Law firm fires 14 employees for wearing orange shirts

[Don Vito Corleone]

It appears to me this is a "law firm" only in a relatively loose sense - it actually appears to be a collections firm with one lawyer overseeing it. I actually represent a similar, but larger firm in employment matters. I have no idea what actually occurred here but I will say that debt collection is a very high-turnover industry, and it's possible the attorney owner felt this was a first step toward some kind of collective bargaining effort or something similar. Hard to say what was actually going on.

 

[GotIssues]

A good lawyer would sue them because they were initially fired because management "thought" they were protesting.

At-will is stupid. At what point will you draw the line in the sand and say they can't do that. Hey, they make the Chinese wade through pools of toxic chemicals for a nickel a day so if we want less unemployment then we've got to do that too. How about whips and chains? They're very efficient and you signed the contract.

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

Your examples are just plain wrong. It's called the "Labor Market" for a reason. Companies compete with each other for talent and the applicants are the ones who choose who to work for. Attracting top talent means you are paying for top talent. If Company A isn't willing to, Company B through Company ZZ will.

 

[IronWing]

Puts the lie to the conservative claim that the employer-employee relationship is symmetric. This is the underlying premise of "right-to-work" laws and is just a bunch of horseshit shoveled by the haves against the have-nots. Class warfare alive and well in America, point goes to the rich, again.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I can't believe we're over 50 posts and no one's mentioned that the firing for wearing orange occurred the day before St. Patrick's Day? It doesn't win the firm any PR points, but I'm guessing someone in upper management was Irish and pissed to see that much orange.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

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?

 

[GotIssues]

Puts the lie to the conservative claim that the employer-employee relationship is symmetric. This is the underlying premise of "right-to-work" laws and is just a bunch of horseshit shoveled by the haves against the have-nots. Class warfare alive and well in America, point goes to the rich, again.

If those employees provided value to the company more than their cost of employment, then it hurts the company and the management directly through lower profits.

If those employees are good at what they do and are in a field that has any sort of demand, they won't have a problem finding a new job.

Call it what it is. It's Entitlement Warfare - those who think the rich are wrong simply because the rich have money (that the entitled feel they deserve but aren't getting) and that the world owes them everything they want right now vs those who believe one should stand on their own merits and decisions.

 

[GotIssues]

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?

That's an interesting question. I know that if you think someone is <insert protected class here> and fire them for that reason it's illegal, even if they aren't of the protected class.

 

[Squisher]

It appears to me this is a "law firm" only in a relatively loose sense - it actually appears to be a collections firm with one lawyer overseeing it. I actually represent a similar, but larger firm in employment matters. I have no idea what actually occurred here but I will say that debt collection is a very high-turnover industry, and it's possible the attorney owner felt this was a first step toward some kind of collective bargaining effort or something similar. Hard to say what was actually going on.

If it is a collections firm then they have no shame and the last thing they'll be worried about is public image.

 

[Phokus]

How long has Germany had a lower unemployment than the US?
Compare historical data and let us know rather than just cherry picking only the last 2-4 years of data to fit your argument. 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

 

[Phokus]

If those employees provided value to the company more than their cost of employment, then it hurts the company and the management directly through lower profits.

If those employees are good at what they do and are in a field that has any sort of demand, they won't have a problem finding a new job.

Call it what it is. It's Entitlement Warfare - those who think the rich are wrong simply because the rich have money (that the entitled feel they deserve but aren't getting) and that the world owes them everything they want right now vs those who believe one should stand on their own merits and decisions.

LOL, you actually believe this. Labor has become a commodity and easily interchangeable. The amount of 'hurt' that law firm has pales in comparison to the amount of hurt the discharged employees feel right now. Even Adam Smith recognized this asymmetrical relationship.

 

[pauldun170]

She fired them because she wasn't invited.

 

[Fritzo]

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?

They should protest the fact that they were labeled as protesters, then they could get their jobs back.

 

[GotIssues]

LOL, you actually believe this. Labor has become a commodity and easily interchangeable. The amount of 'hurt' that law firm has pales in comparison to the amount of hurt the discharged employees feel right now. Even Adam Smith recognized this asymmetrical relationship.

Can you not just pick up and go to another company for any reason? Why do you believe you deserve all the power in the employment relationship?

 

[GotIssues]

They should protest the fact that they were labeled as protesters, then they could get their jobs back.

Unless the management protested the protesters for protesting being labeled protesters.

 

[Phokus]

Can you not just pick up and go to another company for any reason? Why do you believe you deserve all the power in the employment relationship?

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.

 

[thegimp03]

Harsh, but that's at-will employment for you.

 

[Genx87]

How long has Germany had a lower unemployment than the US?
Compare historical data and let us know rather than just cherry picking only the last 2-4 years of data to fit your argument. Thanks

Amusingly Germany's unemployment rate started to lower after welfare and healthcare reforms were put into effect in 04-05. I am sure Jokus will find some way to spin it.

 

[Murloc]

Can you not just pick up and go to another company for any reason? Why do you believe you deserve all the power in the employment relationship?

if laws are made with common sense, you can't just pick up and leave your company in the shit with half-completed stuff and no time to make a transition just because you don't want to give a warning.
Also there are non-compete agreements etc. so in the end the labor market isn't as free as it should be according to american values.

I think that employers should have the right to fire anyone, but not for futile reasons like this. They must be having a negative impact (and not a one-time impact like meeting a client with an orange shirt just for once), or it must be for monetary reasons, or strategic choices. There also should be a 30 or 60 days warning.
But this freedom should be compensated by a strong social safety net.

In the US there is neither. I personally think it destroys the social tissue, see I'm the 99% protests, poor as shit ghettos, hate politics etc.

I say: give them a warning about the orange shirts.
Firing someone just because they're protesting is stupid either, maybe it was all a big joke. In the doubt, just tell them to go home and change.
Before firing, talk about it. If there's nothing to talk about, go ahead....

You say your ways are better, but in Switzerland, where the quality of life is unarguably higher than in the US (for everyone, rich people can have high quality of life anywere), when you close a plant and fire everyone there are discussions with the social parties and union representatives, to make a social plan, find possible relocations, or try to find someone to sell the company to. Unemployment is low. Economy is competitive.

In Italy and France instead, the unions are just a bunch of hotheads that antagonize employers and everything is about strikes. In Italy the other extreme has been reached: no work mobility because the labor market is full of laws, privileges and unions.
No wonder that this system doesn't work there.

The best solution is in the middle.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I am really glad to live in the US. NONE of this is the government's business.

If an employer hires someone critical and they're worried about leaving with no notice then they need to draw up an employment contract. NO NEED for the government to be involved (IE take their cut $$).

If an employee is concerned that they have no savings to last for a few months should they get fired then they need to insist on an employment contract. NO NEED for the government to be involved (IE take their cut $$)

 

[GotIssues]

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

So you think dragging on a company's bottom line is going to fix unemployment? Yeah, brilliant plan, lets make profitable companies unprofitable because now they can't get rid of deadweight. Instead of the 500 people laid off, the entire company slowly goes bankrupt and everyone is laid off. You've just made the problem worse. Congratulations.

Sure some companies could afford to "give back" by not dropping dead weight, but there are plenty of companies that cannot, and you would basically give them the death sentence, along with every single person working at that company.

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.

The only thing saddling companies with dead weight through the inability to get rid of them is that they won't hire as many people to start with.

You are trying to invoke sympathy for someone who is, at best, mediocre at an unskilled job and use that as an argument. Yeah, it sucks for them, but why is it that it's the company's responsibility to keep them on-board because they chose to never get marketable skills?

Please, give me a reason why a company should be responsibile for life of an employee, when the employee, at any time and for any reason, can up and walk away. You still haven't addressed that. You simply said "Well, look over there, there is unemployment!"

 

[SpatiallyAware]

if laws are made with common sense, you can't just pick up and leave your company in the shit with half-completed stuff and no time to make a transition just because you don't want to give a warning.
Also there are non-compete agreements etc. so in the end the labor market isn't as free as it should be according to american values.

I think that employers should have the right to fire anyone, but not for futile reasons like this. They must be having a negative impact (and not a one-time impact like meeting a client with an orange shirt just for once), or it must be for monetary reasons, or strategic choices. There also should be a 30 or 60 days warning.
But this freedom should be compensated by a strong social safety net.

In the US there is neither. I personally think it destroys the social tissue, see I'm the 99% protests, poor as shit ghettos, hate politics etc.

I say: give them a warning about the orange shirts.
Firing someone just because they're protesting is stupid either, maybe it was all a big joke. In the doubt, just tell them to go home and change.
Before firing, talk about it. If there's nothing to talk about, go ahead....

You say your ways are better, but in Switzerland, where the quality of life is unarguably higher than in the US (for everyone, rich people can have high quality of life anywere), when you close a plant and fire everyone there are discussions with the social parties and union representatives, to make a social plan, find possible relocations, or try to find someone to sell the company to. Unemployment is low. Economy is competitive.

In Italy and France instead, the unions are just a bunch of hotheads that antagonize employers and everything is about strikes. In Italy the other extreme has been reached: no work mobility because the labor market is full of laws, privileges and unions.
No wonder that this system doesn't work there.

The best solution is in the middle.

We do this here as well. Generally if a company shuts down they meet with the department of labor to make sure everything is done in a fair way.




I live in a right to hire/fire state. I love it because I'm not forced to hire and keep imbeciles who do a crappy job. I can fire someone because they have a bad attitude, and I can hire someone because they have a good attitude. This tends to work better for good employees, it's usually only the lazy/crappy ones that don't like it.

I don't need or want a bunch of rules on paper directing me how to run a company. Don't like it? Move to some other state and work there instead.




...Also, if you are repeatedly getting fired for 'no good reason' then there IS a reason. Go look in a mirror.

 

[Train]

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.

So is it the employers fault the rest of the job market sucks?

Would you expect the inverse to be true? When the job market gets tight, employees can't just leave to get higher pay, because after all, the employer can't be expected to just hire someone to fill the position, right?

 

[Expl3tiv3]

If those employees provided value to the company more than their cost of employment, then it hurts the company and the management directly through lower profits.

If those employees are good at what they do and are in a field that has any sort of demand, they won't have a problem finding a new job.

Call it what it is. It's Entitlement Warfare - those who think the rich are wrong simply because the rich have money (that the entitled feel they deserve but aren't getting) and that the world owes them everything they want right now vs those who believe one should stand on their own merits and decisions.

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

 

[SpatiallyAware]

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

The last time we opened up a position there were ~2000 applicants per day. Our HR lady truly spent a TON of time filtering them down to 5-6 of the best per day, then at the end of the week they would come in for an interview.

It was astounding to me how many of these applicants were complete and total losers with college degrees.

I have gotten to where I feel as though ~10% of our society is pretty much unemployable anywhere but mcdonalds.

 

[GotIssues]

if laws are made with common sense, you can't just pick up and leave your company in the shit with half-completed stuff and no time to make a transition just because you don't want to give a warning.
Also there are non-compete agreements etc. so in the end the labor market isn't as free as it should be according to american values.

Non-compete are not laws, and you are not required to sign them. You can agree to nearly anything in employment agreements, but that doesn't mean it's that way in any other profession. Non-competes are usually restricted to IP-type positions, you aren't going to have a non-compete in a vast majority of jobs.

I think that employers should have the right to fire anyone, but not for futile reasons like this. They must be having a negative impact (and not a one-time impact like meeting a client with an orange shirt just for once), or it must be for monetary reasons, or strategic choices. There also should be a 30 or 60 days warning.
But this freedom should be compensated by a strong social safety net.

In the US there is neither. I personally think it destroys the social tissue, see I'm the 99% protests, poor as shit ghettos, hate politics etc.

Businesses should be able to run their business as they see fit (minus the usual discrimination restrictions). If they do a poor job, they will fail and cease to exist. It is up to the workers to make themselves desirable to hire. If you sit on your ass and don't get any marketable skills, then why are you entitled to a job?

I say: give them a warning about the orange shirts.
Firing someone just because they're protesting is stupid either, maybe it was all a big joke. In the doubt, just tell them to go home and change.
Before firing, talk about it. If there's nothing to talk about, go ahead....

You are assuming that the orange shirts are the only reason they were fired. Just because it wasn't explicitly said, doesn't mean there weren't other reasons. The orange shirts could have very well been a last straw.

You say your ways are better, but in Switzerland, where the quality of life is unarguably higher than in the US (for everyone, rich people can have high quality of life anywere), when you close a plant and fire everyone there are discussions with the social parties and union representatives, to make a social plan, find possible relocations, or try to find someone to sell the company to. Unemployment is low. Economy is competitive.

Switzerland Population: 7,825,243
USA Population: 311,591,917

There is no "economies of scale" when it comes to things like this. It actually gets much, much harder to do.

In a capitalistic culture, if you are closing a plant and firing everyone, it's because you are losing money, and in which case, the closure of the plant is warranted and/or necessary in order to keep the rest of the company from being dragged down with it. Adding a worker ability to prevent that may help the workers out for the short term, but hurts the economy as a whole in the long run.

In Italy and France instead, the unions are just a bunch of hotheads that antagonize employers and everything is about strikes. In Italy the other extreme has been reached: no work mobility because the labor market is full of laws, privileges and unions.
No wonder that this system doesn't work there.

The best solution is in the middle.

I'm not convinced of that. While a purely capitalistic nature may not be the best for society as a whole, giving one side power over the other (regardless of which side has the power) is a recipe for disaster. Making it that much harder for employers to get rid of slackers and dead weights has it's own consequences that the more "socialist" views in this thread are completely ignoring. Simply put, the harder it is to get rid of someone, the fewer people are going to get hired in the first place.