I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm directly arguing your claim that employers have too much power. Post #81. I'm not twisting it in anyway. If anything, you are attempting to misinterpret my stance and make a "Strawman" argument - attempting to claim that my stance is that if it isn't at will, it's impossible to get rid of employees.
At what point did I say that employers have too much power? I have been very specific about creating a balance of power.
You have done nothing, literally nothing, to support your opinion except claim anyone that provides counterpoints as "Absurd" or "Strawman arguments." If you can't come up with anything that supports your claim, maybe you should re-examine your stance.
Utter nonsense.
So, this is your smoking gun, your ace in the hole? You are backing up your opinion with... an equally bad opinion? It's all a big conspiracy... TO GET YOU!
I pointed out that companies are chock full of humans, complete with the requisite flaws. This is not a conspiracy but a fact.
You say employees need more power. I'm telling you that's not true at all. Once again, your best counter argument consists of "STRAWMAN," and even that doesn't hold any weight, as it's just not true. I'm arguing against your point directly, the only thing you are doing is avoiding providing supporting evidence to your own opinion, and never directly addressing counterpoints from the other side.
No, I did not say that employees need more power. I said they need a balance of power.
If you don't want me to keep mentioning your strawman arguments then you need to stop making them.
I'm not looking merely at the bottom line. If you've bothered to read my posts, you'd know that. I'm telling you flat out, point blank, exactly what will happen if it becomes more difficult to cut loose dead weight:
Making it harder to get rid of employees will only cause companies to hire fewer people. Instead cycling out poor performing employees and opening positions for better and more deserving unemployed men and women, you will saddle companies with poor performers. They need to be more cautious, as their margin of error has dwindled considerably. It will have a net zero, at best, impact on unemployment, and a net loss in terms of overall production. You are hurting the economy, the companies, and the individual workers with such measures.
Absolute rubbish. Here in the UK I have seen plenty of people lose their jobs because they aren't any good.
Allowing employers to cast aside employees at the drop of a hat helps no-one but a select few at the top.
Make it too easy for an employee to be sacked and it is easier for them to be exploited.
Your argument about employment and production is that same one that gets trotted out about annual leave. The thought of someone having more than 10 days annual leave sends them into a blind panic about production plummeting.
You have never once provided a stitch of support for your argument. Until you do so, just don't post. You are wasting everyone's time with your worthless ramblings. You can rattle off the same pointless and worthless crap you've done so far, but it's not worth my time. I'm not interested in playing tennis with a wall. Until you actually provide substance to this disagreement to support your side other than a pathetic vindictive opinion against management, I'm considering it closed.
I have provided plenty of support but you have just chosen to ignore it.
You seem to have this almost mystical, religious amount of respect for companies and corporations as if they can do no wrong.