Law firm fires 14 employees for wearing orange shirts

[GotIssues]

GotIssues,
Obviously you're an employer. It's equally apparent that you do not know anyone who is in the job market, or has been for the last several years.

I was previously unemployed for over a year and a half during the worst part of the recession and I am not an employer, just a simple professional level peon.

Because you would know that there are still people with masters degrees lining up to get a dish washing job.

I also have my master's degree. It hurt me more than helped me in my job search. Why? Because employers don't want to hire a highly over-qualified individual that they know for fact will be looking for other jobs. It costs money to hire people. A lot of money.

People who are more than qualified are competing with people who are also more than qualified for any position. Where does that leave the new entries to the job market, or how about those that are slightly older than an employer might like? What about those that just got out of taking huge college loans, to find that the job market is flooded with people who went through the same courses that they did, but have a year or two's experience as well?

So employer's should be held responsible for the decisions of students to get expensive degrees in over-saturated fields? Why aren't the students held accountable for making a terrible decision?

How about someone who was laid off, and found out that they are pregnant? No one will hire them knowing that they will need maternity leave.

What about a company that is going under if they don't cut costs where they can?

The information that you're receiving from job seekers cannot represent what most of them have actually gone through to try to find a job, or they would never get hired. Before you try to defend your position by declaring "Entitlement Warfare", why don't you check to see if that strategy will only make you look more out of touch with reality. These people aren't asking for hand-outs, they're looking to survive. Which, by the way; they are entitled to do.

And you aren't receiving the information from the employers on what they have to go through to fill positions. They don't want to continually refill positions. They have 100 applications for one position and have to find 1 person who will do a good job and remain there. They want to fill their positions. They don't want to refill the same position in 3 months.

I live in an at-will state, I have to tell you; if you think that the employee has any of the power in that situation, you need to really evaluate both parties positions; I think you may have missed some important details. Go crack a book sometime, and maybe talk to a human that doesn't employ people, and you don't employ.

Why is it that in your entire post, no person is held accountable for any of their actions?

I don't employ anyone. I've gone through an extended bout of unemployment. I ate mac and cheese and ramen noodles 10 meals per week. I made sacrifices and my career has been set back several years.

I am just aware that there are more rights involved than just mine. You spent your entire post trying to bolster your arguments through pity of extreme examples and wrong assumptions, and never once took into account the rights of the companies because you aren't concerned about the rights of others, just your own.

It seems as though you are the one that needs to crack a book and gain some perspective.

 

[Expl3tiv3]

Simply put, the harder it is to get rid of someone, the fewer people are going to get hired in the first place.

Though I have to say; that's a very good point.

 

[dainthomas]

As per the article they should have just said they were protesting since that is what their management thought anyways, but would have lead to large payouts instead.

This

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

I would have fired her for being ugly.

 

[alkemyst]

Why would you dress like that at a law firm. Change after work.

QFT...there is more than just 'happy hour' in this story.

I am willing to bet these employees were testing management for a while.

That shirt is not appropriate for most professional businesses.

 

[Veliko]

At-will is only stupid if you are bad at your job or picked a worthless career.

Is this one of the most absurd things said so far in the thread? I think it is.

At-will is stupid because it puts too much power in the hands of the employer. A balance needs to be maintained.

You keep talking as if the only way an employer can get rid of something is with at-will employment.

 

[Slew Foot]

Note to self, if I ever get fired for anything, make sure to say that whatever I was doing was a form a protest.

 

[Train]

Is this one of the most absurd things said so far in the thread? I think it is.

At-will is stupid because it puts too much power in the hands of the employer. A balance needs to be maintained.

You keep talking as if the only way an employer can get rid of something is with at-will employment.

You're forgetting at will goes both ways. An employee can walk away at any time. And even then, the employer is still required to pay them up until the moment they quit. This hardly puts too much power in anyones hands. If anything, at will prevents either side from strong arming the other.

 

[Veliko]

You're forgetting at will goes both ways. An employee can walk away at any time. And even then, the employer is still required to pay them up until the moment they quit. This hardly puts too much power in anyones hands. If anything, at will prevents either side from strong arming the other.

I am not forgetting anything at all. That scenario would suit a highly paid person whose skills are in demand but not for anyone lower down in the chain.

I can walk away from my job here in the UK easily enough. I just have to serve my notice period.

 

[Train]

I am not forgetting anything at all. That scenario would suit a highly paid person whose skills are in demand but not for anyone lower down in the chain.

I can walk away from my job here in the UK easily enough. I just have to serve my notice period.

there is no requirement for a notice period here.

And it has nothing to do with how well paid you are. If there is an abundance of labor in a field, it's because the entitlement mentality from idiots like yourself has led us to it.

 

[GotIssues]

Is this one of the most absurd things said so far in the thread? I think it is.

At-will is stupid because it puts too much power in the hands of the employer. A balance needs to be maintained.

You keep talking as if the only way an employer can get rid of something is with at-will employment.

So, your proposition to "balance" the power is to give unequal power in the hands of the employees? Yes, I'm the one being absurd

I am not forgetting anything at all. That scenario would suit a highly paid person whose skills are in demand but not for anyone lower down in the chain.

So it's the company's fault that you chose to do a profession in low demand or requires no marketable skills? Why should Company A subsidize Person A's terrible decisions?

I can walk away from my job here in the UK easily enough. I just have to serve my notice period.

Both employee and employer can end their relationship at any time. It allows equal power to both sides. It allows an employee to simply walk away from his job the moment he/she finds a better position. It allows an employer to cut loose deadweight that isn't contributing.

The bottom line is this: If the employee is strongly contributing to the employer, they don't have anything to worry about. The employer would be shooting themselves in the foot by terminating an employee who is a net gain for the company. The only people that have to worry about at-will employment are 1) the freeloader with a sense of entitlement and 2) the companies who, at any moment, may be replacing their top talent if they don't pay more than any other company for their services.

From the company's perspective, it forces companies to pay the maximum they can afford for talent, but allows them the freedom to cut loose those that just aren't any good.

From the employee's perspective, it forces them to justify their employment costs by actually working and producing, but allows them to "play the field" and maximize how much they earn.

If there were a single employer, then at-will doesn't work, but unfortunately for your argument, there are thousands of employers competing for the same talent.

 

[Veliko]

So you aren't forgetting it, you are simply ignoring it?

No, you just ignored my reply.

Both employee and employer can end their relationship at any time. It allows equal power to both sides. It allows an employee to simply walk away from his job the moment he/she finds a better position. It allows an employer to cut loose deadweight that isn't contributing.

No, it does not allow equal power to both sides. It allows the higher paid to have far more power whilst leaving the employees at the lower end of the scale far more vulnerable.

You keep talking about cutting loose deadwood as if the rest of the world has never managed to get rid of anyone; here in the UK thousands upon thousands of people have been put out of work because of the economic downturn.

The bottom line is this: If the employee is strongly contributing to the employer, they don't have anything to worry about. The employer would be shooting themselves in the foot by terminating an employee who is a net gain for the company. The only people that have to worry about at-will employment are 1) the freeloader with a huge sense of entitlement and 2) the companies who, at any moment, may be replacing their top talent if they don't pay more than any other company for their services.

From the company's perspective, it forces companies to pay the maximum they can afford for talent, but allows them the freedom to cut loose those that just aren't any good.

From the employee's perspective, it forces them to justify their employment costs by actually working and producing, but allows them to "play the field" and maximize how much they earn.

If there were a single employer, then at-will doesn't work, but unfortunately for your argument, there are thousands of employers competing for the same talent.

That's all very much wishful thinking and you are anthropomorphising corporations.

It isn't A Company, a being free from bias, bad moods and jealousy that chooses to sack someone. It is a manager who makes that decision, a person with all the foibles that go with it.

The only people who want at-will employment are sociopath employers and turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[Train]

see my time warped reply

 

[Veliko]

And it has nothing to do with how well paid you are. If there is an abundance of labor in a field, it's because the entitlement mentality from idiots like yourself has led us to it.

What does this even mean?

 

[Veliko]

So, your proposition to "balance" the power is to give unequal power in the hands of the employees? Yes, I'm the one being absurd

So it's the company's fault that you chose to do a profession in low demand or requires no marketable skills? Why should Company A subsidize Person A's terrible decisions?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you ever ventured outside your town?

Do you think that every other nation that doesn't have at-will employment has factories chock full of basket weavers and horse shoe makers that they haven't been able to get rid of?

 

[Train]

What does this even mean?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

We know.

 

[Veliko]

We know.

You are both making strawman arguments.

Here in England, where we don't have at-will employment, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their jobs since the economic downturn.

I have seen many people get the boot at my company for being crap at their jobs.

The notion that you need at-will employment to get rid of people is nonsense.

 

[darkxshade]

They should feel fortunate, if they had worn red shirts...

 

[Train]

You are both making strawman arguments.

Here in England, where we don't have at-will employment, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their jobs since the economic downturn.

I have seen many people get the boot at my company for being crap at their jobs.

The notion that you need at-will employment to get rid of people is nonsense.

I think at this point you are arguing over terminology.

Even in at will employment states, you can still sue for wrongful termination.

 

[Sonikku]

Seems to me everyone all could have saved themselves an awful lot of trouble if someone in management just came out and said "please don't wear orange shirts again, get back to work".

Liked some of the more creative rationalizations given to justify "The best way to help the many is to strip them of any power or protection they have against the few" mentality.

 

[Drekce]

After some digging I think I found the real reasoning behind the firings:

"Basically, there was a manager with self-tanner, orange-colored skin. Janice and her coworkers were tired of the orange-skinned manager enforcing rules so, they started wearing orange to mock the manager....They even planned their "protest" using the internal email system. So, when they showed up with orange shirts to mock the manager, they deservedly got canned."

This is from the comments in the Sun Sentinel story:

http://discussions.sun-sentinel.com/20/soflanews/fl-elizabeth-wellborn-orange-firing-20120316/10

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you serious? Last time i checked, there are 5 out of work people for every available opening. And Florida has a worse unemployment rate than the national average

Yet there are a statistically insignificant unemployed CPAs for every open CPA position.
There are a statistically insignificant unemployed buisness phds for every open buisness phd position.
There are a statistically insignificant unemployed engenering phds for every open engenering position.

Germany has even more restrictive labour policies (unions get board representation and it's impossible to fire people) and they have lower unemployment, you don't know what you're talking about.

I was thinking about them as an example when I wrote this.

I concluded that they don't have the wave-of-poor problem that the US and France face because of much greater restrictions on citizenship. A nuanced difference, no doubt, but a contextual change that can mean quite a bit. (no need to dismiss your knowledge as we all have the infinite knowledge known as teh googlez). It seems you are using the same line of reasoning to dismiss high early German unemployment.

Thoughts?

we don't have any high-paid slackers here in the states.

I'm speaking to differences at the median; there's crap going on at the tail-ends in every soceity.

Do you think that every other nation that doesn't have at-will employment has factories chock full of basket weavers and horse shoe makers that they haven't been able to get rid of?

Nope; chock full of people that don't have to work very hard at ther jobs to keep them and lots of people that want those jobs that can't get them.

 

[GotIssues]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you ever ventured outside your town?

Is this a serious post? "I don't understand, therefore it's something wrong with you."

Do you think that every other nation that doesn't have at-will employment has factories chock full of basket weavers and horse shoe makers that they haven't been able to get rid of?

It's not that they can't get rid of them, it's just that much more difficult. The harder you make it to get rid of employees, companies won't hire as many to begin with. Everything you do will have a side effect, whether you can see it and understand it or not.

You really need to learn to think bigger picture. You are spouting off on things while focusing on very micro issues, and the "solutions" brought forth have very macro effects which you are ignoring or simply don't understand.

It's not a perfect system, but the "solutions" provided in this thread are overly simplistic and don't consider the ripples it would cause through the rest of the economic behaviors and decisions exhibited by the rest of the system.

 

[Veliko]

Nope; chock full of people that don't have to work very hard at ther jobs to keep them and lots of people that want those jobs that can't get them.

Utter lunacy.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Utter lunacy.

Does inability to fire the mediocre does not lead to a reduced impetus to work hard?


Also, the high unemployment rate offers a factual counter-example to your simple dismissal.