conditions; it is simply a terrible business decision to do so. The expense of doing so isn't really warranted unless there's a good reason to do so to begin with.

That would depend entirely on the company.
To give two examples from the same line of business (IT call centers) :

My company moved their call center from Holland to Ireland a couple years back. Employees who were willing to come along and help the new call center get on its feet got permanent contracts and very good conditions.
Later, when the center was moved on to India and South Africa, employees here, despite only being contractors, were given 6 months notice and ample opportunities to find other positions within the company.

My boyfriends company moved their call center from England to Ireland a few years back. All English employees were made redundant. My boyfriend fought HR to be allowed to move over here and keep his job, but had to accept drastic pay cuts.

Companies don't fire workers for no reason, even under at-will conditions; it is simply a terrible business decision to do so. The expense of doing so isn't really warranted unless there's a good reason to do so to begin with.

But what about, say, a factory, where many of the employees require no qualifications and only a few minutes of training? In situations like that there's no financial reason to keep on specific staff, as anybody can do the job and it costs next to nothing to replace them.

Pretty easy, actually. Firing workers is not something that is done lightly by any stretch; it is neither cheap nor easy to find and retain qualified workers in the job market, so any time you get rid of workers you may be costing yourself significantly in the longer term. So, unless you screw up or do a terrible job, they're not going to get rid of you unless the company is in poor financial condition...which might be a sign it's a good time to leave anyways.

Companies don't fire workers for no reason, even under at-will conditions; it is simply a terrible business decision to do so. The expense of doing so isn't really warranted unless there's a good reason to do so to begin with.

And those who are semi-skilled/unskilled.....?

That would depend entirely on the company.

Yes, that's true. Of course, at the same time, companies that mess with their workers tend to have a hard time keeping them around, so the problem often balances itself out.

However, there are many cases of companies cutting workers to focus on short-term profit rather than long-term growth, with disasterous effects once the short term boost wears off and the company exhausts its ability to grow.

And Europe has severe problems with both, in fact far worse than the situation in the United States. The labor market in the US is significantly healthier and faster growing than the one in Europe, especially for entry-level graduates and other positions that are normally the most vulnerable to swings in economic conditions. I mean, if you can't get jobs for college graduates, you're going to suffer a massive shortage of skilled workers combined with high unemployment as the older, experienced ones retire.

If anything, the European model doesn't work well at all, seeing as how severe the unemployment and underemployment problems are. Those have put a lot of pressure on wages and living standards, especially considering economic growth is vital to supporting social programs.

Europe has an unemployment problem and you seriously suggest that this would go away if we made it easier for companies to fire even more workers and not having to give reasons for it?
Is it just me or is that just complete bollocks?

Yes, that's true. Of course, at the same time, companies that mess with their workers tend to have a hard time keeping them around, so the problem often balances itself out.

However, there are many cases of companies cutting workers to focus on short-term profit rather than long-term growth, with disasterous effects once the short term boost wears off and the company exhausts its ability to grow.

That's what my boyfriend keeps complaining about. His company hires people when there's a requirement, meaning that by the time they have them and the new people are trained, the requirement might be gone. They only have skeleton regular staff, which are not able to cope with even a slight increase in call volume. And artrition in call centers is usually among the highest, comparable with artrition in places like McDonalds.

The thing is, companies believe in statistics. And statistics can easlily hide facts and figures.
My own company implemented a self-help program in order to save costs on the Helpdesk they're running for their employees. Now, instead of having an employee with a yearly salary of 20 000 spend 15 minutes to fix a manager's problem, that manager with a salary of 60 000 will have to spend an hour or more trying to fix the problem himself. It all depends on how you want to read the numbers.

So it bothers you if an employer stops paying someone that they no longer want to pay, If they don't have a specific work-related reason, yes.

but an employee who cuts out simply because he doesn't like the dress code, leaving the employer and coworkers working overtime is A-OK?Yes. An employee's livelihood usually depends on a particular job. A company's livelihood rarely depends on a particular employee.

Also you have to remember that being fired is far worse for the employee than firing an employee is for the company; there are plenty of people looking for a job at any time, so it's quite easy to find someone else to do the job.

But if you're fired you a) have little income and b) have to find a new job. That can take months or years to do (and it ain't helped by being fired), and in the meantime you're, well, fucked really.

That's one reason I'm glad our welfare state is quite generous...

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as



I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

An employee should be able to quit a job whenever he wants but should have to work an additional one or two months after quitting in order for the firm to be able to find someone to replace him if necessary. If the employee has to quit immediately, so be it.

An employer should be able to fire someone if he or she is doing a shitty job but if he fires someone just like that he should have to pay big "fines" or whatever you like to call it. That way it'll cost the employers to fire people and they won't do it if that often.

Is it just me or is that just complete bollocks?

Its just you.

If a company cannot get rid of someone, they they will obviously be reticent about taking people on.

As to the basic question, Jello Biafra could not be more wrong.

Those who support his position act as though employment was different to any other sort of buying (for the employer) and that looking for work/working was fundamentally different to any other sort of selling (for the employee).

It is not.

It sucks.

And what of those who are kept out of jobs by "labour protection" laws? Or those who have to pay higher prices, or have their investments depreciate.

Now, there was one remark here about employers abusing the system to pay lower wages?

Does this mean that when I choose a less costly brand of cereal, I am abusing the system?

Does this mean that when I buy a weekly train ticket (that is cheaper per trip than a single), I am abusing the system?

No! In all cases (the employer, my breakfast, and my trip to work), each is simply trying to get the most for his money. That is what all prudent buyers do.

The fact that the sellers in each case would like to have higher prices, or a more secure market is irrelevant.

If they don't have a specific work-related reason, yes.

Why should the employer be locked in to an agreement, when the employee can walk out when ever he decides he doesn't want to wear trousers to work.

If the employer must pay the employee, regardless of whether or not he wants the employee's services, then the employee should be "shackled to his desk" by an equivalent law.

Yes. An employee's livelihood usually depends on a particular job. A company's livelihood rarely depends on a particular employee.

So what?

The only problem I have with at-will employment is that "any hiring is presumed to be at-will"

The idea behind this type of presumption is that certain market actions occur without a formal contract. Like when a person buys a used car. Without a formal contract in place it is important that both people are in agreement on the meaning of the word 'car'. The buyer would be frustrated if, instead of recieving a functioning four wheeled automobile, the seller gave him a membership in the California Association of Realtors.

So I understand the need for legalized definitioins as well as other legalized presumptions about non-contractual exchanges. But these legalized presumptions should be limited to things that are truly presumable. For example, it would be stupid to create a law that says that all watches must be digital unless it is expressly stated otherwise somewhere on the packaging.

I think presuming an at-will structure in employment is more similar to the digital watches requirement than to a presumption that cracker jack boxes shouldn't have flesh eating monsters inside. There just isn't any reason that an employee would assume that his employment is at-will unless she/he is specifically told so.

Furthermore, in the capitalist market place there is often a consistent seperation between deal offerers and deal takers. Generally speaking, employers are deal offerers. A deal offerer, that is someone who presents another person with a potential agreement, cannot possibly be confused as to the nature of the agreement unless he has fooled himself. Therefore, the deal taker is the only one that needs legal protection from this type of fraud. As such, it is the burden of the deal offerer to make sure that the terms of the deal are clear and any terms that are unclear should be resolved in favor of the deal taker.

At will employment looks like it sucks.

Tenant contracts come with notice periods and the like, then why not employment? The notice period protects both tenant and landlord in a tenancy agreement by protecting the landlord's income (who, if a private landlord, is probably sailing fairly close to the edge) and giving them time to find a new tenant, and by protecting the tenant from losing their home without having any time to find a new home.

The same goes for employment. The notice period protects the employee by protecting their income and giving them time to find a new job, and protects the employer by giving them time to find a new employee if an employee decides to quit.

Also, because humans aren't 100% rational, contracts also protect against vindictiveness that can grip most people at some point in their lives. Like I don't have to worry about losing my home tomorrow simply because I got into an argument with my landlord.

I don't think at will employment makes much difference to unemployment. The UK and France have roughly similar employment laws (France is slightly tighter than the UK), yet the UK has a lower unemployment rate than the US, but France has an unemployment rate of 8.7%, which is much, much higher among those in their 20s (where a new law was brought into loosen employment contracts for young adults).

Furthermore, in the capitalist market place there is often a consistent seperation between deal offerers and deal takers. Generally speaking, employers are deal offerers. A deal offerer, that is someone who presents another person with a potential agreement, cannot possibly be confused as to the nature of the agreement unless he has fooled himself. Therefore, the deal taker is the only one that needs legal protection from this type of fraud. As such, it is the burden of the deal offerer to make sure that the terms of the deal are clear and any terms that are unclear should be resolved in favor of the deal taker.What? I would think the complete opposite is true. A company has a vacany and advertises the vacancy. Job seekers see this 'offer' and request to take the deal, and, if the employer has more than one applicant, decides which person to hire.

What? I would think the complete opposite is true. A company has a vacany and advertises the vacancy. Job seekers see this 'offer' and request to take the deal, and, if the employer has more than one applicant, decides which person to hire.

The terms of the final deal, that is the agreement by which the employee does labor while the company yields remuneration, are determined, in most cases, by the employer. So for the purposes of contract law, the employer should be considered a deal offerer.

But at the same time, you bring up a good point. In an application process, each applicant offers her/his previous job experience as evidence of her/his abilities. So the employer is the writer of part of the deal, whereas the applicant is the writer of the other part of the deal (that is the claims that she/he makes on the application/resumé). Therefore, employers should be held accountable if, for example, they try to pay in Australian dollars to US workers. Employees should also be held accountable for giving misleading information in the application process.

The terms of the final deal, that is the agreement by which the employee does labor while the company yields remuneration, are determined, in most cases, by the employer. So for the purposes of contract law, the employer should be considered a deal offerer.

But at the same time, you bring up a good point. In an application process, each applicant offers her/his previous job experience as evidence of her/his abilities. So the employer is the writer of part of the deal, whereas the applicant is the writer of the other part of the deal (that is the claims that she/he makes on the application/resumé). Therefore, employers should be held accountable if, for example, they try to pay in Australian dollars to US workers. Employees should also be held accountable for giving misleading information in the application process.Argh, I misread your previous post. I thought you said the opposite. However, it is true that the hiring process isn't your average business transaction. It needs regulation from both sides.

So if I go to the same hair dresser every month, should there be a rule that I have to give him a good reason why I'm going to a different hair dresser if I choose to do so?

Hell, how about fixed contracts on every service I buy? We could have a court battle every time I change taxi driver!

So if I go to the same hair dresser every month, should there be a rule that I have to give him a good reason why I'm going to a different hair dresser if I choose to do so?

Hell, how about fixed contracts on every service I buy? We could have a court battle every time I change taxi driver!

That's not at will employment you're talking about, it's freelance.

So if I go to the same hair dresser every month, should there be a rule that I have to give him a good reason why I'm going to a different hair dresser if I choose to do so?

Hell, how about fixed contracts on every service I buy? We could have a court battle every time I change taxi driver!Self employment is covered by separate rules. Besides, the contract with your hair dresser or taxi driver is finite, whereas employment
contracts are indefinite.

edit: your contract with the taxi driver is to get you from A to B on a particular date - this contract has a definitive end. The employment contract is to perform certain activities on particular days of the week or weeks of the year, week on week or year on year - this contract does not have a definitive end.

That's not at will employment you're talking about, it's freelance.

Also, a hairdresser/taxi firm doesn't rely on any one customer for its livelihood.

An employee does rely on one employer for its livelihood.

Argh, I misread your previous post. I thought you said the opposite. However, it is true that the hiring process isn't your average business transaction. It needs regulation from both sides.

Well, I wouldn't say it needs a whole lot of strict regulation. For example, if an employer offers a job and they explicitly state that it is an at-will agreement that can be terminated at any time by either party, I see nothing wrong with that. But if the job they're offering is on an at-will basis, they should have to be honest about it. I think we need more regulations that require honesty, and fewer regulations with other random requirements.

Europe has an unemployment problem and you seriously suggest that this would go away if we made it easier for companies to fire even more workers and not having to give reasons for it?
Is it just me or is that just complete bollocks?
Nope, it's just you.

Employers need to react to what people are buying. If things are going well in the economy, then people are going to buy lots of stuff. Which in turn means that the employer will need people to make lots of stuff.

Now suppose an oil refinery explodes and suddenly the price of oil goes up and ends up pushing the economy into a recession. So people hold on to their money and don't go spending their savings on fancy stuff. What happens? The business sells less and therefore doesn't need to produce as much.

If a company cannot reduce its costs in a situation like this by reducing its inputs, after a while it will go broke. The employer certainly doesn't want that. And ultimately neither do the other workers who'd end up out of a job.

So the employer will only hire people if he or she knows that if times are hard, he or she can get rid of them or at the very least cut down their hours or pay. If that is not a given, he or she will try and make do by making the workers already employed work longer and/or harder and getting temp workers not covered by employment regulations.

By putting protections in for workers not to get fired, you essentially increase the risk associated with hiring someone, meaning that the expected cost of the employee rises, and thus reduce demand for employees (though as I said, not for labour as an input). And that in turn means that there will be more unemployed people who next time the economy is doing well will not be offered a job.

A good example is France, which thanks to generous employee protections has not had an unemployment rate below 8.5% or so in 25 years - even though they had both good times and bad during that period.

Self employment is covered by separate rules.
Personally I think the time for making a distinction is ending anyways. You're forcing rigidities on people by keeping it up, and encouraging the wrong mindset.

In German there is this beautiful word these days: "Leistungsgesellschaft", meaning "performance society". I think it captures the spirit of the times (or the Zeitgeist, if you will :p ) perfectly.

In a performance society, it makes no sense to encourage people to think of themselves as anything other than marketers and providers of their own skills. By still maintaining a category in which this is not emphasised, you're just hurting people.

My ideal world would be one in which everyone is a contractor, always and forever. No one works quite as well and feels quite as happy with achievements as a small business owner or self-employed person. There is no more indirect "collective bargaining" or any other thing between your performance and your reward. Just the purity of everyone doing the best he or she can for him- or herself and his or her contract partner.

Insofar as "At Will" employment facilitates that, I'm definitely in favour.

But life, lads, is not that simple. There was a time when "at will" was the de facto state of affairs everywhere for virually every employee. That ended for a reason.

Nope, it's just you.

Employers need to react to what people are buying. If things are going well in the economy, then people are going to buy lots of stuff. Which in turn means that the employer will need people to make lots of stuff.

Now suppose an oil refinery explodes and suddenly the price of oil goes up and ends up pushing the economy into a recession. So people hold on to their money and don't go spending their savings on fancy stuff. What happens? The business sells less and therefore doesn't need to produce as much.

If a company cannot reduce its costs in a situation like this by reducing its inputs, after a while it will go broke. The employer certainly doesn't want that. And ultimately neither do the other workers who'd end up out of a job.

So the employer will only hire people if he or she knows that if times are hard, he or she can get rid of them or at the very least cut down their hours or pay. If that is not a given, he or she will try and make do by making the workers already employed work longer and/or harder and getting temp workers not covered by employment regulations.

By putting protections in for workers not to get fired, you essentially increase the risk associated with hiring someone, meaning that the expected cost of the employee rises, and thus reduce demand for employees (though as I said, not for labour as an input). And that in turn means that there will be more unemployed people who next time the economy is doing well will not be offered a job.

A good example is France, which thanks to generous employee protections has not had an unemployment rate below 8.5% or so in 25 years - even though they had both good times and bad during that period.

To emphasize your point, we're not just talking about big businesses responding to huge shifts in the market. One of the most important ways that jobs are created occurs when a small business expands into a medium sized buisiness (and then potentially into a big business.) You saw this in the mid 90's when ISPs went from a few guys working out of their garages to a multi-billion dollar a year industry. In the early eighties, it was the rise of the cable industry. The 50's, it was automodile manufacturors.

Now imagine that you own a small business. If you want to expand, you're taking a very significant risk under any circumstances. If labor regulations require that employees can only be fired due to poor job performance, you won't be able to release employees if your expansion doesn't work as successfully as you had expected. This drastically increases the risk of expansion for a small business. Increasing the risk of small business failure also causes banks to be more conservative when offering loans to small businesses, meaning that, even among small business owners willing to accept the new increased risk of expansion, there will be businesses crowded out of the market by this policy simply because they can't acquire the capital to expand.

So in the long run this policy probably increases unemployment in all sectors of the economy, large and small.

But life, lads, is not that simple. There was a time when "at will" was the de facto state of affairs everywhere for virually every employee. That ended for a reason.
The difference between the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century and today is however that everyone now has access to an education and a basic level of healthcare (unless you live in the US, I suppose, but that's got to do with the incompetency of American politicians moreso than any ideological or practical limits).

And that immediately means that there really can't be any exploitation as such anymore. Everyone is now capable of reading through a contract and making an independent decision about it. If the economy is doing well, if you even have a little bit of skill or experience you should be able to pick between job options (at least if you're geographically flexible), so even the "I depend on my employer" thing gets weaker.

We can have the best of the Industrial Revolution (namely the great entrepreneurial stories and the massive advances in technology and ultimately standards of living, the whole creative destruction process) with the best of what came after it (things like worker's health and safety, education, healthcare and real independence).

All it requires of the individual is that he or she put some effort into it. I don't think that's too much to ask, nor do I see how an alternative that doesn't demand this of people is going to be a particularly good idea.

EDIT: And some related good news...
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,480211,00.html - German unemployment falls below 4 million (in German)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,479149,00.html - "Wirtschaftswunder 2.0" (in English)

That's what my boyfriend keeps complaining about. His company hires people when there's a requirement, meaning that by the time they have them and the new people are trained, the requirement might be gone.

what do you mean by "when there is a requirement"?

does the government tell the companies who to hire when?

what do you mean by "when there is a requirement"?

does the government tell the companies who to hire when?

Christmas, mostly. Or whenever new products are released.
They can handle christmas, and sometimes even plan ahead long enough to hire people in advance then. But for special promotions the center will ususally go belly-up due to lack of trained people.

Well, I wouldn't say it needs a whole lot of strict regulation. For example, if an employer offers a job and they explicitly state that it is an at-will agreement that can be terminated at any time by either party, I see nothing wrong with that. But if the job they're offering is on an at-will basis, they should have to be honest about it. I think we need more regulations that require honesty, and fewer regulations with other random requirements.I didn't say strict regulation, just regulation. It's amazing how certain words can make people so jumpy. Like you could have a regulation that says employment is only 'at-wll' if there is a contract that explicitly states so.

Personally I think the time for making a distinction is ending anyways. You're forcing rigidities on people by keeping it up, and encouraging the wrong mindset.

In German there is this beautiful word these days: "Leistungsgesellschaft", meaning "performance society". I think it captures the spirit of the times (or the Zeitgeist, if you will :p ) perfectly.

In a performance society, it makes no sense to encourage people to think of themselves as anything other than marketers and providers of their own skills. By still maintaining a category in which this is not emphasised, you're just hurting people.

My ideal world would be one in which everyone is a contractor, always and forever. No one works quite as well and feels quite as happy with achievements as a small business owner or self-employed person. There is no more indirect "collective bargaining" or any other thing between your performance and your reward. Just the purity of everyone doing the best he or she can for him- or herself and his or her contract partner.

Insofar as "At Will" employment facilitates that, I'm definitely in favour.Not everyone wants to be as independently minded as your average economist. I need only point at the hordes of tabloid readers who bleet whenever they are told to, and to our ever authoritarian society. There are people out there who simply want easy rules to follow and a simple life. Would you deny them that?

Bleh, I didn't like making that point. I don't ever like making points where I am very emphatically using 'they' or 'you' instead of 'we' or 'I'. But the amount of people I have had the pleasure of meeting who require some sort of externally imposed rule system is depressing.

Anyway, I'm not sure how at will employment encourages self employment. Two self employed people could still enter into an indefinite contracts if they wished. I'm not really sure if self employment is covered by any employment law, because there is neither an employer nor an employee.

So the employer will only hire people if he or she knows that if times are hard, he or she can get rid of them or at the very least cut down their hours or pay. If that is not a given, he or she will try and make do by making the workers already employed work longer and/or harder and getting temp workers not covered by employment regulations.A redundant point as I believe in the worst case scenario redundancy can take effect immediately. Well nearly immediately. The process of redundancy would be very quick for a small business.

Christmas, mostly. Or whenever new products are released.
They can handle christmas, and sometimes even plan ahead long enough to hire people in advance then. But for special promotions the center will ususally go belly-up due to lack of trained people.

oh, so you are talking about seasonal employment? I used to do that, prepared taxes during tax season, worked retail during the winter, was a lifeguard during the summer, worked at the pumpkin patch in the fall.....what's wrong with that? you know that seasonal employment is in fact seasonal right? I mean nobody has a year round Christmas rush:rolleyes:

The difference between the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century and today is however that everyone now has access to an education and a basic level of healthcare (unless you live in the US, I suppose, but that's got to do with the incompetency of American politicians moreso than any ideological or practical limits).)

...but not all have access to the same level of education, for societal/financial reasons.


And that immediately means that there really can't be any exploitation as such anymore. Everyone is now capable of reading through a contract and making an independent decision about it. If the economy is doing well, if you even have a little bit of skill or experience you should be able to pick between job options (at least if you're geographically flexible), so even the "I depend on my employer" thing gets weaker.).)

"If the economy is doing well". And if its an employers market what then? Their basic decency wins out and all are treated fairly as fellow humans? I think not somehow.

Secondly "geographically flexible" creates problems, be it through legal or illegal migrations.


We can have the best of the Industrial Revolution (namely the great entrepreneurial stories and the massive advances in technology and ultimately standards of living, the whole creative destruction process) with the best of what came after it (things like worker's health and safety, education, healthcare and real independence).


Without unions and some form of limitation on employers?

oh, so you are talking about seasonal employment? I used to do that, prepared taxes during tax season, worked retail during the winter, was a lifeguard during the summer, worked at the pumpkin patch in the fall.....what's wrong with that? you know that seasonal employment is in fact seasonal right? I mean nobody has a year round Christmas rush:rolleyes:

It's not seasonal employment. It's a simple post-sales call center.
Christmas is a regular busy-time, but they have other paek times during the year, depeneding on release dates. Company policy with those peaks is to let them happen first and THEN employ people during the peak time and send them into training. By the time they're trained, the peak is usually over and they let them go again.

Why should the employer be locked in to an agreement, when the employee can walk out when ever he decides he doesn't want to wear trousers to work.
Because the employer defines what the job is, offers the job at a specified wage or rate. If they are in business, they must be competent to assess that, and if they have it wrong, or business conditions change, that is the employer's problem.
If the employee won't observe the dress code (if that's in the contract of their employment) then they can be sacked. If they don't do the job well enough, they can be sacked. In either case it should be simple for the employer to give just cause for sacking, and no need to do so "at will."

If the employer must pay the employee, regardless of whether or not he wants the employee's services, then the employee should be "shackled to his desk" by an equivalent law.
I suppose you are suggesting that only to make the corresponding point about employers. Because I can't think of anything an employer would want less than a hostile employee, a sort of slave they are not allowed to whip. A lot of stuff would get 'accidentally' broken and other employees greatly demoralized.

It's not seasonal employment. It's a simple post-sales call center.
Christmas is a regular busy-time, but they have other paek times during the year, depeneding on release dates. Company policy with those peaks is to let them happen first and THEN employ people during the peak time and send them into training. By the time they're trained, the peak is usually over and they let them go again.

Christmas is a regular busy-time, just like it is in retail, when we (in the US) say seasonal employment we don't mean you get employed through an entire season, we mean at the time of year when a company has a regular busy-time they will hire more people and when it's over they don't need you anymore.

Can't he get a better job than a call center? those are just a notch above fast food over here, and actually have a higher turn-over mostly.

If the economy is doing well, if you even have a little bit of skill or experience you should be able to pick between job options (at least if you're geographically flexible), so even the "I depend on my employer" thing gets weaker.

Ever been unemployed?

And those who are semi-skilled/unskilled.....?

..are being replaced by machines.

The economy of the 21st century does not need people to operate rivet guns on the assembly line, that function is handled far more easily, efficiently and safely by robots. What we need, rather, are people who know how to maintain and service industrial robotics. People who know how to solve problems to keep the line rolling are far more important than someone who makes a mechanistic, repetitious motion, over and over again.

Not only that, but it also alleviates the problem of industrial alienation, and encourages continued education. Both positives.

It's not seasonal employment. It's a simple post-sales call center.
Christmas is a regular busy-time, but they have other paek times during the year, depeneding on release dates. Company policy with those peaks is to let them happen first and THEN employ people during the peak time and send them into training. By the time they're trained, the peak is usually over and they let them go again.That's bad business practice. In fact it's awful. If the business isn't attempting to anticipate when call volumes will increase and/or using an agency then... well... it's run by an idiot.

If the economy is doing well, if you even have a little bit of skill or experience you should be able to pick between job options (at least if you're geographically flexible)...Being able to pick up a job easily would be indicative that the economy isn't doing well as it is very likely that there would be labour shortages.

Christmas is a regular busy-time, just like it is in retail, when we (in the US) say seasonal employment we don't mean you get employed through an entire season, we mean at the time of year when a company has a regular busy-time they will hire more people and when it's over they don't need you anymore.

Can't he get a better job than a call center? those are just a notch above fast food over here, and actually have a higher turn-over mostly.

He's not on the phones any more but doing training.

That's bad business practice. In fact it's awful. If the business isn't attempting to anticipate when call volumes will increase and/or using an agency then... well... it's run by an idiot.

Yeah.

If the economy is doing well, if you even have a little bit of skill or experience you should be able to pick between job options (at least if you're geographically flexible), so even the "I depend on my employer" thing gets weaker.

What if it's not doing well?
My university degree got me a job offer for cleaning at the local hospital.

He's not on the phones any more but doing training.

that's good. maybe he will have a better time of it then.

as for the OP, as a small business owner, I like at will employment, I get to fire people for being idiots. I do have people quit on me for no discernible reason though, other than maybe it's Friday and they want to go to the Art's festival instead of working. Which is why I quit hiring people.....for the most part.

As an employee at will employment never really affected me that much, I knew that if I wanted to move to another job I could and I knew that if I wanted to keep my job that I needed to be good at it, seemed to work out, pretty much ignored the looming of "what if I get fired?" because I knew I could always get another job (although sometimes it took a bit)

Hubby got laid off once, but he had a contract so he got like 4 months of pay which was nice.....he always has a contract though, every single job, because he is in the type of job that gets a contract. Most of the people without a contract that I know work in minimum wage/low paying jobs which are pretty easy to replace should you lose one.

I didn't say strict regulation, just regulation. It's amazing how certain words can make people so jumpy. Like you could have a regulation that says employment is only 'at-wll' if there is a contract that explicitly states so.

Honestly, when I posted I was saying to myself "He never said anything about strict regulation, so this post is kind of pointless." You're absolutely right that I basically just jumped at the word regulation. There are certain words, that, if you use them to describe a proposed policy, I'm going to have a strong negative reaction. Like if a company chooses to rename its human resources department 'Slaves R Us' I doubt I'd want to continue buying their products.

There are also certain words that will make me have a strong positive reaction. Like Free-Market. If you describe your policy as 'Free Market' then I'm going to react more favorably, unless the policy is a complete bastardization the the Free Market ideology like the Republican pork saturated Congress of yesteryear.

Because I view regulation with a negative conotation, I tend to describe policies that I support with other terms, even when those policies are labeled by others as examples of regulation. The way I see it, requiring people to be honest in business is as regulatory as not allowing people to shoot each other's balls off.

What if it's not doing well?
My university degree got me a job offer for cleaning at the local hospital.

What was your degree in?

What was your degree in?

English, History and Librarianship

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as



I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

It works for me. The state I live in requires it as law.

The nice thing is, the old "professional" idea of two weeks notice is now history.

The moment I find a better job, I'm gone.

It makes my employers treat me that much better, because they know they have to work hard to make me happy enough to stay. If they don't, I just disappear. In the old days, if you didn't give them two weeks notice, they could give you a bad reference. Now they can't add that as a bad thing when people call.

English, History and Librarianship

what kind of job can you expect with that type of degree? Librarian? teacher?

what was your employment plan getting out of college?

It's important to remember that companies don't get rid of workers for the hell of it; an employee is a multi-million dollar investment that can take a significant amount of time to integrate in to the company, and if you cut workers for no reason you'll end up with a major shortage of workers that will hurt the company badly almost immediately.

I'm thinking that they can use the legislation to fire senior staff who have significant benefits and re-offer them the same job at basic salary levels for new entries.

They did it in Australia. No reason to see why they won't do it in America.

Particularly during crunch periods in the economy when jobs are scarce.

what kind of job can you expect with that type of degree? Librarian? teacher?

what was your employment plan getting out of college?

Emmigration. I knew there were no jobs in my country.

what kind of job can you expect with that type of degree? Librarian? teacher?

what was your employment plan getting out of college?

My Masters Degree in Computing (yes, from a decent university) was even less help; not even Asda or Starbucks would employ me.

Emmigration. I knew there were no jobs in my country.

so did you move yet?

My Masters Degree in Computing (yes, from a decent university) was even less help; not even Asda or Starbucks would employ me.

sounds like you guys have a job market problem over there.

My Masters Degree in Computing (yes, from a decent university) was even less help; not even Asda or Starbucks would employ me.

Reluctance to hire new entries, even when extremely highly skilled, into the job market is a classic sign of an over regulated labor market.

sounds like you guys have a job market problem over there.

If you don't have experience, they won't hire you; if you don't have a job, you can't get experience... (Experience gained whilst you were also studying - work placements etc. - doesn't seem to count.)

Being unemployed also counts against you; if everyone else doesn't want you, why should we?

You can't get a low-paid job if you've got any form of qualification, because they assume you'll just bugger off as soon as you feel like getting a "proper" job.

Months, and months, and months of fun.

Edit:
Reluctance to hire new entries, even when extremely highly skilled, into the job market is a classic sign of an over regulated labor market.
But if you'll just get fired in a fortnight when they're bored with you, or decide they don't like your haircut, why bother? At least, now I've got a job, it's hard for them to be rid of me...

Reluctance to hire new entries, even when extremely highly skilled, into the job market is a classic sign of an over regulated labor market.

Right... of course, it can't simply be an oversaturated market that makes any kind of production mostly unprofitable, right?

If you don't have experience, they won't hire you; if you don't have a job, you can't get experience... (Experience gained whilst you were also studying - work placements etc. - doesn't seem to count.)

Being unemployed also counts against you; if everyone else doesn't want you, why should we?

You can't get a low-paid job if you've got any form of qualification, because they assume you'll just bugger off as soon as you feel like getting a "proper" job.

Months, and months, and months of fun.

Oh, and don't forget that you can't be a day over 22, otherwise they'll consider you to be too old. I've been told I was too old at 24.

Because the employer defines what the job is, offers the job at a specified wage or rate. If they are in business, they must be competent to assess that, and if they have it wrong, or business conditions change, that is the employer's problem.

If you are buying X Brand of something, and for some reason your income declines and you cannot afford X Brand, what you are saying is that X Brand should be able to lock you in, instead of you being free to buy Y Brand, or none at all.

In either case it should be simple for the employer to give just cause for sacking, and no need to do so "at will."

So, if you change your brand of cereal, you should be required to prove to the state, and the cereal company that you have just reasons.

And while we're on the point, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to define "just cause" for businesses that you do not own? It isn't your money, your business, or your reputation at risk.

I suppose you are suggesting that only to make the corresponding point about employers. Because I can't think of anything an employer would want less than a hostile employee, a sort of slave they are not allowed to whip. A lot of stuff would get 'accidentally' broken and other employees greatly demoralized.

Way to miss the point, which is that locking in either party creates perverse incentives. A worker who knows he cannot be sacked may not be fully motivated.

Emmigration. I knew there were no jobs in my country.

Good man! Good work, like good business, is where you find it.

It works for me. The state I live in requires it as law.

Insightful, a legal regime biased in your favour works for you. It does not however speak to the merits of the system. Merely that it favours you.

What if it's not doing well?

Some basic economics, people. Prices have a vital signalling function. High/rising prices indicate that you should get into a market, and low/falling prices indicate that you should get out of a market (as a seller). As a buyer, the reverse applies, high/rising prices indicate that you should refrain from buying (either finding substitutes, or doing without), and low/falling prices indicate that you should buy more.

That applies to everyone, and everything.

From the point of view of work, workers should aim for the highest wage, moving to the areas, and into the industries that have higher wages, while employers will look for lower wages, or substitutes for labour. This is not something you can legislate against, it is a fact.

To emphasize your point, we're not just talking about big businesses responding to huge shifts in the market. One of the most important ways that jobs are created occurs when a small business expands into a medium sized buisiness (and then potentially into a big business.) You saw this in the mid 90's when ISPs went from a few guys working out of their garages to a multi-billion dollar a year industry.
Really awful example. Despite having money almost thrown at them, most "few guys in garages" ISP's were stomped by telcos and publishers and media interests with the deep pockets to buy infrastructure. The techys got good wages in big ISPs.
In the early eighties, it was the rise of the cable industry. The 50's, it was automodile manufacturors.
Automobile industry, that kind of made sense. The other examples had very little to do with labour costs.

Now imagine that you own a small business. If you want to expand, you're taking a very significant risk under any circumstances.
There, you said the magic word. "Risk." That's the word traditionally used to justify speculation, stock trading, and capitalism in general. It makes being higher up the employment pyramid sound sort of heroic.
If labor regulations require that employees can only be fired due to poor job performance, you won't be able to release employees if your expansion doesn't work as successfully as you had expected.
And here, right on cue, is the heroic, risk-taking businessman, buffetted by the wild and unpredictable market, passing the risk directly to the only party he has power over, the employee. "Here, my trusty yeoman, take this dagger and dispatch yonder dragon."
This drastically increases the risk of expansion for a small business. Increasing the risk of small business failure also causes banks to be more conservative when offering loans to small businesses, meaning that, even among small business owners willing to accept the new increased risk of expansion, there will be businesses crowded out of the market by this policy simply because they can't acquire the capital to expand.
With investment capital for a small/medium business (say $1M) at historically low levels in any developed economy, I really wonder at this "we'll all be ruined" theory.

It smacks of theology, to be blunt. "Above us the holy market, which must be obeyed and served, below us the employees, or ex-employees, depending on the breaks. Preserve us from a lack of capital to speculate on our future, and reward our risk-taking with profit, for thine is the market, and mine is the profit, and I'll still have the Jag even if I have to sell up. K-Ching."

So in the long run this policy probably increases unemployment in all sectors of the economy, large and small.

and ... *mumble mumble*
and ... profit!

so did you move yet?

Yep. Started in a call center and now doing admin work for the same.

Right... of course, it can't simply be an oversaturated market that makes any kind of production mostly unprofitable, right?

Begging the question, if the market is oversaturated, what caused that to be the case?

Good man! Good work, like good business, is where you find it.

Well, I wouldn't call this good work, I'm still way overqualified, but at least I did find a job. And I'm more than happy that I can't get fired simply because the company might decide that they don't want any foreigners working for them any more.

Right... of course, it can't simply be an oversaturated market that makes any kind of production mostly unprofitable, right?

Then get into a profitable market (by either changing place, or occupation).

But if you'll just get fired in a fortnight when they're bored with you, or decide they don't like your haircut, why bother?

Another one who does not understand the market. An employer who sacks you because he doesn't like your haircut (in situations where haircut is irrelevant, and it is relevant in anything involving facing customers, or anything in which particular hairstyles are either unsafe, or unhygienic) is depriving himself of an otherwise good worker, who can be snapped up by another employer who prefers profit from better workers, than nice hair. A free market will punish idiocy. Regulated markets won't.

At least, now I've got a job, it's hard for them to be rid of me...

Good for you, pity that the system that makes you hard to sack makes it harder to provide jobs for others.

I thought it was only libertarians who were ruthlessly selfish. Oh well.

Those who support his position act as though employment was different to any other sort of buying (for the employer) and that looking for work/working was fundamentally different to any other sort of selling (for the employee).

It is not.

yeah, there certainly is no morally significant difference whatsoever between buying and selling humans and buying and selling paperclips...

Pretty easy, actually. Firing workers is not something that is done lightly by any stretch; it is neither cheap nor easy to find and retain qualified workers in the job market, so any time you get rid of workers you may be costing yourself significantly in the longer term. So, unless you screw up or do a terrible job, they're not going to get rid of you unless the company is in poor financial condition...which might be a sign it's a good time to leave anyways.

Companies don't fire workers for no reason, even under at-will conditions; it is simply a terrible business decision to do so. The expense of doing so isn't really warranted unless there's a good reason to do so to begin with.

Please, Vetalia. Companies fire people for bullshit reasons all the time, the most egregious of which is simply to increase profit margins. Companies are notorious for not looking out for their own long term benefits in favor of short term benefits, so arguing that a company won't do something that will harm itself is like expecting a 5 year old not to eat a cookie now because it'll go better with the ice cream he's having for dessert in a few hours.

That's not to say that employees or labor unions are necessarily better when it comes to the long view. Everyone's short-sighted at times. But labor unions, since they have different interests in mind, tend to serve as a check on the more ridiculous aims of management, and vice versa, and make no mistake about it--at-will employment is an anti-union measure.

yeah, there certainly is no morally significant difference whatsoever between buying and selling humans and buying and selling paperclips...

Are you saying that an employer has an obligation to continue to employ me?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

Or that I have an obligation to my employer to stay?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Those days are long gone here. If I can find a better job elsewhere, I do - it's the best way to advance in rank and pay. Employers don't have the ability to promise to continue to employ me (as IBM used to, with an offer of lifetime employment). So they don't have the right to expect loyalty from employees beyond what pay and immediate benefits provide.

Begging the question, if the market is oversaturated, what caused that to be the case?

Well, imagine you have a market that produces cars. That market will thrive immensely as long as cars are a new product, people don't have one yet but want one... then after a while, everybody has a car. And a TV. And a PC. And a house. And a washing machine. So the market stagnates. Profits drop. Companies either close down or move to other countries.
People become unemployed and have less money to spend on replacing their cars, TVs, and washing machines once they break down. Even less profits for manufacturing companies, and everybody else for that matter. Even more people become unemployed. Unemployment benefits become too much of a burden for the state, so they are cut down. Now people have even less money to spend, so profits drop even further. And even more people become unemployed.

And so on and so forth.

It would be completely unfair to allow one party to have more power than the other

but that is precisely the situation vigorously maintained by at will employment (and created by hierarchical capitalist power relations in general). forcing the powerful to have greater obligations than the less powerful is to strive towards equality.

yeah, there certainly is no morally significant difference whatsoever between buying and selling humans and buying and selling paperclips...

Who is talking about selling humans (apart from you)?

I am talking about selling services.

And there is no morally significant difference between selling labour, and the products of labour and capital (paperclips in this instance).

Companies fire people for bullshit reasons all the time, the most egregious of which is simply to increase profit margins.

That is why they are there. If a company's income cannot pay all its costs (and labour is a cost), then it must reduce its costs. Likewise, if its profits are declining, the company becomes less of a good investment, deterring stockholders, and making it difficult/impossible to pay bondholders.

at-will employment is an anti-union measure.

You say that like its wrong. If an employer does not wish to purchase labour services through a union, why should he have to?

yeah, there certainly is no morally significant difference whatsoever between buying and selling humans and buying and selling paperclips...

Except human beings are not being bought or sold in the employer/employee relationship.

Another one who does not understand the market. An employer who sacks you because he doesn't like your haircut (in situations where haircut is irrelevant, and it is relevant in anything involving facing customers, or anything in which particular hairstyles are either unsafe, or unhygienic) is depriving himself of an otherwise good worker, who can be snapped up by another employer who prefers profit from better workers, than nice hair. A free market will punish idiocy. Regulated markets won't.

Again, this is only the case if employers will have difficulties replacing an employee. In an economy with high unemployment, an employer can and will fire you for a haircut or an earring, and replace you within a day; he might even make a fair profit, for governments in that kind of economy tend to try to encourage employers to hire people by offering benefits to the employers...

Are you saying that an employer has an obligation to continue to employ me?

yes, until they have legitimate reason not to, and then must give advance warning and have their reasoning subject to review and appeal.

Or that I have an obligation to my employer to stay?

of course not

yeah, there certainly is no morally significant difference whatsoever between buying and selling humans and buying and selling paperclips...

Quite the contrary, it seems that the employer is not going to "game" the situation to his advantage and (whoevers) detriment because the "market" won't let him. Or because its "not in his interest".

Why does that sound like a crock of shite to me?

Except human beings are not being bought or sold in the employer/employee relationship.

yeah, just rented

Again, this is only the case if employers will have difficulties replacing an employee.

That isn't a valid analysis, the situation will be the same regardless (because the employer is not building the best labour force for the job)

In an economy with high unemployment, an employer can and will fire you for a haircut or an earring, and replace you within a day; he might even make a fair profit, for governments in that kind of economy tend to try to encourage employers to hire people by offering benefits to the employers...

In the first place, he won't replace you in a day, in the second place, the jobs in which no investment in the employee is required are exceedingly rare, in the third place, an employer practicing such a policy will be throwing that investment away repeatedly (thus increasing his costs without an increase in income), in the second place, governments seeking to combat unemployment do not encourage quick hiring and firing. That does not provide any political benefit to the government, and it does not reduce the fiscal burden of the welfare state.

The political imperative of a government seeking to combat unemployment is to get people into work and keep them there. They reap the twin political benefits of reduced unemployment, and a lighter welfare burden on the taxpayers, and the fiscal benefit of a reduced welfare cost, which in turn frees money for the government to spend on other politically useful policies.

yes, until they have legitimate reason not to, and then must give advance warning and have their reasoning subject to review and appeal.


I work for a company that hires full time employees to work on government contracts.

When the contract is up, if there are no other pending contracts to work on, you're fucking gone.

We know the contract end dates well in advance.

Are you saying that somehow, I should be able to force the employer to keep employing me, even though that practice would put them under faster than you can turn your head?

That isn't a valid analysis, the situation will be the same regardless (because the employer is not building the best labour force for the job)

Not necessarily. Employers go to some length to structure jobs in such a way that they need next to no training for employees for a reason.



In the first place, he won't replace you in a day, in the second place, the jobs in which no investment in the employee is required are exceedingly rare, in the third place, an employer practicing such a policy will be throwing that investment away repeatedly (thus increasing his costs without an increase in income), in the second place, governments seeking to combat unemployment do not encourage quick hiring and firing. That does not provide any political benefit to the government, and it does not reduce the fiscal burden of the welfare state.

First off, yes, I have been fired and replaced in one day before.
The jobs with little or no investment in employees are the most frequent ones here, most of them can be found in the service industry.
And the government was not trying to encourage the firing bit, but the hiring one. But like most government programs, money tends to end up in the wrong hands there.

I work for a company that hires full time employees to work on government contracts.

When the contract is up, if there are no other pending contracts to work on, you're fucking gone.

We know the contract end dates well in advance.

Are you saying that somehow, I should be able to force the employer to keep employing me, even though that practice would put them under faster than you can turn your head?

what have i said that makes you believe that 'the job no longer exists because it was a time-limited gig' would not be a legitimate reason?

yes, until they have legitimate reason not to, and then must give advance warning and have their reasoning subject to review and appeal.

Then the employee must agree to act accordingly if he or she should choose to terminate their employment.

Why does that sound like a crock of shite to me?

a more than passing familiarity with reality, probably

what have i said that makes you believe that 'the job no longer exists because it was a time-limited gig' would not be a legitimate reason?

You said I should be able to force an appeal and review.

Fuck that. Whose going to pay for that if we all decided to do that?

Then the employee must agree to act accordingly if he or she should choose to terminate their employment.

no, they shouldn't. for the sake of fairness, in fact, they must explicitly not be so required.

Honestly, when I posted I was saying to myself "He never said anything about strict regulation, so this post is kind of pointless." You're absolutely right that I basically just jumped at the word regulation. There are certain words, that, if you use them to describe a proposed policy, I'm going to have a strong negative reaction. Like if a company chooses to rename its human resources department 'Slaves R Us' I doubt I'd want to continue buying their products.

There are also certain words that will make me have a strong positive reaction. Like Free-Market. If you describe your policy as 'Free Market' then I'm going to react more favorably, unless the policy is a complete bastardization the the Free Market ideology like the Republican pork saturated Congress of yesteryear.

Because I view regulation with a negative conotation, I tend to describe policies that I support with other terms, even when those policies are labeled by others as examples of regulation. The way I see it, requiring people to be honest in business is as regulatory as not allowing people to shoot each other's balls off.:eek: It's not often you find someone on the intertubes who's willing to admit they may have jumped the gun a little bit. Yeah, words mean different things to different people. I get concerned by the terms 'deregulation' and 'privatisation' - there have been a fair few industries in the UK that suffered from policies based on these ideals, the train industry being one of them.

sounds like you guys have a job market problem over there.Reluctance to hire new entries, even when extremely highly skilled, into the job market is a classic sign of an over regulated labor market.Liek CD said, it's more an experience issue. In that the British education system is pretty awful at helping people into a situation where they can find jobs. As witnessed by the astounding levels of the 3 Rs achievement. If you can do the following exam paper, and get a fairly high mark, then the UK government thinks you've good enough maths skills to do pretty much any job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/mocks/mathsmocki1.pdf

Is it any wonder companies want to know from another company whether a potential employee is any good or not?

The basic way to get into work is
1 - get some edumaction
2 - work for free for while (a looong time)
3 - find work using your former masters to get a nice reference

Way to miss the point, which is that locking in either party creates perverse incentives. A worker who knows he cannot be sacked may not be fully motivated.The worker can be sacked. If he isn't doing his job as described then he can be sacked for incompetance. If he isn't doing as much work as you want him/her to do then give a small raise and an expanded job description. He fails to do the additional work you can sack him. If he does rise to the ocassion then what are you complaining about? Or you could make a few workers redundant and tell the other workers that they have more to do now. And frankly if your workers aren't motivated then it's probably got more to do with them simply thinking they have job security.

You said I should be able to force an appeal and review.

yeah, and?

Employers go to some length to structure jobs in such a way that they need next to no training for employees for a reason.

Yes, it saves costs, regardless of whether an employee stays, or leaves, and you have not refuted my point.

In fact, I can't see that you have even attempted to rebut my point.

First off, yes, I have been fired and replaced in one day before.

What sort of job?

The jobs with little or no investment in employees are the most frequent ones here, most of them can be found in the service industry.

Most frequent where? And for whom?

For example, the types of jobs available to a full time student will be very different to those available to someone who has finished their education, and has had experience in the industry (whatever industry it may be)

In any case, in boiling your argument down to a geographically biased anecdote, you have completely ignored my previous posts.

I will repeat it: Good work, like good business, is where you find it.

The place in which I grew up had little in the way of good jobs, so I moved, and now I have a very good job.

And the government was not trying to encourage the firing bit, but the hiring one.

Then you've completely misunderstood the argument, and the nature of government.

All actions of government have political origins, and political aims.

In the sphere of employment, the government's political incentive is to have more employment, and (indirectly) a reduced welfare burden on the taxpayers.

But like most government programs, money tends to end up in the wrong hands there.

There's hope for you yet.

If you are buying X Brand of something, and for some reason your income declines and you cannot afford X Brand, what you are saying is that X Brand should be able to lock you in, instead of you being free to buy Y Brand, or none at all.
Happens in business all the time. It's called "futures" and it's a way of hedging against changes in price.
I'm saying that an employment contract should be a futures contract, if only for a few weeks, because one of the 'commodities' being traded is hours of a person's life, their livelihood and very likely the house they live in. The other "commodity" is cash.
That's not apples for oranges.

So, if you change your brand of cereal, you should be required to prove to the state, and the cereal company that you have just reasons.
Now you're just being silly.

And while we're on the point, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to define "just cause" for businesses that you do not own? It isn't your money, your business, or your reputation at risk.
Did I say that the employee would decide what was "just cause"?
I don't think I did.

Way to miss the point, which is that locking in either party creates perverse incentives. A worker who knows he cannot be sacked may not be fully motivated.
I didn't miss the point. You said "if A, they just as well B."
I said "A is right, so how do you like B."
Of course B, your rhetorical "chained to the desk" is bad for both parties. If you look closely, I have demonstrated an asymmetry which goes right to the heart of the question.
An employee can give any reason they like for quitting, because it's their time and their labour they are withdrawing. "I don't want to work here any more, because the sky is blue." It's a personal decision.
An employer can give only a limited range of reasons, which I would call "just cause." They reduce to "your work isn't worth the wage I've been paying." A job is defined by that, and I don't think it's unreasonable that the employer should at least try to justify what is a business decision.
"I'm sacking you because I discovered you are a Jew" would not be just. Unless perhaps you were in business printing neo-Nazi literature, in which case employing a known Jew might be bad for business.

Good man! Good work, like good business, is where you find it.
I forget what this was about.

Insightful, a legal regime biased in your favour works for you. It does not however speak to the merits of the system. Merely that it favours you.
Democracy swings that way. We might be wrong, but we are many. Suck it up.

Some basic economics, people. Prices have a vital signalling function. High/rising prices indicate that you should get into a market, and low/falling prices indicate that you should get out of a market (as a seller). As a buyer, the reverse applies, high/rising prices indicate that you should refrain from buying (either finding substitutes, or doing without), and low/falling prices indicate that you should buy more.
That's handy. Thanks for the tip. I'll sell the computer (since it's obviously losing value fast) and go buy some junk bonds.

That applies to everyone, and everything.
It does not. It's the kind of moronic formalism which all clever speculators wish the mug punters (uninformed speculators) would play by. More for them.

From the point of view of work, workers should aim for the highest wage, moving to the areas, and into the industries that have higher wages, while employers will look for lower wages, or substitutes for labour. This is not something you can legislate against, it is a fact.
It is crap, sadly true but prevented by national borders, crap because some industries are far less satisfactory to work in, possibly true but with glaring exceptions (Google?), and finally yes.
Every single one of us should be looking for substitutes for labour. I choose poverty as a substitute for labour.

I'll conclude by noting that both employers and employees will happily take any breaks, financial or otherwise, which government throws their way.
And that's kind of a trap. It's much easier to give it away than take it away.

yeah, and?

Who is going to pay for that? You didn't answer the question.

And while we're on the point, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to define "just cause" for businesses that you do not own?

the nature of justice

yeah, just rented

Labor was purchased, a human being was neither rented or purchased.

the nature of justice

That's one mighty claim you've got there. That you somehow understand the nature of justice more effectively than I.

Who is going to pay for that? You didn't answer the question.

you didn't answer the question


paying for it is just another business expense for the company. if they don't engage in objectionable firings, they won't have much to worry about. if they do, well fuck them then.

Now you're just being silly.

No, that's only an argument you can make if you can show a real difference.

And you have not even attempted so to do.

Did I say that the employee would decide what was "just cause"?
I don't think I did.

Is that even a rebuttal?

Democracy swings that way. We might be wrong, but we are many. Suck it up.

Is that even a rebuttal?

It is crap, sadly true but prevented by national borders, crap because some industries are far less satisfactory to work in, possibly true but with glaring exceptions (Google?), and finally yes.

Some places aren't nice to work in, well as you once said "suck it up".

Every single one of us should be looking for substitutes for labour. I choose poverty as a substitute for labour.

Did you even read what I wrote? I referred to buyers looking for substitutes in the face of higher prices. Not sellers.

The worker can be sacked. If he isn't doing his job as described then he can be sacked for incompetance. If he isn't doing as much work as you want him/her to do then give a small raise and an expanded job description.

BAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First, you advocate a system for "protecting" employees, than you suggest a way for employers to game the system!

Well, if I am ever an employer, forced to work under the restrictions you advocate, I will remember this tip. Kick them up, then kick them out!

the nature of justice

Bollocks.

you didn't answer the question


paying for it is just another business expense for the company. if they don't engage in objectionable firings, they won't have much to worry about. if they do, well fuck them then.

I'm saying that a contract ending is well-known to us. But you're saying we should be able to force a review and appeal the contract ending (an event that is beyond the control of the employer).

So, who is going to pay for the review, even though it doesn't fall into the category of "objectionable"? You said everyone should be able to force a review.

Sorry, it's not a valid business expense. It's against the law where I live to have anything but "at will" employment.

That's one mighty claim you've got there. That you somehow understand the nature of justice more effectively than I.

well, that seems to be the case based on the things you say, here and elsewhere. but that's not really what my answer meant.

the question was what gives us the right to define just cause when we don't own the business. and the answer is the nature of justice, because if it were otherwise then being black or gay or pregnant or sick or not putting out for the boss or noticing that something illegal was going on, etc would be 'just cause'. people actually do get fired for these things. and it is so trivially insane to think that those reasons are just that it is obvious that the justness of them is not at all dependent on ownership of the company.

I'm saying that a contract ending is well-known to us. But you're saying we should be able to force a review and appeal the contract ending (an event that is beyond the control of the employer).

So, who is going to pay for the review, even though it doesn't fall into the category of "objectionable"? You said everyone should be able to force a review.

the company. and in your example, i estimate that it will cost about 75 cents.

Sorry, it's not a valid business expense. It's against the law where I live to have anything but "at will" employment.

is/fucking ought

the question was what gives us the right to define just cause when we don't own the business. and the answer is the nature of justice, because if it were otherwise then being black or gay or pregnant or sick or not putting out for the boss or noticing that something illegal was going on, etc would be 'just cause'. people actually do get fired for these things. and it is so trivially insane to think that those reasons are just that it is obvious that the justness of them is not at all dependent on ownership of the company.

You've not actually answered the question, yu have merely said why you find such things undesirable.

In answer to that, all I can say is I don't care what you find undesirable.

the company. and in your example, i estimate that it will cost about 75 cents.

What is the basis of your estimate?

I'm gonna consider that my arguments are robust since no one has replied to them.

I would catch up with the thread, but it seems to have descended into chaos since I last checked.

*is smug*

I do not have a problem with at will employment. This allows labor resources to be less restricted and that has to be able to help the economy. The OP was being a bit unfair to management when he stated the idea that workers can leave whenever they want but management cannot fire workers whenever they want.

In my state, which is an at will state, you can be fired for cause, or no cause, but not for bad cause. Basically this means that you could be fired for any or no reason as long as it is not something discriminatory such as being fired for being a whistleblower or a member of a certain race or something like that. I think that this is a fine balance.

No, that's only an argument you can make if you can show a real difference.

And you have not even attempted so to do.

It was a ludicrous analogy. If you considered it a real gem of wisdom, sure, take the point. *shrug*

Is that even a rebuttal?
Probably not. *shrug*

Is that even a rebuttal?

Some places aren't nice to work in, well as you once said "suck it up".
I meant "some industries," but sure, some places too are less attractive as working or living environments. It's definitely a factor in choosing a job.
You do know that employees choose a job, not just employers choose an employee? You know that the pay isn't the only criterion for choosing a job?


Did you even read what I wrote? I referred to buyers looking for substitutes in the face of higher prices. Not sellers.
I'm glad you picked that up. It indicates that you have read my words closely enough to detect such an 'inconsistency.'
Yes, I should have said "I seek a substitute for wages, and so far the best I have found is poverty." Given that the post I first replied to used symmetry so artfully, I thought you might get this, but I'll make it more formally correct at your suggestion.

BAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure what this was a reply to. Forgive me for not taking the time to go back and find out.

First, you advocate a system for "protecting" employees, than you suggest a way for employers to game the system!
Well, if I am ever an employer, forced to work under the restrictions you advocate, I will remember this tip. Kick them up, then kick them out!

I'm glad you got something out of my post.

Please quote my words using the quote button (to include my name and a cute green arrow linking to the post), for the clarity of your own posts as well as proper attribution of another's words.

You've not actually answered the question, yu have merely said why you find such things undesirable.

In answer to that, all I can say is I don't care what you find undesirable.

i love free marketeers - so batshit insane. listen mate, it just fucking is not the case that the boss can justly say to one of their employees "have sex with me or you're fired". such a position is inherently unjustifiable.

I'm gonna consider that my arguments are robust since no one has replied to them.

I would catch up with the thread, but it seems to have descended into chaos since I last checked.

*is smug*

Waht? YOU are smug? Isn't smug permabanned?

The OP was being a bit unfair to management when he stated the idea that workers can leave whenever they want but management cannot fire workers whenever they want.

except that is the only possible way to have a shadow of fairness in an inherently unfair system. the company is holding all the power in the relationship between themselves and a single worker. it is patently unfair to make the powerless have precisely equivalent reciprocal duties to the powerful.

In my state, which is an at will state, you can be fired for cause, or no cause, but not for bad cause. Basically this means that you could be fired for any or no reason as long as it is not something discriminatory such as being fired for being a whistleblower or a member of a certain race or something like that. I think that this is a fine balance.

no cause = legal cover for bad cause. either your cause is good and can be demonstrated to be such, or your cause is bad. there is no middle ground here.

i love free marketeers - so batshit insane. listen mate, it just fucking is not the case that the boss can justly say to one of their employees "have sex with me or you're fired". such a position is inherently unjustifiable.

I love these rules, it's the law where I live.

http://research.lawyers.com/Virginia/Employment-Law-in-Virginia.html

Are you going to say there's something WRONG with these laws?

Waht? YOU are smug? Isn't smug permabanned?huh? What are you on about... my nation's existed since before you were born. Probably not, but anyway...

I love these rules, it's the law where I live.

http://research.lawyers.com/Virginia/Employment-Law-in-Virginia.html

Are you going to say there's something WRONG with these laws?

yes, they do not offer enough protections. but more to the point, mesoriya is too, but he will do so for the opposite reason.

-snip-

I'm not a fond of government intervention in business. People should have the freedom to hire and fire who they like, it's their company so it's their choice. If the employer is fireing people for reasons based on race or gender then you can sue or contact the union. If the employer fired you because you are a women or because you are black then he wont have a case in court.

I'm not a fond of government intervention in business. People should have the freedom to hire and fire who they like, it's their company so it's their choice. If the employer is fireing people for reasons based on race or gender then you can sue or contact the union. If the employer fired you because you are a women or because you are black then he wont have a case in court.

do you honestly not see the blatant contradiction you are engaging in here?

except that is the only possible way to have a shadow of fairness in an inherently unfair system. the company is holding all the power in the relationship between themselves and a single worker. it is patently unfair to make the powerless have precisely equivalent reciprocal duties to the powerful.



no cause = legal cover for bad cause. either your cause is good and can be demonstrated to be such, or your cause is bad. there is no middle ground here.

I am not sure that employees are powerless or that there is anything unfair about it. It is really the powerlessness of both parties in the face of competition for workers and wages that exists in the global marketplace.

I am even more certain that no cause does not always equal bad cause. Often a firm simply needs to scale down its costs to stay competetive, partiularly in an economic downturn. As costs are reduced, people get fired. It is not necessarily because the workers did anything wrong. I do not see anything wicked about that.

I do have a problem with whistleblowers getting fired in retaliation. Fortunately, the law agrees with me. I am sure most people agree with these sort of laws.

do you honestly not see the blatant contradiction you are engaging in here?

I don't count law suits and unions as government intervention.

I don't count law suits and unions as government intervention.

but why can the lawsuit win? why would a court care if some place fired someone because they're black?

but why can the lawsuit win?

Because thats what the Jury decided.

It was a ludicrous analogy.

Rubbish. Both are essentially the same, buyers looking for the best deal from the various sellers. The difference is purely emotional.

Yes, I should have said "I seek a substitute for wages, and so far the best I have found is poverty."

You don't seek a substitute for wages, you are merely an unsuccessful seller.

I'm glad you got something out of my post.

You missed my point. These contrived little systems, even if they were a good idea (and they are not) are so open to abuse that they will be rendered farcical. If they do turn out to be effective, then they also reduce employment.

i love free marketeers - so batshit insane. listen mate, it just fucking is not the case that the boss can justly say to one of their employees "have sex with me or you're fired". such a position is inherently unjustifiable.

Don't yap at me, boy. Dogs don't get anything when they yap at me, what makes you think you will?

In my state, which is an at will state, you can be fired for cause, or no cause, but not for bad cause. Basically this means that you could be fired for any or no reason as long as it is not something discriminatory such as being fired for being a whistleblower or a member of a certain race or something like that. I think that this is a fine balance.

And therein lies the rub. If they do not have to give ANY cause, then how do we know it WASN'T for bad cause?

Because thats what the Jury decided.

why does it get far enough for there to be a jury in the first place?

I love these rules, it's the law where I live.

http://research.lawyers.com/Virginia/Employment-Law-in-Virginia.html

Are you going to say there's something WRONG with these laws?

Yes I am. What's wrong with them is the presumed "right" of an employer to terminate an employee without cause, there is also the fact that because all jobs are considered "at will employment" the employee does not have the ability to choose to work a job that provides them the security of not being fired with no reason given. Cause includes incompetence, negligence, insubordination, a financial need by the company to lay off employees, and probably several things I haven't time to think of right now (but most of them other people try to point out to me will probably fall under the large umbrella provided by the first three causes). If I am fired and no reason is given then how do I know I wasn't fired because my boss discovered I was pagan?

I am even more certain that no cause does not always equal bad cause. Often a firm simply needs to scale down its costs to stay competetive, partiularly in an economic downturn. As costs are reduced, people get fired. It is not necessarily because the workers did anything wrong. I do not see anything wicked about that.

"We need to lay off employees due to declining profits" IS cause and is usually stated as the cause for termination when it occurs. An employer does not need the ability to fire you without giving a reason in order to lay you off.

why does it get far enough for there to be a jury in the first place?

Because hopefully your lawyer will be able to recognize that you have a good case.

i love free marketeers - so batshit insane. listen mate, it just fucking is not the case that the boss can justly say to one of their employees "have sex with me or you're fired". such a position is inherently unjustifiable.
Don't yap at me, boy. Dogs don't get anything when they yap at me, what makes you think you will?

Thankyou for not being so condescending or rude to me as this.
No, wait, you were.
Done talking to you now.

EDIT: This was unjust. What I percieved as rudeness was the last stanza of http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12595952&postcount=102 which I mistook for a reply to me. Rereading, Mesoriya replied to my posts in much the same spirit they were offered.

And therein lies the rub. If they do not have to give ANY cause, then how do we know it WASN'T for bad cause?

well apparently you have to actually tell the firee that they have been fired for being black for it to be a bad thing

Because hopefully your lawyer will be able to recognize that you have a good case.

gah!

why would it make a good case???

gah!

why would it make a good case???

Because it's against the law or the constitution or whatever of the country.

Because it's against the law or the constitution or whatever of the country.

but i thought

I'm not a fond of government intervention in business. People should have the freedom to hire and fire who they like, it's their company so it's their choice.

???

but i thought



???

I think part of the problem is that one side of the argument is viewing the argument totally differently from the other side. Whereas you're viewing it as an issue of unjust firing practices (which I fully oppose), the other side views it as impeding the ability of businesses to respond to changing market conditions. Essentially, seeing it as a populist ploy to force employers to keep employees, even if it is detrimental to the business.

I think part of the problem is that one side of the argument is viewing the argument totally differently from the other side. Whereas you're viewing it as an issue of unjust firing practices (which I fully oppose), the other side views it as impeding the ability of businesses to respond to changing market conditions. Essentially, seeing it as a populist ploy to force employers to keep employees, even if it is detrimental to the business.Behold the winner of the thread.

However, I don't think requiring a company to give an employee a months notice will cause the company to go bust during a depression.

but i thought



???

I knew that was coming ;)

It's complicated... I havn't really gone in depth in this topic yet tbh so I can't really articulate what I mean. But I will later if i can be bothered.

I think part of the problem is that one side of the argument is viewing the argument totally differently from the other side. Whereas you're viewing it as an issue of unjust firing practices (which I fully oppose), the other side views it as impeding the ability of businesses to respond to changing market conditions. Essentially, seeing it as a populist ploy to force employers to keep employees, even if it is detrimental to the business.

but the only way to avoid unjust firing practices is to make sure that the firing practices are just. it is logically necessary. to oppose steps to ensure that is to favor unjust firings.

whether it is an anti-business ploy or not is irrelevant. if you try to oppose unjust practices and favor at will (of the employer) employment, you wind up trapped in the logical contradiction hydesland got stuck in.

"We need to lay off employees due to declining profits" IS cause and is usually stated as the cause for termination when it occurs. An employer does not need the ability to fire you without giving a reason in order to lay you off.

I always thought that for cause means that the worker was doing something wrong and that without cause means the worker was fired for reasons that the worker had no control over such as the company just had to fire people to reduce costs and that worker's area was one of the areas that management was reducing.

I think that unemployment compensation is enough of a safety net for workers that have been fired to receive some help until they find new work. There is only so much that can and should be done to help folks without taking away incentives for self reliance.

Even if we regard the employees labour as a pure commodity*, and the wages and conditions of the job as a pure commodity, it is simply barbaric to reduce the employer/employee relationship to a pure market interaction.

Pretend that both labour and wages for a job were pure commodities. For instance pretend that I buy wheat from you, for my flour mill. I pay in your local currency, and I pay the shipping costs from your nearest town. Both you and I are businesses, we're only growing wheat or grinding flour because we can make money that way, and we're both aware that it's a very competetive market.

Looking to make better flour at a lower cost, I discover a farmer who can provide just as good wheat, with the same reliability to the same shipping point as you do. Their wheat is a bit cheaper.
I don't simply cease to place orders for your wheat. I get on the phone. You and I have a trading relationship, and that adds value to your wheat which is not reflected in the price. But it could be! ... once I get on the phone, and I explain that, as things stand, I'd be better off buying the other person's wheat, and can we cut a deal?

What do I stand to gain, as a miller, from witholding information from you, a grain grower? Other millers, sure, I'll keep my cards close to my chest, but actually I stand only to gain from exchanging information, as well as commodities with my trading partner.

So I tell you, the grower, exactly why I am considering buying from a competitor. If you learn from that and become more competetive, that can only benefit me, by driving down the prices my new supplier can charge.

HERE is where the analogy with the "trading relationship" of employer and employee ends. It was an analogy. It just ended.

In fact, this principle is used by corporations to fix an artificially high price for commodities high up the production chain. By owning trading companies at several stages in the production chain and sharing information up and down, more effectively than companies at only one level, they gain a competetive advantage overall. As well as just being bigger, they act smarter because they aren't wasting information by hiding it.

*The employees labour is not a pure commodity. It is very complex. The market fundamentalist would say I am squandering a tradable resource by quitting my job at 35 and buying a yacht, whereas I would say I'm going on an extended cruise and having the time of my life.
Nor is the "commodity" of wages a simple thing. Housebreaking or mugging pays very well, by the hour, but only the desperate consider it an option at all, let alone "a good job." The contract includes the possibility of going to jail, you can't talk about your job at parties, and you have to live with directly harming people. Stick that in your calculator!

Behold the winner of the thread.

It's alarming how many threads seem to have a "winner." There's a rash of these "winnings" I think.

MUCH LATER RE-EDIT: That's no win. It's clever and apropriate, but .. it's .. a .. reply .. to:


Because it's against the law or the constitution or whatever of the country.
but i thought


I'm not a fond of government intervention in business. People should have the freedom to hire and fire who they like, it's their company so it's their choice.
???
__________________
... which needs a better reply than the "winning" post, or a cry of uncle.

EDIT: Oh, and in a bout of drunken regret, I will nominate Mesoriya for runner-up.

check this out:

Protecting Employees at Will against Wrongful Discharge: The Public Policy Exception
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 8. (Jun., 1983), pp. 1931-1951.


The at will rule is of comparatively recent origin. It first
appeared as a rule of evidence in Horace Wood's 1877 Treatise
on the Law of Master and Servant. According to Wood, an
employment contract was presumed to be terminable at will
unless its duration had been specified by the parties. This
formulation departed from the English common law rule, under
which employment was presumed to be for a year unless
otherwise specified. Moreover, scholars have shown that
Wood's rule was unsupported by the authorities upon which
the author relied.

so some dude writing a book about masters and servants made up the idea of at will (of the master, naturally) in 1877 and lied about his sources and the concept's status. why is that only vaguely surprising?

It's alarming how many threads seem to have a "winner." There's a rash of these "winnings" I think.

No, I'm not jealous. God forbid I should win a thread, I'd never live it down.

EDIT: Oh, and in a bout of drunken regret, I will nominate Mesoriya for runner-up.I nominate you the winnage next time I see you in a thread that needs a winner. :)

What's wrong with them is the presumed "right" of an employer to terminate an employee without cause
I would wager a considerable sum that everyone decrying how horrid at-will employment is because a boss could just replace you at any moment for no reason has never had to manage a company.

Hiring new employees is always costly. Always.
In the US you still have to go through hiring process - candidate selection (advertising the position, screening potential employees, etc) plus a lot of paperwork to go through putting employees on the payroll, training them, etc. On the back end you still have paperwork to process in terminating the employment. It is not costless. Even illegal workers has some associated cost (even if that is just the potential for large fines if caught) - though they are cheaper which is why illegals generally wind up with a lot more in their pockets at the end of the day then legal workers.

Finding good productive workers is a very difficult process. Firing someone for ‘no reason given’ is not done on a whim. There are always reasons – they simply do not have to state a reason which has to be legally justified in a court of law. An employer simply does not wake up one day and decide to just fire someone on a whim (or if they do, they will not be in business long).

Even if there are lots of applicants for the job, it takes time to sift through appropriate employees. That takes paying the wages of human resources to spend that time reading resumes (or CVs if you prefer). Then you have time interviewing applicants – which takes time from human resources and probably a manager. In the end, you sometimes find an employee simply is not a good fit for the company – they could be unproductive (but perhaps not in an easily quantifiable way), reduce the productivity of others, reduce company morale, or whatever. They might simply not be creative enough for the job – who knows. If you take a long hard look you will find there is always a compelling reason for firing someone.

Why should an employer be kept from firing someone? Do you think it right that someone be able to take money from you against your will? Then why should you be able to take mine?

I have a business to run – I have to make a profit to feed myself and keep a roof over my head. Not to mention I have to make enough to feed and clothe the families of my other employees as well. Forcing me to pay unproductive people puts my own livelihood, plus the livelihoods of my other employees, in jeopardy.

You take a job because you value the wages and non-financial benefits more than your free time – I hire you because I think you can help my business more than the wages, benefits, taxes, and ancillary costs of employing you. If that changes for any reason, you are free to quite and I am free to fire you. That is simply fair and is best for the business, best for the productive employees, and best for the economy.

Anything else is exploitation (regardless of which side is being exploited).

Firing someone for ‘no reason given’ is not done on a whim.

indeed. usually its because of some fairly specific reason that everyone sane would oppose as clearly unjust. like being black or gay or not giving the boss a blowjob. we had to write fucking laws to begin attempting to stop that shit, which was fucking common as hell under at will employment, and still is even with moderate legal protection. we've spent the majority of time since the idea was invented making up laws to protect people from its ludicrous consequences.

indeed. usually its because of some fairly specific reason that everyone sane would oppose as clearly unjust. like being black or gay or not giving the boss a blowjob. we had to write fucking laws to begin attempting to stop that shit, which was fucking common as hell under at will employment, and still is even with moderate legal protection. we've spent the majority of time since the idea was invented making up laws to protect people from its ludicrous consequences.

Because every boss in the world is obviously a racist homophobic asshole who demands oral sex from their workers. :rolleyes:

I would like to see some actual research that says sexual demands and such are prolific under at-will employment. Until I see some proof of such, I am going to take your assertion that at-will employment leads to only straight white males who give their bosses blowjobs (yes, obvious hyperbole because i think it a funny) get employed as being the biased ramblings of someone so insecure they fear they cannot hold a job and others must be forced to give them one.

How many people here really think that a significant number of the hundreds of millions of employers in the world are racist homophobic sexual predators? Why should we punish everyone for the behavior of very few?

Personally - I dont even see what is wrong with being allowed to fire someone for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons anyway. Acting in such a manner will restrict you from hiring the best employees and probably cost you significant sales as well - so any such company will loose out to their competitors. Last I heard, collectively punishing people because of the actions of a tiny minority was considered a violation of human rights ;P

Well since a body like this would only exist with such powers while a union/labor party was in government, there is no need for unions when the state can act in a much more efficient manner in this way.

Explain how any of this is true.

Yes. An employee's livelihood usually depends on a particular job. A company's livelihood rarely depends on a particular employee.

It is more often true that the loss of a job is a difficulty to the individual, not a disaster, just as it is with the company.

Let me ask you this, if there is some employee who has an experience so difficult to replace and so integral to a company that his leaving would leave them facing a likely shut down of operations, should he be forced to work for that company?

Why should we punish everyone for the behavior of very few?

we wouldn't

Personally - I dont even see what is wrong with being allowed to fire someone for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons anyway.

how very unsurprising

At-will employment is pretty successful, especially given that the US unemployment rates are all significantly lower than similarly-sized nations without such laws. Both sides have the freedom to choose their own conditions, and generally maximizing economic freedom is a very good thing for everyone involved.


um...
so if the company just wants to lay off the worker, this means that the worker chose that condition? there are several types of scenarios where an employer would do that, and in all of them it is tyrannical. EMPLOYEES SHOULD ONLY BE FIRED WHEN THE FIRING IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THEIR WORK. otherwise, the employer has MORE power, as they already can control wages, working hours, benefits and other things to an extent. they already seem to possess the power in the U.S. and Alberta to go out strike-breaking with few or no interruptions.

the US unemployment rates are significantly HIGHER than Canada, Sweden, Norway and many other countries that DON'T employ that law. in order to get that b.s. statistic, you would have to factor in Haiti, Afganastan, Iraq, the Congo, Brasil and many other poor countries of that nature.

standard "Democrat" and "Republican" b.s. statistics. that's what those are. DO NOT BE FOOLED!

Self employment is covered by separate rules. Besides, the contract with your hair dresser or taxi driver is finite, whereas employment contracts are indefinite.

No one is truly "self-employed".

Because every boss in the world is obviously a racist homophobic asshole who demands oral sex from their workers. :rolleyes:

How many people here really think that a significant number of the hundreds of millions of employers in the world are racist homophobic sexual predators? Why should we punish everyone for the behavior of very few?

Personally - I dont even see what is wrong with being allowed to fire someone for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons anyway. Acting in such a manner will restrict you from hiring the best employees and probably cost you significant sales as well - so any such company will loose out to their competitors. Last I heard, collectively punishing people because of the actions of a tiny minority was considered a violation of human rights ;P

wow. how does hiring homosexuals in any way restrict you from hiring good people? a lot of my employees are homosexual or of a visable minority, and i have a nice effecient work force.

believe me, a significant number of employers are like that, especially in the Southern States, or in Alberta. from what you just said in that last paragraph, i believe that you would be such an employer, unless there is some sort of revolution of smart people, in which case yours would be among the first backs against the wall.

out.

we wouldn't
By preventing employers from firing workers, you are assuming all employers are firing workers for unacceptable reasons. You are punishing everyone for the actions of those few who fire for unacceptable reasons.

Look at it like dating - if you go out on a date with someone because they seemed attractive at first, but you find there is no spark between you, should you be forced to continue dating them (and of course paying for everything so the date is costing you money - and assume exclusivity so you cannot be dating someone else during this time)? You cannot point to anything specific - they did not lie, cheat, or steal, and seem to match every criteria you write down for what you are looking for in a mate. It just isnt working out. Should you be forced to date them until you can come up with clearly definable reasoning backed up by plenty of documented evidence you can defend in court?

wow. how does hiring homosexuals in any way restrict you from hiring good people? a lot of my employees are homosexual or of a visable minority, and i have a nice effecient work force.

believe me, a significant number of employers are like that, especially in the Southern States, or in Alberta. from what you just said in that last paragraph, i believe that you would be such an employer, unless there is some sort of revolution of smart people, in which case yours would be among the first backs against the wall.

out.

Please reread my post - I said that acting in a homophobic or racist manner may restrict you from hiring the best employees. Ergo - refusing to hire gays or blacks means you may NOT be getting the best employees.

Perhaps you should read a little more carefully before signing the execution order. ;P

By preventing employers from firing workers, you are assuming all employers are firing workers for unacceptable reasons.

no. by preventing employers from firing people without good reason we are preventing them from firing people for unacceptable reasons. if they have a good reason, they can fire people all they want. oversight and worker protection ≠ punishment.

a lot of my employees are homosexual or of a visable minority, and i have a nice effecient work force.


You bourgeois scum

You bourgeois scum

haha, well played

no. by preventing employers from firing people without good reason we are preventing them from firing people for unacceptable reasons. if they have a good reason, they can fire people all they want. oversight and worker protection ≠ punishment.

can you list some "good reasons"? I once fired someone because they irked me, and I couldn't figure out why......is that a good reason?

can you list some "good reasons"? I once fired someone because they irked me, and I couldn't figure out why......is that a good reason?

One good reason would be "failure to perform assigned duties." That's just cause for termination. Another would be habitual lateness or failing to show up for work--that sort of thing. Personality conflict, such as you describe, might fall into that category, but the problem is that such a category can easily become a catch-all. Say an employer has that as an excuse, but uses it to fire all his black employees simply because he doesn't like black people--see how it could easily be abused?

I think there's little question that these discussions apply mostly to larger companies as opposed to smaller companies with few employees, since the number of employees to be affected is much smaller in the latter case, and because the owner of the company is far more likely to have a hand in the hiring and firing of all employees.

can you list some "good reasons"? I once fired someone because they irked me, and I couldn't figure out why......is that a good reason?

good reasons are typically economic reasons or reasons relating to somebody just not doing their job.

if you had figured out that they irked you because they were (insert protected group X here), do you think you should be allowed to fire them? seems to me that irking aint a good reason, except in special cases where this irking actually significantly impacts the operation of the business.

Not everyone wants to be as independently minded as your average economist.
But wouldn't you say that being independently minded is the thing that has allowed humanity to come as far as it has?

There are people out there who simply want easy rules to follow and a simple life. Would you deny them that?
Of course not. But they have to accept that a "simple" life in a complex world implies that they won't perform as well.
There is no point in protecting the dumb or lazy by hurting the smart or industrious, to put it in extreme terms.

Anyway, I'm not sure how at will employment encourages self employment. Two self employed people could still enter into an indefinite contracts if they wished. I'm not really sure if self employment is covered by any employment law, because there is neither an employer nor an employee.
The thing is that they are making up the terms of the contract themselves. They don't have the state, or a union, or anyone else interfering in what they want written in there.

Of course they could make it indefinite, or just make it last ten minutes. I don't really mind because I ultimately accept that if both sides agree to it, it's hardly any of my business to call the contract good or bad.

A redundant point as I believe in the worst case scenario redundancy can take effect immediately. Well nearly immediately. The process of redundancy would be very quick for a small business.[/QUOTE]
But not quick enough, apparently. The US has a very flexible labour market, not least because of its historical philosophical approach to employment, so firms there are much quicker to adjust their labour force if necessary.

Come over to France or Germany, and thinks look different. It's no wonders that firms are going to employ less people if every employment contract is an investment for a decade.

...but not all have access to the same level of education, for societal/financial reasons.
No, obviously not. But that doesn't matter, as long as everyone is capable of reading and writing, because that's all you need to read an employment contract.

No one is going to be legally tricked into a different job than the one they signed up for, which is something that happened very often in the 19th century.

And if its an employers market what then? Their basic decency wins out and all are treated fairly as fellow humans? I think not somehow.
I doubt that there is such a thing as an employer's market if you are a decent, working and at least slightly skilled human being. It's all about differentiating yourself from everyone else. And depending on your success with that, you can demand whatever you want to.

As for decency, is there something about being a business owner of HR employee that suddenly makes a person bad? What if the hardworking plumber decides to become self-employed, and he switches from being an employee to being an employer - does that mean he's suddenly a different person? Of course not.

There's arsehole employers and there's arsehole employees. It hardly helps to get back to archaic ideas of class warfare, which is what these distinctions ultimately imply.

Secondly "geographically flexible" creates problems, be it through legal or illegal migrations.
I admit that much. As I said, it's definitely a bonus, and I personally don't have any problems with working anywhere on the planet, but that of course isn't true for everyone, especially if one has children at school or a working spouse.

Without unions and some form of limitation on employers?
Limitations on employers is the wrong way to put it. There is scope for some basic rules regarding work in general, like health and safety regulations. But there's no point in putting in regulations which hurt the employer, hurt the unemployed and are of doubtful use to even the employee.

As for unions, I think the massive organisations we knew from last century have overstayed their welcome. They're dying off, and that is because they fail to provide value to their members. People are realising that they're better off either alone (if they have some skills) or by just forming a company-wide representation body which can actually react to what's going on on a micro level, and keeps bureaucracy down.

I don't have an issue with either. But big, industry-wide unions are just lobby groups which end up hurting everyone in the economy to various degrees.

Ever been unemployed?
I'm a bit young to count as really being unemployed (though I am at the very bottom of the food chain...I deliver pizzas). But yes, my father hasn't had a steady job since we got here in 2001.

It's not a fun situation to be in. He's been a taxi driver, a cleaner, a failing seafood restaurant owner, a real estate agent, a Mercedes salesman and a few more things.

Just a few weeks ago he finally got a real job, back in his old profession as an IT Project Manager. Funny how these things go sometimes, but apart from us probably never owning a house, we're now doing quite well.

Being able to pick up a job easily would be indicative that the economy isn't doing well as it is very likely that there would be labour shortages.
:p
Depends on the time of the business cycle. If things were bad and are starting to go up, then firms will want to employ people and you have an easier time finding a job.

If you're at the very top of the cycle, then firms may slow down new hirings, you're right.

What if it's not doing well?
My university degree got me a job offer for cleaning at the local hospital.
If it's not doing well you won't help anyone by forcing companies that are starting to make losses to hold on to workers until they go bankrupt.

One good reason would be "failure to perform assigned duties." That's just cause for termination. Another would be habitual lateness or failing to show up for work--that sort of thing. Personality conflict, such as you describe, might fall into that category, but the problem is that such a category can easily become a catch-all. Say an employer has that as an excuse, but uses it to fire all his black employees simply because he doesn't like black people--see how it could easily be abused?

I think there's little question that these discussions apply mostly to larger companies as opposed to smaller companies with few employees, since the number of employees to be affected is much smaller in the latter case, and because the owner of the company is far more likely to have a hand in the hiring and firing of all employees.
why would you hire someone who was (in your example) black if you didn't want to hire black people? I mean wouldn't you just not hire them in the first place and then be subject to the laws against discrimination in the work place?

good reasons are typically economic reasons or reasons relating to somebody just not doing their job.

if you had figured out that they irked you because they were (insert protected group X here), do you think you should be allowed to fire them? seems to me that irking aint a good reason, except in special cases where this irking actually significantly impacts the operation of the business.
It's my business, I have the legal right to fire people "at will" if I am discriminating against a protected group I am breaking the law. I think as a business owner since it's my responsibility not only to provide for my family but to keep the business going at top productivity for the few employees I do have (did have, don't have any in my current business) then yeah, I should be able to let someone go who "isn't a good fit" for the company. I have fired about 15 people in my life, 9 of them were caught stealing, 3 of them were habitually late, one of them was so stupid they actually cost me more money than they made, one of them punched a customer, and one irked me for some unknown reason.

Why should the employer be locked in to an agreement, when the employee can walk out when ever he decides he doesn't want to wear trousers to work.

If the employer must pay the employee, regardless of whether or not he wants the employee's services, then the employee should be "shackled to his desk" by an equivalent law.

So what?So the fact that the investment and risk on the part of the employee is greater than the investment and risk on the part of the employer means that the law should protect the employee more so than the employer.

I think part of the problem is that one side of the argument is viewing the argument totally differently from the other side. Whereas you're viewing it as an issue of unjust firing practices (which I fully oppose), the other side views it as impeding the ability of businesses to respond to changing market conditions. Essentially, seeing it as a populist ploy to force employers to keep employees, even if it is detrimental to the business.Perhaps this is part of the problem. I don't see firing an employee for having the wrong haircut as being fundamentally any different than firing an employee for being female, and yet we have laws protecting against the latter.

It is more often true that the loss of a job is a difficulty to the individual, not a disaster, just as it is with the company.The scale of the difficulty to the individual would be much greater.

Let me ask you this, if there is some employee who has an experience so difficult to replace and so integral to a company that his leaving would leave them facing a likely shut down of operations, should he be forced to work for that company?I would say that the likelihood of this happening is rare enough so that it wouldn't be necessary, and if it's the case, then it probably represents a failure of management to not have a contigency plan. At the very least, the company should take into account the possible death of the employee, and plan accordingly.

snip

Do you approve of government control of hiring and firing practices, or do you think that worker's councils will avoid thes unjust firings?

I would say that the likelihood of this happening is rare enough so that it wouldn't be necessary, and if it's the case, then it probably represents a failure of management to not have a contigency plan. At the very least, the company should take into account the possible death of the employee, and plan accordingly.

I would say that the likelihood of a wage laborer getting fired without just cause with no likely opportunities for employment (or other sources of income) being equally rare (especially when you consider that I believe the removal of government regulation will strengthen employees much more than employers in the long run).

In any case, why shouldn't the employee be expected to form a contingency plan, just in case the company goes belly up (perhaps because they held on to employees whose jobs were protected by the government)?

So the fact that the investment and risk on the part of the employee is greater than the investment and risk on the part of the employer means that the law should protect the employee more so than the employer.

Jello, you're using the same words, but you are not using the same concepts, nor are you understanding the concepts.

There is very often no investment by an employee beyond the cost of commuting, and the risk is also often quite low.

The employer risks a considerable sum of money at each stage of the process, in paying the costs of finding people, sifting through the applicants, training, and pay through a probationary period.

Self employment is covered by separate rules. Besides, the contract with your hair dresser or taxi driver is finite, whereas employment contracts are indefinite.

No they aren't. My employment contract is not indefinite, and even thouse that are come under review at regular periods (renewal), and there are legal provisions in them for termination in between those periods.

So the fact that the investment and risk on the part of the employee is greater than the investment and risk on the part of the employer means that the law should protect the employee more so than the employer.
Do you have any data to backup that disproportionate claim?

An employee generally has very little investment in a new job – the substantial cost of hiring is taken by the employer. The cost of simply walking away from a job is negligible. The cost of incurring all the paperwork hiring a new worker and then discharging them is significant plus the investment made in training the employee. It is spurious to say that an employee faces greater risk and costs than an employer. If you throw in the problem of an employer not being able to fire an employee, you massively increase the risk of hiring someone. This risk discourages hiring new employees.

Perhaps this is part of the problem. I don't see firing an employee for having the wrong haircut as being fundamentally any different than firing an employee for being female, and yet we have laws protecting against the latter.
Employers generally specify a dress code – haircuts fall under that category. Violating that dress code gets you fired. I do not see a problem with that.

The scale of the difficulty to the individual would be much greater.
Not in a tight labor market. Skilled workers are especially hard to replace and can cause substantial costs and difficulties to replace where as that individual finding a job could be very easy. Even unskilled workers are very hard to attract in a tight labor market.

I would say that the likelihood of this happening is rare enough so that it wouldn't be necessary, and if it's the case, then it probably represents a failure of management to not have a contigency plan. At the very least, the company should take into account the possible death of the employee, and plan accordingly.
I would say that the likelihood of a person getting fired for no reason is rare enough such legislation wouldn’t be necessary, and if that is the case, probably represents a failure of the worker to not have a contigency plan. At the very least, the employee should take into account the possible loss of the job and plan accordingly.

Do you have any data to backup that disproportionate claim?

An employee generally has very little investment in a new job – the substantial cost of hiring is taken by the employer. The cost of simply walking away from a job is negligible. The cost of incurring all the paperwork hiring a new worker and then discharging them is significant plus the investment made in training the employee. It is spurious to say that an employee faces greater risk and costs than an employer. If you throw in the problem of an employer not being able to fire an employee, you massively increase the risk of hiring someone. This risk discourages hiring new employees.


It should also be mentioned that all training costs incurred by the employer is lost expenditure by the employer and value gained by the employee.

I employ near 100 people in two different business that I either own or am a partner in. In the state of Washington I can fire anyone at anytime. I however do not do that because it is not cost effective. I have a list items that can get you fired at one of my business because the majority of the people are hourly. The other business I use independent contractors for most of the work. That has more of a loose set of rules. The employees would have to really try hard to get fired by me even though I could fire them for anything. So some posters assertion that an employer would just fire at will is not really realistic. For me it costs me money to "train" people. If I had to train people on a regular basis it would be cost prohibitive. This is why I rarely fire people.

why would you hire someone who was (in your example) black if you didn't want to hire black people? I mean wouldn't you just not hire them in the first place and then be subject to the laws against discrimination in the work place?
Assume you're a mid-level person working at a company, and you've just come into the job. There would be plenty of people there you had no hand in hiring, but you could certainly start getting rid of them. Hell, maybe you're a bigot who's managed to hide it and worked your way up to a position of authority (I'm using the universal you, by the way--I don't think you're personally a bigot)--what better way to get rid of the types you don't like?

Assume you're a mid-level person working at a company, and you've just come into the job. There would be plenty of people there you had no hand in hiring, but you could certainly start getting rid of them. Hell, maybe you're a bigot who's managed to hide it and worked your way up to a position of authority (I'm using the universal you, by the way--I don't think you're personally a bigot)--what better way to get rid of the types you don't like?

any job that I have ever had that wasn't my own company, I couldn't just fire people without a damn good reason and documentation to corporate office, they don't want to get sued, so if you fire someone it has to be above the board and a really really really sound reason (since it's expensive as all get out)

Like I said if I had the power to fire someone without having to answer to anyone else, it's been because I hired them for my own business.

I employ near 100 people in two different business that I either own or am a partner in. In the state of Washington I can fire anyone at anytime. I however do not do that because it is not cost effective. I have a list items that can get you fired at one of my business because the majority of the people are hourly. The other business I use independent contractors for most of the work. That has more of a loose set of rules. The employees would have to really try hard to get fired by me even though I could fire them for anything. So some posters assertion that an employer would just fire at will is not really realistic. For me it costs me money to "train" people. If I had to train people on a regular basis it would be cost prohibitive. This is why I rarely fire people.
It's not that an employer necessarily would fire at will, it's that they can fire at will that's the problem, because when you can fire someone without cause, you can fire someone for being a union sympathizer or organizer and say it's for something else--or even for no reason at all, and that's in violation of federal labor codes (which are rarely enforced these days). At will statutes have only one purpose--union busting--and it's irrelevant whether or not you personally would ever use them in that fashion. That's why they exist.

It's not that an employer necessarily would fire at will, it's that they can fire at will that's the problem, because when you can fire someone without cause, you can fire someone for being a union sympathizer or organizer and say it's for something else--or even for no reason at all, and that's in violation of federal labor codes (which are rarely enforced these days). At will statutes have only one purpose--union busting--and it's irrelevant whether or not you personally would ever use them in that fashion. That's why they exist.

Unions tend to handle that pretty well on their own.

any job that I have ever had that wasn't my own company, I couldn't just fire people without a damn good reason and documentation to corporate office, they don't want to get sued, so if you fire someone it has to be above the board and a really really really sound reason (since it's expensive as all get out)

Like I said if I had the power to fire someone without having to answer to anyone else, it's been because I hired them for my own business.

But the point is, in at will states, if you're willing to pay the unemployment (at least this is how it was in Louisiana years ago), then you can fire anyone at any time. You just can't challenge the unemployment benefits unless you have cause.

Unions tend to handle that pretty well on their own.

Handle what? I'm not following you.

Handle what? I'm not following you.

Preventing employers from firing union sympathizers and members.

Firing one employee is bad, having a complete talent dump because of a strike is devastating.

Preventing employers from firing union sympathizers and members.

Firing one employee is bad, having a complete talent dump because of a strike is devastating.

The problem in the US is that unions have been undercut and hindered from doing just that.

The problem in the US is that unions have been undercut and hindered from doing just that.

I can agree with this, but the key is to give the power back to the unions, not protect workers through government.

I can agree with this, but the key is to give the power back to the unions, not protect workers through government.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, because the means with which you would give unions power is government.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, because the means with which you would give unions power is government.

Or give workers the ability of free collective bargaining. They will do it in proportion to the abuses committed by employers.

Firing one employee is bad, having a complete talent dump because of a strike is devastating.

That's why you do it before a strike.

That's why you do it before a strike.

It always happens before a strike.

Or give workers the ability of free collective bargaining.

If an employer wants to negotiate all labour through a union, that is his choice. If he doesn't want unions in the workplace, that is his choice also.

They will do it in proportion to the abuses committed by employers.

How much experience of work in the real world do you have?

If an employer wants to negotiate all labour through a union, that is his choice. If he doesn't want unions in the workplace, that is his choice also.

I bolded the important part. Negotiations consist of multiple parties, and he will negotiate with unions if the workforce so demands it.

How much experience of work in the real world do you have?

Is that important?

Do you approve of government control of hiring and firing practices, or do you think that worker's councils will avoid thes unjust firings?

i think we'll need some sort of check and appeal process even after we abolish the wage system, just to make sure that we aren't allowing abusive relations to grow and fester.

I bolded the important part. Negotiations consist of multiple parties, and he will negotiate with unions if the workforce so demands it.

No, he won't. He will simply look elsewhere and find non-union labour. A compulsory union monopoly can only be sustained by the state.

Is that important?

Frankly, yes. All this talk of abusive employers strikes me as a little spurious, and the use of anecdotes as "evidence" in this thread only reinforces that impression.

the use of anecdotes as "evidence" in this thread

How much experience of work in the real world do you have?

;)

;)

perhaps too subtle

I would wager a considerable sum that everyone decrying how horrid at-will employment is because a boss could just replace you at any moment for no reason has never had to manage a company.

And I bet those saying how wonderful it is aren't members of minorities (religious minorities, homosexuals, etc.) who are often discriminated against and occasionally fired from jobs when their minority status is discovered by an employer. The ability to fire someone with out giving just cause allows such people to be fired for their minority status and no one will know because they don't have to tell anyone why they fired that person. Unlike some in this discussion I have never claimed that an employer is required to give you more notice than "You're fired because <fitb with a just cause for termination>." and even consider "We can't afford to pay you any more" to be just cause. I do believe an employer who is a decent human being will give their employees at least a couple weeks notice prior to laying them off due to lack of funds but if someone does something stupid like stealing from the company (no, not little things like paper clips and pens that you might stick in your pocket and accidentally forget about, big things like money or computers) then fire them on the spot. What I'm saying is that an employer should be required to inform someone of why they have been fired so that it can be easily determined if the cause was just.

Because every boss in the world is obviously a racist homophobic asshole who demands oral sex from their workers. :rolleyes:

I would like you to quote where someone in this thread has said that "every boss in the world is obviously a racist homophobic asshole who demands oral sex from their workers"

The argument here is that at will employment holds no protection against that type of boss, which does exist no matter how common or uncommon they are.

can you list some "good reasons"? I once fired someone because they irked me, and I couldn't figure out why......is that a good reason?

No, it isn't. Were they irking customers? Were they causing other employees to be non-productive? Were they non-productive themselves? If not then there was probably no just cause for their firing.

I would like you to quote where someone in this thread has said that "every boss in the world is obviously a racist homophobic asshole who demands oral sex from their workers"

The argument here is that at will employment holds no protection against that type of boss, which does exist no matter how common or uncommon they are.

I'll never understand where people get this idea that "not everyone's an asshole so I shouldn't have my right to be an asshole infringed upon" is a legitimate argument.

i think we'll need some sort of check and appeal process even after we abolish the wage system, just to make sure that we aren't allowing abusive relations to grow and fester.

Is that a permanent process?

why would you hire someone who was (in your example) black if you didn't want to hire black people? I mean wouldn't you just not hire them in the first place and then be subject to the laws against discrimination in the work place?

A better example would be someone who is gay. You can't see gay like you can black. I know you don't have a problem with gays yourself, but roll with it for illustrative reasons. If what was irking you was the fact that you had discovered his homosexuality would you consider it a valid reason?

It's my business, I have the legal right to fire people "at will" if I am discriminating against a protected group I am breaking the law. I think as a business owner since it's my responsibility not only to provide for my family but to keep the business going at top productivity for the few employees I do have (did have, don't have any in my current business) then yeah, I should be able to let someone go who "isn't a good fit" for the company. I have fired about 15 people in my life, 9 of them were caught stealing, 3 of them were habitually late, one of them was so stupid they actually cost me more money than they made, one of them punched a customer, and one irked me for some unknown reason.

Sounds like you fired 14 people for just cause and 1 for no reason whatsoever.

why would you hire someone who was (in your example) black if you didn't want to hire black people?

Most racists these days do not think to themselves, "I'm not going to hire any black people."

They just apply a double standard to the decisions they make regarding their workers... hiring, firing, promotions, and so on.

No, he won't. He will simply look elsewhere and find non-union labour. A compulsory union monopoly can only be sustained by the state.

Labor will constantly look to maximize the return on its labor. Those who work for less than unionized workers, will unionize themselves to maximize their earning potential.

Frankly, yes. All this talk of abusive employers strikes me as a little spurious, and the use of anecdotes as "evidence" in this thread only reinforces that impression.

Well I have probably 6 or 7 collective years as a wage laborer (and another year working for commission in real estate), but sense you do not want anecdotal evidence, I won't bore you with the details.

Labor will constantly look to maximize the return on its labor. Those who work for less than unionized workers, will unionize themselves to maximize their earning potential.

E gads. A seller can only maximise his returns if he is selling. If no one is buying, then his returns are by definition zero.

If an employer will not employ unionised labour, then unionising will minimise returns.

perhaps too subtle

Apparently.

Oh, well.

perhaps too subtle

No, anyone can string stuff together using the same words, while saying nothing of any value.

No, anyone can string stuff together using the same words, while saying nothing of any value.

I hope you hang around for a few weeks at least. Breaking the faith you have in sophomore economic orthodoxy will be really quite fun.

Whether you choose to learn anything here is, on the other hand, entirely up to you.

I would say that the likelihood of a wage laborer getting fired without just cause with no likely opportunities for employment (or other sources of income) being equally rare (especially when you consider that I believe the removal of government regulation will strengthen employees much more than employers in the long run).Unemployment is a bad thing, but underemployment is more likely. Especially in the cases previously mentioned of workers being fired before they can collect pension benefits.

In any case, why shouldn't the employee be expected to form a contingency plan, just in case the company goes belly up (perhaps because they held on to employees whose jobs were protected by the government)?Most employees don't have the ability to do so.

Jello, you're using the same words, but you are not using the same concepts, nor are you understanding the concepts.

There is very often no investment by an employee beyond the cost of commuting, and the risk is also often quite low.

The employer risks a considerable sum of money at each stage of the process, in paying the costs of finding people, sifting through the applicants, training, and pay through a probationary period.The huge amount of time that an employee commits to working a job is quite a huge investment. The 40 hour workweek is 1/4 of the week, and the trend is increasing hours above and beyond that, as well.

Do you have any data to backup that disproportionate claim?That the amount of time that an employee invests in working a job is almost always greater than the amount of time spent training an employee?

Employers generally specify a dress code – haircuts fall under that category. Violating that dress code gets you fired. I do not see a problem with that.And what if the haircut doesn't specifically violate the dress code?

Not in a tight labor market. Skilled workers are especially hard to replace and can cause substantial costs and difficulties to replace where as that individual finding a job could be very easy. Even unskilled workers are very hard to attract in a tight labor market.Yes, but typically when this happens you get enough capital flight away from the tight market to compensate for that.

I hope you hang around for a few weeks at least. Breaking the faith you have in sophomore economic orthodoxy will be really quite fun.

Whether you choose to learn anything here is, on the other hand, entirely up to you.

Your posts thus far would suggest that all I have to learn from you is the wrong way to argue.

Frankly, I'm suprised that anyone would think that pushing a line like "I choose poverty as a substitute for wages" would induce anything other than the playing of violins, especially since you missed the point.

How does using the same words incorrectly show anything about my argument? I know the symmetry must look incredible artistic to you, as it would to any first-year Arts student, but it doesn't actually aid your point, or rebut mine.

But wouldn't you say that being independently minded is the thing that has allowed humanity to come as far as it has?


Of course not. But they have to accept that a "simple" life in a complex world implies that they won't perform as well.
There is no point in protecting the dumb or lazy by hurting the smart or industrious, to put it in extreme terms.My perception of the history of humanity is that independently minded people fight with other independently minded people for control other something (be this war for control over a country or intellectual debate for control over a subject), once there is a clear winner of such a fight then take command of the sheep - those that will pay their taxes no matter what; or those who like their electricity, but have no idea how it works. These independently minded 'rulers' then go on to dominion over their area (territory or subject) until they are challenged by others or wish to expand their dominion.


The thing is that they are making up the terms of the contract themselves. They don't have the state, or a union, or anyone else interfering in what they want written in there.

Of course they could make it indefinite, or just make it last ten minutes. I don't really mind because I ultimately accept that if both sides agree to it, it's hardly any of my business to call the contract good or bad.But who enforces the contract - the state. A contract is worth nothing unless it can be enforced. Self enforced contract essentially boil down to 'might makes right'. So if the state enforces the contract then what should they do if contract hasn't provisions for a certain issue - whether it's at-will or indefinite. How does the state enforce such a contract then? That is why state needs to make laws that say either 'a contract is indefinite unless otherwise stated' or 'no person can ever contractually sell themselves into slavery'. The latter is extreme, but the easiest example I could think of.

I'll make a leap of faith here an hope that you would agree that there should be at least some limitations on contracts - my example about slavery being one such limitation.

But not quick enough, apparently. The US has a very flexible labour market, not least because of its historical philosophical approach to employment, so firms there are much quicker to adjust their labour force if necessary.

Come over to France or Germany, and thinks look different. It's no wonders that firms are going to employ less people if every employment contract is an investment for a decade.That's a different part of the problem. My main arguement is that employment contracts should have notice periods. The problem you are lamenting is redundancy pay. This problem should just really be factored into the cost of employment and be considered a benefit like a pension scheme or a healthcare package.

:p
Depends on the time of the business cycle. If things were bad and are starting to go up, then firms will want to employ people and you have an easier time finding a job.

If you're at the very top of the cycle, then firms may slow down new hirings, you're right.Hmm... I thought they were two different things. You're talking about saturated and unsaturated (?) product markets. I was talking about high and low unemployment rates ie. it's going to be easier to get a job when an employer only has 5 applicants per job instead of 20.

No they aren't. My employment contract is not indefinite, and even thouse that are come under review at regular periods (renewal), and there are legal provisions in them for termination in between those periods.Hmm... you're right, not all employment contracts are indefinite, but most people I know are on indefinite contracts.

You may also have misunderstood my use of the word 'indefinite'. By indefinite I mean that the contract will go on until either party decides to terminate the contract. Review is not renewal, review is where the company investigates to see if it is in its best interests to keep the contract. And just because a contract is indefinite does not mean it cannot be canceled at any time. To cancel a fair contract all that is needed is a fair reason - the law goes on to state what is and what is not a fair reason.

The whole point of employment contracts is that both the employee and employer have a degree of certainty. They know precisely which conditions can lead to the termination of the contract, and that if a contract is terminated then they will have time to find a new job/employee.

Fixed term employment contracts means that the employer need not employee someone longer than necessary, and can give an employee a definitve time frame in which to find a new job. But fixed-term contracts are also regulated by law, in that in the UK if they are renwed so that the term of employment extends beyond 4 years then they are then the employee is then deemed to be a permanent employee. This is to stop unscrupulous employers screwing over their employees by being able to get around unfair dismissal claims at regular time periods.

Unemployment is a bad thing, but underemployment is more likely. Especially in the cases previously mentioned of workers being fired before they can collect pension benefits.

"Unemployment" in the sense of "people wanting more work than is available" is a bad thing for those people, I would agree. So is underemployment in any of it's senses.

But unemployment and underemployment are actually advantageous to employers offering the least attractive and lowest paid jobs. Instead of having to employ the least viable workers in the market, they can employ the most viable of the unemployed. At 1% unemployment, they'd have to take workers from the bottom 1% ... at 5% unemployment, they can choose from the bottom 5%. Big difference.

Unemployment can be seen as unutilized resources, and therefore an opportunity for growth of the economy. But the potential for growth of the entire economy will be a fraction of the actual unemployment rate. Adding another 5% to the workforce isn't going to grow the economy by 5%, nowhere near it, if those 5% are the least valuable labour in the market. The bottom 1% are probably going to actually harm the profitability of any business that employs them.

So we ought to be very careful about defining what is "bad" about unemployment. It's bad for the people who are unemployed, and measures like cutting welfare benefits, circumventing the minimum wage, or reducing safety standards should be examined not just by whether they reduce unemployment, but whether they actually benefit the people at the bottom of the labour market.

Frankly, the labour of some people is of negative value, and paying them to watch TV all day or do macrame classes might be more cost effective than forcing them into the labour market. :p

I'll also point out that the opposite of unemployment, a skills shortage, is far more damaging throughout the economy than unemployment or underemployment.

My perception of the history of humanity is that independently minded people fight with other independently minded people for control other something...
Cynical, but perhaps true. Be that as it may, I definitely don't count myself among the sheep, so I don't really want sheepish rules enforced on me.

I'll make a leap of faith here an hope that you would agree that there should be at least some limitations on contracts - my example about slavery being one such limitation.
Your leap is reasonable. I'm not an anarchist, and contract enforcement (being virtually the same as the protection of property rights in my book) is one of those few legitimate areas that I see a government role in.

The classic "sell yourself to slavery" on the other hand is not as good an example as you think. If a contract doesn't specify something, I think that an independent third party should be able to sort the issue out.

But a third party shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up people's bad decisions. If someone is actually stupid enough to sell themselves into slavery, then I'm not entirely sure where the scope for violating the expectations and property rights of the other party to the contract is. In short: if it says something in the contract, and you agree to it, then I'm very sceptical of any rules that say that it didn't count.

My main arguement is that employment contracts should have notice periods.
Of course that would only work if both sides had to give notice if they want to end the relationship. And if the worker suddenly falls sick and has to quit, who are we then to enforce the company's claim for damages? And vice versa, if the company "fell sick" and needed to get rid of some of its workers, would it be any more right to then enforce damages the other way?

But even then: wouldn't it be simpler for the employee and employer to simply agree upon a notice period? Why do we have to spend millions of taxpayer money making a rule, then monitoring all employment contracts and enforcing it where necessary, when people can actually add whatever they want to their contracts, including notice periods if they were so inclined?

Hmm... I thought they were two different things. You're talking about saturated and unsaturated (?) product markets. I was talking about high and low unemployment rates ie. it's going to be easier to get a job when an employer only has 5 applicants per job instead of 20.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a saturated market.

I'm simply talking about your standard macroeconomic business cycle with its booms and recessions.

At the peak of the boom you have pretty much everyone employed who wants a job and has the skills to take one. Unemployment is at a "natural" rate at which the only unemployed people are those between jobs, those whose skills are no longer in demand (like stagecoach makers) and those who only get to work seasonally (like fruit pickers).

Then it goes downhill and as demand decreases, firms sell less and less of their stuff. So first they ask their workers to do less work, but at some point they have to let some go.

That goes on and "cyclical" unemployment appears, which is not the result of any of the above reasons but simply that firms don't need the extra labour and aren't hiring.

Eventually you're at the trough and unemployment is quite high.

Then the economy picks up steam again and after first asking workers to work more, firms start hiring again. And during that period it will be easier for someone to find a job because extra hands are needed everywhere.

Your posts thus far would suggest that all I have to learn from you is the wrong way to argue.
I humbly and wholeheartedly agree.
Actually I find your temperament good, though you are perhaps a bit quick to respond to rudeness. It is an unfortunate fact of forum life that hostility grows and prospers more than kindness.

Frankly, I'm suprised that anyone would think that pushing a line like "I choose poverty as a substitute for wages" would induce anything other than the playing of violins, especially since you missed the point.
Violins? Violins? You think I was appealing to pathos?
You didn't find it just a little bit funny? Didn't think "the idiot just fell over his own feet" ... it didn't occur to you I might not be mustering every rhetorical device possible to stamp you and your argument into the ground, but might be ... *cough* ... joking?
Missing the point is a fault of mine, if I did in fact. Rubbing my nose in it again and again would be a fault of yours. But the words are there for any who care to read them, and I'm confident that before I even pursued that point, I made it clear that I was responding to a rhetorical device with reductio ad absurdum, not deliberately mistaking your point.
How does using the same words incorrectly show anything about my argument? I know the symmetry must look incredible artistic to you, as it would to any first-year Arts student, but it doesn't actually aid your point, or rebut mine.
*sigh*
If you had a point, it's long since forgotten in this pointless bickering.
Make your point if you will, and I will politely say whether I agree or not. Even if I don't, would it completely blow your mind if I found some value in it and wasn't compelled to rebut it?

EDIT: Since I note Mes is offline and I'm leaving now for about 18 hours, I will add some unsolicited advice.
Study Neu Leonstein's posts more closely than you have studied mine. Vittos is also debating well. It is difficult and challenging to look for the strengths, not the weaknesses in another's position, and to address the core, the most valuable part you can find there. Note how those who do that gradually strengthen their own position, even at the cost of strengthening their opponent's.
The opposite approach, attacking the weakest link of a chain of reasoning, quibbling over terms and such, fails to build on the strengths of either position, and rarely amounts to anything more than entertainment.

No, it isn't. Were they irking customers? Were they causing other employees to be non-productive? Were they non-productive themselves? If not then there was probably no just cause for their firing.

he was keeping me from being productive, he was giving me panic attacks.

I think the owner's health is a justified reason to let someone go. (not that I need a justified reason, anymore than he would have needed one to quit)

The whole point of employment contracts is that both the employee and employer have a degree of certainty. They know precisely which conditions can lead to the termination of the contract, and that if a contract is terminated then they will have time to find a new job/employee.

You don't need the state to provide that. For the most part, it is in the interests of workers who want jobs, and employers who want good workers who will stay.

There are jobs in which this may not apply, and for such jobs, the provision of those protections by the state will undermine the job prospects of workers.

So it bothers you if an employer stops paying someone that they no longer want to pay, but an employee who cuts out simply because he doesn't like the dress code, leaving the employer and coworkers working overtime is A-OK?

And the idea that an employer could fire someone for something as trivial as what music they listen to in their spare time doesn't bother you?
"At-will" employment is not necessary at all for an employer to fire someone, it just gives the go-ahead to fire for the most retarded reasons imaginable.

The huge amount of time that an employee commits to working a job is quite a huge investment. The 40 hour workweek is 1/4 of the week, and the trend is increasing hours above and beyond that, as well.

That's not a risk. They've worked 40 hours, and they're getting paid for it.

What's a risk is the employer investing in their training, and the risk that the employee will walk out before doing enough work to make the investment worthwhile.

Or, the employee having to spend time (with no recompense) getting to the employer only to find their employment has been discontinued. Which is why Mesoriya referred to the commute. Oh, unless you think that the (ex-)employee is still going to work the 40 hour week, even after they've been told they're no longer required.

Longer term employees probably have an emotional investment, certainly. But not a financial one. And they're probably taking financial risks (such as mortgages or children) which are predicated on the fact that they're going to have continued income. But those aren't directly related to their employment (eg, if they win the lottery, they can quit).


Curiously, through all this thread, I'm not seeing much of a distinction between "long-term" employment (wage slaves) and "short-term" (such as site labourers). And different emploment regulations are more appropriate to some cases than others.

That's not a risk. They've worked 40 hours, and they're getting paid for it.

What's a risk is the employer investing in their training, and the risk that the employee will walk out before doing enough work to make the investment worthwhile.

Yes, the employer takes a risk there. Just like expanding the business in an uncertain market, that risk is undertaken willingly by the employer in the expectation of probable gain.

And what is this gain? It is that the employee, after the break-even point of paying off their training, the costs of putting them on the payroll and complying with government regulations, will thereafter make more money for the business than it costs to pay their wages.

As long as this is so, the employer has no reason to sack the employee. The employee is making the company money. I bolded that because I think it's a significant asymmetry: the company is not making money for the employee, the only money the employee is getting is in a mutually-agreed exchange of labour for wages.

Longer term employees probably have an emotional investment, certainly. But not a financial one. And they're probably taking financial risks (such as mortgages or children) which are predicated on the fact that they're going to have continued income. But those aren't directly related to their employment (eg, if they win the lottery, they can quit).
I'm not sure about that (the bolded bit.) After say ten years with one employer, the employee is ten years older. That could significantly reduce their employment prospects if they quit or are sacked. Also, aren't benefits like superannuation (pension plan) and other salary enhancements cumulative with years of service? I really wouldn't know, haven't worked that kind of job ever.

Curiously, through all this thread, I'm not seeing much of a distinction between "long-term" employment (wage slaves) and "short-term" (such as site labourers). And different emploment regulations are more appropriate to some cases than others.
Good point. Not quite sure why you choose to describe a successful working relationship between boss and worker as "wage slavery" though. Joke? Employees trying their hand and suceeding at a variety of jobs may be gratified by having a fat resume and some freshness from year to year, but as you pointed out in the first paragraph of your post, it's hardly optimal for the business to lose someone who really knows the job.

Another thing oddly understated in this thread is that random sackings and (to a lesser extent) random quittings are the exception rather than the rule. In the vast majority of cases it's going to be in the bosses interest to talk to the employee about what is unsatisfactory in their work long before needing to sack them, and it really shouldn't be that hard when it comes to that to say "I have warned you twice about how often you are late to work, and the two days this week are the last straw. There's the door." for instance.

Longer term employees probably have an emotional investment, certainly. But not a financial one. And they're probably taking financial risks (such as mortgages or children) which are predicated on the fact that they're going to have continued income. But those aren't directly related to their employment (eg, if they win the lottery, they can quit).The vast majority of most people's money comes from their employment, which means that they take a risk by planning on keeping their jobs. How often does someone take a risk planning on winning the lottery?

I bolded that because I think it's a significant asymmetry: the company is not making money for the employee, the only money the employee is getting is in a mutually-agreed exchange of labour for wages.

The company is making money for the employee by purchasing his services, just as you are making money for the supermarket by purchasing groceries. Both involve a profitable exchange for both parties, the employer values the services more than the money paid for them, the employee values the money more than the time and effort which constitute the services.

The vast majority of most people's money comes from their employment, which means that they take a risk by planning on keeping their jobs. How often does someone take a risk planning on winning the lottery?

Sigh. That's where you're fundamentally misunderstanding: this is about a risk fundamental to the nature of employment.

The employer invests money in training the employee in their first week at the company. That's a risk. If the employee then quits, the employer's investment goes down the drain, with no return.

On the contrary, during that first week, the employee invests their time. They're guaranteed to get paid for that time: there's no risk.

If you extend the time period so that it's ten years, then (hopefully) the employer has seen a nice return on his investment, and is better off. The employee has been in gainful employment for ten years, and is also better off.

If the working relationship is then severed, both parties are better off than when they started. So the employers risk has been rewarded. And the employee? Never had any risk at all!

Oh, it's possible that the (ex-)employee now has commitments: mortgage, family, that sort of thing, and this might have serious repurcussions. But that's not part of the contract between the employer and the employee (and never has been, unless you count feudal workforces or possibly slavery). It's an effect of the employee "living on credit", and assuming that their income will always be available. I make that assumption, I'll admit. But I couldn't sue my employer to clear the debts I took on while employed.

I'll admit that I (personally) find it difficult to see how to plan a secure future under the "At Will" premise. But that doesn't make it intrinsically wrong.

I'm not sure about that (the bolded bit.) After say ten years with one employer, the employee is ten years older. That could significantly reduce their employment prospects if they quit or are sacked. Also, aren't benefits like superannuation (pension plan) and other salary enhancements cumulative with years of service? I really wouldn't know, haven't worked that kind of job ever.

But they're still better off than if they were never employed in the first place: they've had ten years worth of income and experience. If they've been living beyond their means, that's hardly the employers fault, is it?



Good point. Not quite sure why you choose to describe a successful working relationship between boss and worker as "wage slavery" though. Joke?
Not quite: I wanted a term to describe somebody who's been in long term employment. There are many people that could cover: bus drivers, actors, computer programmers etc, etc. But if being sacked is such a traumatic event in somebody's life that it's worse than spending being unemployed for the intervening period, because they've had a chance to build up debts, then yes, I think "wage slave" is the right term.

Yes, the employer takes a risk there. Just like expanding the business in an uncertain market, that risk is undertaken willingly by the employer in the expectation of probable gain.

And what is this gain? It is that the employee, after the break-even point of paying off their training, the costs of putting them on the payroll and complying with government regulations, will thereafter make more money for the business than it costs to pay their wages.
Yes, after the break even point. Hiring a worker is a risk because you do not know if the employee is going to be as productive as you anticipate or that they will stick around long enough to reach that point. If not, you could have been much better off not hiring them at all.

The employee starts drawing their wages immediately, plus gains training upfront. Therefore, the employee starts benefiting immediately and can walk away with the added bonus of better skills from the training plus wages for time spent in exchange for giving practically nothing back to the employer.

As long as this is so, the employer has no reason to sack the employee. The employee is making the company money. I bolded that because I think it's a significant asymmetry: the company is not making money for the employee, the only money the employee is getting is in a mutually-agreed exchange of labour for wages.
You really need to clarify your statement here. The company is getting the product of the employees labor in exchange for compensation. The employee is getting the agreed compensation for the product of their labor. Where is the asymmetry? To say the employee should be getting more than the agreed upon compensation would be an asymmetry in favor of the employee unless the company was gaining more from the employee than the agreed upon labor.

That the company makes more money than they pay the employee is not a bad thing - if they didnt, they wouldnt bother taking the risk of hiring the employee. Likewise, if the employee could be making just as much benefit from not having that job, it makes no sense for that person to be working and be reliant upon that job.

I'm not sure about that (the bolded bit.) After say ten years with one employer, the employee is ten years older. That could significantly reduce their employment prospects if they quit or are sacked. Also, aren't benefits like superannuation (pension plan) and other salary enhancements cumulative with years of service? I really wouldn't know, haven't worked that kind of job ever.
The employee is 10 years older and has 10 years of experience in that job. That experience adds to their value as an employee. I still dont see where this is relevant, it is not the businesses responsibility to ensure employees have better prospects of employment if terminated. No more than it is the employees responsibility to ensure their replacement is better for the company than they were when first hired.

Good point. Not quite sure why you choose to describe a successful working relationship between boss and worker as "wage slavery" though. Joke? Employees trying their hand and suceeding at a variety of jobs may be gratified by having a fat resume and some freshness from year to year, but as you pointed out in the first paragraph of your post, it's hardly optimal for the business to lose someone who really knows the job.

Another thing oddly understated in this thread is that random sackings and (to a lesser extent) random quittings are the exception rather than the rule. In the vast majority of cases it's going to be in the bosses interest to talk to the employee about what is unsatisfactory in their work long before needing to sack them, and it really shouldn't be that hard when it comes to that to say "I have warned you twice about how often you are late to work, and the two days this week are the last straw. There's the door." for instance.

The problem some people have with at-will employment is that they see it as just random firing for no reason. The difference between firing at-will and having to show cause is a matter of being able to document and prove the cause in court proceedings.

Unless you diligently document everything relating to an employee (productivity, tardiness, conversations with customers, conversations with other employees, every day to day decision they make, etc.) it is difficult to prove a very legitimate cause for termination in a court case.

An employee could scream profanities at you for an hour but if there werent any witnesses it would be your word against theirs. Laws requiring 'just cause' tend to place the burden of proof on the employer rather than the employee. Employers do not fire randomly without reason, ergo at-will employment simply makes the labor market more fluid. This helps everyone.

Preface: sorry this is quite so long. I tried to cut it down, but I failed.

Cynical, but perhaps true. Be that as it may, I definitely don't count myself among the sheep, so I don't really want sheepish rules enforced on me.“Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”
- Ambrose Bierce

The laws that guide the 'sheep' should only protect them from something you would never consider doing anyway. eg. the person who signs their employment contract and suddenly they're a literal slave to the wage machine instead of a figurative one. So you shouldn't really be constricted by 'sheepish rules'.

Your leap is reasonable. I'm not an anarchist, and contract enforcement (being virtually the same as the protection of property rights in my book) is one of those few legitimate areas that I see a government role in.

The classic "sell yourself to slavery" on the other hand is not as good an example as you think. If a contract doesn't specify something, I think that an independent third party should be able to sort the issue out.How? An imaginary example. An employee only wants to write in blue pens, but an employer only buys black pens. So the employee brings in blue pens of their own. The employer wants to fire the employee because they only want reports written in black ink. However, the contract does not state that the employee must use black ink, but nor does it say that the employee can be fired for using inks other than black. How do you arbitrate?

Clearly the arbitrator needs a set of guidelines that automatically take effect if not mentioned, or that automatically supercede anything written in the contract (statutory rights).

But a third party shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up people's bad decisions. If someone is actually stupid enough to sell themselves into slavery, then I'm not entirely sure where the scope for violating the expectations and property rights of the other party to the contract is. In short: if it says something in the contract, and you agree to it, then I'm very sceptical of any rules that say that it didn't count.Tell me you've thouroughly read every contract (including software EULAs, product guarentees, and website terms and conditions of use) you've ever agreed to and I will let you have this point.

The vast majority of people will only skim read contracts if at all. Now imagine, hidden in an unrelated, standardised section of the contract, there is a brief sentence that says the contractee owes the contractor a £/$/€1,000 processing fee. This processing fee is not mentioned by the contractor at all, nor is it a fair fee - should the contractor be able to have this part of the contract enforced?

Actually, screw this example. Ever read Jennifer government? Do you think the contract that Hack Nike signs should be enforceable (where he agrees to murder someone)?

Of course that would only work if both sides had to give notice if they want to end the relationship. And if the worker suddenly falls sick and has to quit, who are we then to enforce the company's claim for damages? And vice versa, if the company "fell sick" and needed to get rid of some of its workers, would it be any more right to then enforce damages the other way?Yep, that's the way it works. Both parties have to give notice if they wish to terminate the contract. eg. when I was at school my Maths teacher had to finish her current term at school before she could leave for another job.

With this "sick" example you are attacking redundancy payments, not notice periods. If the employee is sick for an extended period of time the company need not pay them. If a company truly is sick (insolvent), then it can cease trading (just as the employee can cease going to work) and it's employment contracts should no longer be in effect (not entirely sure if this is the case - I'm pretty sure it is though). This is why your comparison fails. You say that the employee is sick to the point that they cannot work, whereas the company is only 'sick' to the point that it needs to down size. If the company is truly 'sick' in this case then they will have known for months (longer than any notice period I've heard of), otherwise it is simply temporarily insolvent and simply has a cash flow crisis or it is in real trouble and firing a couple of employees wouldn't help at all.

I'll try and make that clearer by giving another example. The example is that of a plane.
a) If the plane is flying through turbulence and losing altitude, then it doesn't make sense to bail its cargo instead of just waiting the turbulence out. (temporary insolvency)
b) If plane has just lost both its wings and is heading straight for the ground then bailing its cargo isn't going to stop it crashing... (real trouble)

c) If one of the plane's engines has broken and the plane is losing altitude then the pilot has time to realise that he needs to bail some of the cargo to keep the plane flying. And he has the time to figure out which cargo is least valuable way in advance of crashing. (company makes several employees redundant)

But even then: wouldn't it be simpler for the employee and employer to simply agree upon a notice period? Why do we have to spend millions of taxpayer money making a rule, then monitoring all employment contracts and enforcing it where necessary, when people can actually add whatever they want to their contracts, including notice periods if they were so inclined?What? Why would the government have to spend any time or money. The situation is self-monitoring - an employee should know if they've been unfairly dismissed. They can then bring it to the courts attention and pay the courts fees (which they can claim in compensation if their claim is true).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a saturated market.

[explanation of macroeconomic business cycle]Really?! :eek: This really did shock me just a little. By saturated market I mean a market in which supply is out stripping demand. A business cycle at the top of its boom cycle has become over saturated. This means that prices decrease and this means that many marginal producers can no longer make a profit and must hence lay off employees. And the rest is in line with your macroeconomic business cycle. Market saturation is very closly linked with the the business cycle.

Right... looking back at the last few posts this has gotten quite confusing.

You state that when market is doing well it is easy to get a job. I then state that if it is easy to get a job the market isn't doing well.

I think this difference partly stems down to what we both define as 'doing well'. You seem to define it as 'making lots', whereas I was defining it as 'growing steadily'. The best point of the cycle for you is when the market is at the top of the cycle [sin(90)] (when there is market saturation and a possible skills shortage). The best point of the cycle for me is when the market is in between the trough and the crest of the cycle [sin(0)]. The economy is expanding at its fastest rate as there is plenty of room for expansion and an adequate supply of labour (meaning it is still fairly hard to get a job but it has gotten easier).

I wanted a term to describe somebody who's been in long term employment. There are many people that could cover: bus drivers, actors, computer programmers etc, etc. But if being sacked is such a traumatic event in somebody's life that it's worse than spending being unemployed for the intervening period, because they've had a chance to build up debts, then yes, I think "wage slave" is the right term.

Yeah, in some cases a person's life choices have dug them a hole they can't just walk out of. But in other cases they do the job very well, enjoy it and still find it challenging, and may be so valuable to their employer that they can essentially set their own wage.

How about the term "sarariman"? I'm not sure if the Japanese still use the term, but it used to refer to a lifetime employee, a salary-man. After decades of economic growth, Japan had essentially zero unemployment, and the corporations would lay on fantastic benefits like subsidized housing, tertiary education, health plans to die for (heheh), even retirement homes to get employees young and keep them for life. I'd probably top myself living in a society like that ... but anyway. Perhaps one of our Japanese posters can comment on whether that's still prevalent.

I've pretty much devolved to chatting now (4am here), didn't even wikipedia sarariman to be sure I had any facts there, so I'll stand aside and leave it to anyone who's actually going to debate the question.
EDIT: For instance the Dunester. Woah! If I try to read that the silly sun will come up!

I'll try to rise to this. *puts kettle on*
*snip 1 para, agreement*

The employee starts drawing their wages immediately, plus gains training upfront. Therefore, the employee starts benefiting immediately and can walk away with the added bonus of better skills from the training plus wages for time spent in exchange for giving practically nothing back to the employer.
I'm not sure how it goes where you are, but in Aus the very first thing an employer wants to know is your recent work history. Even two weeks unemployment will count against you (better to find the next job while you've still got one, not that I do.) A written reference at least, usually a contact number for your last employer.
Ripping off an employer as you describe wouldn't be a clever thing to do, at all. And if you did, refusing to give any reason would be dumber even than lying about why you were quitting.
"Boss, I have a rare sleeping disorder called Narco Spinal Gregation. It will be impossible for me to turn up to work every day before noon, so if that's going to be a problem, you ought to let me go right now" *charming daffy smile*

You really need to clarify your statement here.OK, I'll try. The company is getting the product of the employees labor in exchange for compensation. The employee is getting the agreed compensation for the product of their labor. Where is the asymmetry? To say the employee should be getting more than the agreed upon compensation would be an asymmetry in favor of the employee unless the company was gaining more from the employee than the agreed upon labor.
It's reasonable to assume we're talking about a successful business, I hope. Not all employees work for a profitable company: some work for a failing company, some work in non-profit organizations, and not a few are public (civil) servants. Anyway, I'll moot that and assume we mean a company which is profitable. I'll also assume we're talking about a viable employee.
The company needs an employee to function according to it's business plan. As long as they have that employee, they're making a profit after paying the wage they've contracted for the labour they recieve. Without the employee, they would make less profit even though they aren't outlaying the wage. Ergo, employing that person makes the company money.
If that were not so, for a viable employee, the position they hold would be 'redundant' in the general sense of that word.
Hope that's OK. I guess if employees were to demand a wage exactly equal to the value their labour contributed to the company, and this was granted, the company would make no profit and would be a co-operative rather than a business.

Between posts, an asymmetry the other way occurred to me. The employee may get job satisfaction, which the employer would have no more right to demand exchange for than the employee has to demand all the money he's making for the company.
Occasionally on the road to Damascus you might hear someone say "I like my job" :) Even if they say "I hate my job" it's still "my job" and a part of their identity. Just a thought.

That the company makes more money than they pay the employee is not a bad thing - if they didnt, they wouldnt bother taking the risk of hiring the employee. Likewise, if the employee could be making just as much benefit from not having that job, it makes no sense for that person to be working and be reliant upon that job.
That sounds oddly like what I just said. Brain getting very furry.

The employee is 10 years older and has 10 years of experience in that job.
If you're thirty with ten years experience in web design, that's good.
If you're fifty with ten years experience assembling cars, it's bad.
Gotta test those generalizations ... though I'd agree that either would be better than ten years in jail.
Dammit, I feel a hundred and ten just now, and I'm disinclined to see getting ten years older as any kind of good thing.

That experience adds to their value as an employee. I still dont see where this is relevant, it is not the businesses responsibility to ensure employees have better prospects of employment if terminated. No more than it is the employees responsibility to ensure their replacement is better for the company than they were when first hired.
Sure, but for some time now this thread has been trying to define employment in simple market terms, as an exchange of 'goods' which are equivalent. If it's legitimate to argue that making a profit is a 'need' of the employer, what's so perverse about considering the needs of an employee?

I might be able to dress this up like a real argument, but it will have to wait. :(


The problem some people have with at-will employment is that they see it as just random firing for no reason. The difference between firing at-will and having to show cause is a matter of being able to document and prove the cause in court proceedings.
Yes, though I take The Nazz's (I think, sorry if I'm wrong) point that without even an expectation of "show cause" it is harder to prove a really unjust sacking, for instance 'blowjobs for the boss or the door.' I do not accept that the functioning of the market, depriving the owners of the company of profits as punishment for bad employer behaviour, is sufficient to achieve this. 1. The employer may not be the owner, or even a part owner. 2. What compensation does the ex-employee get? 'Shoulda just sucked dick, call it a learning experience' apparently.

However, I also see the problem you've just illustrated, and don't find it an acceptable impost on the majority of employers and employees who play fair to make every sacking subject to legal appeal. We have a problem.

Unless you diligently document everything relating to an employee (productivity, tardiness, conversations with customers, conversations with other employees, every day to day decision they make, etc.) it is difficult to prove a very legitimate cause for termination in a court case.

An employee could scream profanities at you for an hour but if there werent any witnesses it would be your word against theirs. Laws requiring 'just cause' tend to place the burden of proof on the employer rather than the employee. Employers do not fire randomly without reason, ergo at-will employment simply makes the labor market more fluid. This helps everyone.
Yeah. Well, among the diverse (admittedly self-contradictory) positions I've taken during this thread, I don't think I've supported unfair dismissal laws
. In individual cases it may benefit the employee, but overall it benefits neither party to be taking money out of businesses and giving it to lawyers, while also burdening the courts. It's not that I hate lawyers, but ... aw hell, what am I talking about. I hate lawyers. ;)

I'm arguing for the principle "employers and employees should show cause for termination of employment" and I'm hoping to see something clever that will encourage that, make showing cause so common that refusing to do so would look outright suspicious. Perhaps it should be admissible in court when bringing other charges, for instance sexual harrassment or discrimination charges. Not sure.
I'm not arguing For or Against any existing law to enforce "show cause." I simply haven't formulated a position yet on that.

In this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12596485&postcount=139) rather waffly analogy I suggested a way of looking at this where "show cause" is a win/win. Think of some way of making money which also spreads this expectation through business culture, and we'll all be happy.

Eh, I'm a dreamer. I should be dreaming right now.
Out.

E gads. A seller can only maximise his returns if he is selling. If no one is buying, then his returns are by definition zero.

If an employer will not employ unionised labour, then unionising will minimise returns.

You've really got no clue, and I don't really feel like teaching here.

whats wrong with it. if they no longer need your services why would they still be paying you?

its all part of life to have some hard times, but if you are responsible you will have plenty of good times as well.

You've really got no clue, and I don't really feel like teaching here.

Rubbish.

Fact: If you raise you asking price aobve what people are willing to pay, people will stop buying, and seek a substitute, or go without. If an employer does not want to deal with unions, then unionisation will not maximise the returns of the workers.

Fact: If you raise you asking price aobve what people are willing to pay, people will stop buying, and seek a substitute, or go without.

True but irrelevant.

If an employer does not want to deal with unions, then unionisation will not maximise the returns of the workers.

It is not a matter of want, but necessity.

True but irrelevant.

Nonsense. It is basic economics, you can't just wish it away when it does not serve your argument.

It is not a matter of want, but necessity.

Which is presumably why every workplace is unionised, and why employers never take their business to countries where they can pay less for non-union workers.

Nonsense. It is basic economics, you can't just wish it away when it does not serve your argument.

It is a useless tautology. You have established that people won't pay more that they are willing to pay. Great.

Which is presumably why every workplace is unionised, and why employers never take their business to countries where they can pay less for non-union workers.

What is now is no argument for what could or should be in the future, and I do not want to grind out a long argument explaining my ideas on economics when you would not be in the least bit receptive to them.

What is now is no argument for what could or should be in the future, and I do not want to grind out a long argument explaining my ideas on economics when you would not be in the least bit receptive to them.

So you've come up with a coherent new theory that will make basic economic laws irrelevant. I think I have heard this before.

So you've come up with a coherent new theory that will make basic economic laws irrelevant. I think I have heard this before.

First off, you are not using any "basic economic laws", the one "economic law" that you have proclaimed is nothing but a stupid comment on behavior that cannot possibly be false.

First off, you are not using any "basic economic laws", the one "economic law" that you have proclaimed is nothing but a stupid comment on behavior that cannot possibly be false.

And? What is this grand design that you are so unwilling to talk about? I'm waiting with baited breath.

It's not coming.

Why ever not? I'm interested.

Why ever not? I'm interested.

There is nothing in it for me.

The company is making money for the employee by purchasing his services, just as you are making money for the supermarket by purchasing groceries. Both involve a profitable exchange for both parties, the employer values the services more than the money paid for them, the employee values the money more than the time and effort which constitute the services.

I'm dragging up this post from a little while ago because I can see something wrong with the reasoning.
I want you to look at it, not as your own precious words, but as a statement. I want YOU to find what's wrong about it.
I'll give you just one hint.

I believe you're a genuine noob, not one of the old posters who blew their credibility and are coming back with a new name to try again. Those get torn to shreds by their second or third post. As a genuine noob, you get a period of grace in which to start making sense.

NSG is snooty (slow to welcome noobs.) Unless new posters are charming and sincere (no) or very good (no) they get a long, long cold hard stare as welcome. I'm still getting that cold welcome to some extent after almost a year of posting several times a week.
I want you to understand that by replying to your second (or third, or whatever it was) post and actually taking you seriously, I've risked a lot more credibility than you have to risk. I've done plenty wrong already, and welcoming a pesky little quibbler into the fold is probably more than my reputation is worth.

So please, mate. Dig deep, find some self-respect. Think with your brain, not your ego. What's wrong with the passage I quoted? Here it is again:

The company is making money for the employee by purchasing his services, just as you are making money for the supermarket by purchasing groceries. Both involve a profitable exchange for both parties, the employer values the services more than the money paid for them, the employee values the money more than the time and effort which constitute the services.

I'm dragging up this post from a little while ago because I can see something wrong with the reasoning.
I want you to look at it, not as your own precious words, but as a statement. I want YOU to find what's wrong about it.
I'll give you just one hint.

I believe you're a genuine noob, not one of the old posters who blew their credibility and are coming back with a new name to try again. Those get torn to shreds by their second or third post. As a genuine noob, you get a period of grace in which to start making sense.


Eh? Since when is his ability to reason tied to how long he's been posting on this message board?

Economically, I'm more inclined to agree with the statement you quoted: an employee works for a company, and is paid more than he/she would if they weren't working for the company (which is why they do it). The company makes more money because of the extra employee, and more importantly: the extra money they make is more than the cost of the employment. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

So the employer/employee arrangement is always going to be assymetrical, but it's also going to be mutually profitable.

Whether that's true or not has nothing to do with "N00b" status. Whether you're willing to accept it is another matter. I don't see how a personal attack helps move your understanding forward.

I'm dragging up this post from a little while ago because I can see something wrong with the reasoning.
I want you to look at it, not as your own precious words, but as a statement. I want YOU to find what's wrong about it.
I'll give you just one hint.

That quote is right if you don't make socialist assumptions. That is the nature of exchange in capitalist theory: mutual profit brings both parties to the table.

It's not that simple. The quoted passage is wrong, and it's to do with the definition of "profit."

No more hints. I'm walking away, and I really don't care who thinks I'm wrong.

It's not that simple. The quoted passage is wrong, and it's to do with the definition of "profit."\

Profit has several definitions, and more than one can be used in the context of the passage you quoted.

Let's take dictionary.com;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit

pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction.

I think that fits, the capital in question being human capital, his time and energy. Pecuniary gain is obvious, as is transaction.

the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested

Valid, but a little difficult to use (because it relies on an individual's subjective valuation of his time and effort in a particular sphere of work)

returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.

Again, valid.

the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.:

Valid again, especially with reference to disposable income.

advantage; benefit; gain.

Obviously applicable.

to gain an advantage or benefit: He profited greatly from his schooling.
5. to make a profit.
6. to take advantage: to profit from the weaknesses of others.
7. to be of service or benefit.
8. to make progress

Again, all valid.

Now, it should go without saying that the term "profit" is in this case used in the ex ante sense, which is to say that each party expects that a transactions will be profitable (that is to say they will at the end have something they valued more than in the beginning). It may not turn out that way

Lets bring it down to the real world.

For my work, I invest the following:

*Time
*Energy
*Costs of commuting

In return for which I get my salary, and other benefits.

In signing my contract, I expected that the salary etc would end up being worth more to me than what I invested.

As to the rest of your statement, I don't care about your "credibility", or your opinion of me.

Those get torn to shreds by their second or third post. As a genuine noob, you get a period of grace in which to start making sense.

You do not appear to have made much use of it.

Sigh. That's where you're fundamentally misunderstanding: this is about a risk fundamental to the nature of employment.

The employer invests money in training the employee in their first week at the company. That's a risk. If the employee then quits, the employer's investment goes down the drain, with no return.If we're talking about risks fundamental to the nature of employment and then discounting them, then training the employee is fundamental to the nature of employment and the costs associated with it should also be discounted.

On the contrary, during that first week, the employee invests their time. They're guaranteed to get paid for that time: there's no risk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costs

Wikipedia defines "at will" employment as



I think this is a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the idea of an employee quitting a job at any time, but I think that an employer should only be able to fire somebody for reasons specifically related to the employee's work.

What say ye?

(Full Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will )

(Credit to Smunkee for suggesting I start this thread.)

I disagree. Employee and employer should have equal rights. Both parties would like the benefit of assurance that other party will work/employ for long term and would like the freedom of quitting from agreement whenever it chooses. And of course such job agreement terminable at will is fair to both parties.

*irrefutably proves truth of point, wins match*
As a genuine noob, you get a period of grace in which to start making sense.
You do not appear to have made much use of it.
Indeed, I do not make much sense. I think rather that knowledge makes me, but has a fight of it.
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be "Seek simplicity and distrust it.''

It's not that simple. The quoted passage is wrong, and it's to do with the definition of "profit."

Revenue less cost?

What is the problem?

No more hints. I'm walking away, and I really don't care who thinks I'm wrong.

You haven't even provided an answer to your riddle.

There is nothing in it for me.

haha, again i say well played

I'll try to rise to this. *puts kettle on*
Thanks, I would love a cuppa. ;)

You seem to be very fair minded and reasonable about the employee/employer relationship, but you need to realize one very important thing - there is a massive intergalactic gap between what someone 'should' do simply to be a reasonable courteous individual behaving within societal norms and what one is legally required to do with excruciatingly detailed documentation to confirm it at every step.

Most employees are not out to fleece the employer. Most employers are not out to screw over the employee (despite what the communists tell you). Practically everyone wants to work toward a mutually beneficial exchange and will behave within societal norms.

Under at-will employment an employer is not prevented from telling the employee why they were fired - quite the opposite occurs I assure you. Bosses generally give plenty of warnings (so as to avoid the high costs of turnover) and lay out exactly why you were fired. Most companies I've worked for actually have exit interviews where you both discuss your experiences as employer/employee and resolve what problems or issues occurred to benefit both parties in future encounters with others.

At-will employment does not, in any way, mean firings are done suddenly or randomly without explanation. It only means that the employer is not required to defend that reason in court with all the legal hassle and potential costs of both the lawsuit and penalties if your documentation was not sufficient.