Is this a serious post? "I don't understand, therefore it's something wrong with you."
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.
No, it's "you are talking in extremes and making strawman arguments therefore it's something wrong with you."
I am thinking of the bigger picture; it's why I said that there needs to be a balance between employer rights and employee rights.
The more you make an employee worry and fear for their job the easier it is to exploit them.
Which is why you need a balance between what is best for a company and what is best for an employee.
Which is precisely what the bigger picture is all about.
what about the fear that the employees will all quit, go on strike, or just walk out without notice? Which are all protected under the at-will doctrine. Does that not offer the same amount of potential to exploit? Are you going to continue to ignore the other side of this coin?
Jesus wept.
Which part of 'an equal balance is needed' are you failing to understand?
'an equal balance' is synonymous with both sides of the coin.
at-will is equal balance, it offers the same freedoms and protections to both sides.
As someone who worked as a file clerk at a law firm, the dress code only applies to the partners, the lawyers and the receptionists. If you're an underling, the general idea is that you probably won't come in contact with any clients, let alone the general public, so if you want to wear a polo shirt and jeans, more power to you. It is absurd that these people were fired for wearing a single color, mainly because management apparently thought that orange was synonymous with "we are protesting" and not "any fucking thing else you fucking stupid fucks." I mean, Jesus God, I've worked at places where management came to work in yellow and green because the Ducks were in a bowl game, but the state color of Florida is apparently unacceptable for a Florida law office? The law firm is going to be completely boned with all the negative press it receives from this, and that's way more important than stopping some presumed protest. And why did they immediately jump to protest? Are the working conditions really that shitty? Does management spend all day thinking "OK, today is when these savages finally say 'ENOUGH' and we've got to be ready, dammit!" All things considered, it sounds like every single person in management needs to be punched in the face repeatedly for the next 1600 consecutive billable hours until they realize just how boneheaded this entire gesture comes across as.
Maybe I'm just bitter cause I had to work with lawyers.
You should only be able to be fired if you deserved it, if you did something that contravened your employment agreement or if your work was unsatisfactory, otherwise you should be able to sue.
Has any group adults ever in the history of the world intentionally worn matching, brightly colored shirts to a happy hour? OK, so clearly they're lying about that. It sounds likely that they were doing it as some kind of protest against their employer. I guess they didn't know that it is (apparently?) illegal to fire them for that.
And please stop arguing with HAL. The kid believes that anything that works differently from how they do things in the UK is inherently wrong. Their government must love having people like that.
OK, so these people weren't actually protesting, but apparently the law firm thought they were? And if they were protesting then it would have been illegal to fire them? Shouldn't the law apply anyway, in that case? Because it was the firm's intent to fire employees who were protesting?
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:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugex...f.,cf.osb&fp=1d56d48badd02f22&biw=963&bih=690
Yes, because Jobs are so plentiful, you can just pick up and go to another company. Factor in the fact that these people don't sound like they're working a very highly skilled job and you can pretty much conclude they're fucked.
No, it does not.
The corporation will have lawyers and money and expertise and HR and God knows what else behind it.
Your average employee has nothing to rival that.
When your average employee gets fired from your average job it creates a considerable amount of stress and places a large burden on them.
The corporation doesn't lose anything like that at all.
What % of people do you think work for a company that has lawyers on staff, an HR dept?
It's actually pretty low, over 50% of the population works for companies that qualify as "small business"
And even if the employee does have a case against being fired... just hire the lawyer pro-bono. If no lawyer will take the case... it likely means the fired employee didn't have one.
You are procrastinating.
Instead of enrichening the lawyers for everything it would be better to just stop the situation from happening in the first place.
and who gets to decide whats ok and whats not? LAWYERS
and who do you go see when the employer/employee are in disagreement? LAWYERS
the only way to stop the enriching of lawyers is to... allow at-will employment
No, it's "you are talking in extremes and making strawman arguments therefore it's something wrong with you."
I am thinking of the bigger picture; it's why I said that there needs to be a balance between employer rights and employee rights.
The more you make an employee worry and fear for their job the easier it is to exploit them.
Which is why you need a balance between what is best for a company and what is best for an employee.
Which is precisely what the bigger picture is all about.
You are procrastinating.
Instead of enrichening the lawyers for everything it would be better to just stop the situation from happening in the first place.
It's not strawman arguments because you don't understand them. Simply calling it such without any proof otherwise just shows how weak your argument is to begin with.
The only reason to fear for your job is if you aren't providing value to the company to justify the expense of employment.
Balance between the company and employee doesn't consist of giving employees leverage over the company. You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Merely saying you're considering the bigger picture doesn't make it true. You can keep repeating it with zero reasons or logic behind it, but it never makes it true.
I don't believe this news story is relaying all of the facts of the matter. If you're being reductionist it's accurate, but I bet there's more to this.
We do the same with illegal Mexican immigrants everyday because we're too chicken shit to build an electrical fence and a barrier with many checkpoints similar to what Israel does with the West bank barrier. Thanks.It's almost like Germany had to absorb a former Soviet state and it took a while to reintegrate them to a more western society. Thanks
A) At-will allows employers to be idiots. It's not always bad, troublesome, or economically inefficient employees that get let go. At my wife's ex-employer they had a supervisor who let go or drove away 6 of 7 employees in the matter of a few weeks. That supervisor was herself let go. Considering this was the sales team responsible for pretty much all of the company's revenue, they're pretty boned.
B) The employees can now qualify for unemployment, so they got that going for them. Considering the employer is going to get a HUGE UI rating hit and have the expense of hiring and training a bunch of new people they're going to be boned.
C) Anyone pooh-poohing at-will as being to employer-friendly has a very short memory. It's very employer friendly NOW when labor is plentiful but in a standard economy it's pretty neutral and in a boom it's VERY hard for employers to keep good people.
Not to mention it just creates bad press, warranted or not. If people think a company is firing people over stupid stuff, they will avoid that company. Don't know the details of this story enough to comment....seems fishy though.
Elizabeth Redchuk Wellborn an attorney in Deerfield Beach, Florida is part of the robo foreclosure mill industry.
This woman lawyer and her staff are part of the scams and fraud of using fraudulent assignments and affidavits. This law firm is a debt collector and uses all manner of schemes to bring fraud into the court.
Read the transcript before the court which Elizabeth Wellborn attended and made appearance. Now follow the judge and the lawyer for MERS with Mrs. Wellborn sitting there and hearing it all. And she hears the judge questioning about re-establishment of the lost note. She hears the whole shebang about MERS not being an actual holder in due course. Yet this woman goes back to her office and continues to file foreclosure cases all over Florida using the very schemes the judge was telling them was not right. This woman has no virtue. This woman has no moral honesty. This woman is all about making money using any trick, scheme, or act of fraud she can get by with.
If you have been sued by a plaintiff and their attorney is Elizabeth Redchuk Wellborn, please know this woman is a shyster. She knows she is using fraudulent pleadings of lost notes etc.. She is a snake in a woman's body. Be careful what you say to her or her staff. This woman will eventually most likely have her right to be an attorney in Florida revoked. If she has used fraud in your case make a complaint against her to the Florida Bar.
Elizabeth Redchuk Wellborn fraud foreclosure mill needs investigated and shut down.
It is a strawman because... it is a strawman. You keep creating positions that no-one is taking and then arguing against them.
A fallacy, one repeated verbatim from those hoodwinked by the rich who want you to believe that what is in their best interests is also in your best interests.
Companies are chock full of woeful, spiteful, incompetent and reactionary managers who will have no qualms in sacking someone for all manner of reasons.
Here is such a strawman argument. At no point have I advocated giving employees a particular leverage over the company.
You are arguing against a position I have not taken.
I am looking at the bigger picture though.
I am asking what is best for society at large.
You are merely looking at the corporate bottom line, desperate in the hope that you too one day will be able to screw everyone else over.
A turkey voting for Christmas.
A) At-will allows employers to be idiots. It's not always bad, troublesome, or economically inefficient employees that get let go. At my wife's ex-employer they had a supervisor who let go or drove away 6 of 7 employees in the matter of a few weeks. That supervisor was herself let go. Considering this was the sales team responsible for pretty much all of the company's revenue, they're pretty boned.
B) The employees can now qualify for unemployment, so they got that going for them. Considering the employer is going to get a HUGE UI rating hit and have the expense of hiring and training a bunch of new people they're going to be boned.
C) Anyone pooh-poohing at-will as being to employer-friendly has a very short memory. It's very employer friendly NOW when labor is plentiful but in a standard economy it's pretty neutral and in a boom it's VERY hard for employers to keep good people.