« NY Times: biased against the poor | Main | No bare breasts allowed »

February 21, 2005

Comments

Ogre

Thanks for stopping by, Abigail.

You mention that you don't like the freedom of the standard employer-employee relationship -- so what do you suggest is better? Do you honestly suggest that all employees get 20 week's notice? Do you realize how insane that is? If that were the law of the land, easily 75-90% of all businesses would be bankrupt inside of a week.

Did you ever wonder why it is "stacked" in favor of the employer? It is because the employer is the one putting EVERYTHING at risk. When you take a job, if you lose the job, you can get another one. When an employer starts a business and fails, they often lose their house, their employment, their car, their friends, and lots more. More risk = more reward.

Ben

It may be worth looking at the difference, Ogre, between small businesses and multi-national corporations. As an owner of a small, independent business, I agree with you that there is massive risk involved. However, my experience with employment at will situations is that they are set up from the beginning for the employer to abuse, which has become standard business practices for huge numbers of corporations. Take a look at the big ones who encourage managers to fire employees right before they become eligible for benefits, thus keeping costs down. Yes, you want to maintain some kind of protection for business, but at will employment isn't a viable answer.

Mark

It sure helps if the employer does the right thing, though Abigail's twenty weeks is a bit extreme.

I lost my job about a year ago; my employer (private) closed its Austin location (one of four nationwide); about 200 or so were let go (although some of us, including me, were given generous offers to move to Salt Lake City). My employer was marvelous about the whole thing, though - very generous severance package and 12 weeks notice (I should mention Texas is an at-will state).

Now, however, I see the flip side daily - I work in a department (government) with two very unproductive co-workers, bad attitudes, horrible work ethics, distraction to those of us who are focused on the job - and because they are union, my boss has been unable to get Human Resources to agree to let them go for literally years.

What's the point? I somewhat reluctantly agree with Ogre...in the end, businesses have to be able to get rid of the dead weight.

Ogre

The flip side, Ben, is that employees "abuse" the relationship as often, if not more often! How many times do employees not show up for work? How many quit without giving any notice? With employment at will, employees are free to leave any time they want, putting the employer at risk, too.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

It is rare that we come across an idiot so foolish as to flaunt their stupidity.

That said, let me congratulate on you lunacy.

I know I speak for so many who would be delighted to have an incompetent/dangerous nurse or other health care provider, knowing they are going to be fired in FIVE MONTHS look after a loved one.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Then of course there are the teachers who can't read. While you may delight in these educators playing with blocks with your children (Please, please, do not have any), the rest of the parents might be a tad perturbed.

Then there are the Air Traffic Controllers who might be a tad peeved, or merely the cashiers at a store, who in retaliation might not ring up $6500 worth of Manolo shoes to get even. Before you bitch about Manolos, remember that all the Hollywood libs wear Manolos, so yo u can't just insult them, OK?

I will be gentle in my review as you obviously will attempt once more to graduate High School.

So as to be clear- we wish there to be no misundertandings- you are an in idiot. While I'm sure you have plenty of self esteem and the trophies to prove it, you remain an idiot.

Square1

I live in an at will employment state, and it is tough! I agree there is a distinction between small businesses and large corporations. Unfortunately these types of laws always seem to favor the large corporations and not the struggling underdogs. This happens because they have a bigger voice because they have more money. It's just the way the world (and politics) works. In our state small businesses usually can't afford to hire many employees... much less offer them decent pay or good benefits, which leaves most seeking employment looking at the larger corporations. Around here the result has been that most corporations hire through employment agencies on a temporary basis. With a host of disposable people at their behest to keep the cogs of their corporate machine turning, they have no need to worry about the employee. The employee then has very little incentive to give a notice when quitting. Most times it is not wise to do so until you have found another job, because giving a notice often results in your almost immediate termination. And it is not above the corporation to find an excuse for the termination to keep the employee from collecting unemployment.

mdf

If an employee's a stiff - a loose cannon, a sloth, a pilferer, etc. - then he should be dumped and fast. This dialogue should concern itself with the majority of workers who are honest, skilled and reliable. No reason to fire 'em so how should they be treated?

An employee is generally selling his services at cost and thus deserves consideration. Too many employers large and small don't recognize this. Personally I think (although my opinion here is no doubt economically unsound) if you can't afford to pay your people a decent living wage (with room for savings) then you have no business starting a business. Minimum wage below the poverty line is just slavery.

The comments to this entry are closed.