Quote:
Originally Posted by leejosepho
It is actually called " at-will employment", not "at-will firing", and it exists to prevent government regulation of labor markets.
Yes, twice, and I highly doubt either was "for little or no reason at all" even though I was never given a reason. In both cases I had arrived for work and discovered my time card was missing and I was told "You no longer work here." That was difficult for me to handle at the time, but I would never have wanted an employer to be forced to keep me. |
If people didn't need money to, I don't know, eat and pay rent, than perhaps, I would agree with this.
The fact of the matter though is that many people need an income to survive. These employers should not be allowed to fire people for trivial things because of this. If we compare the basic needs of a person to the wants of an employer, which do you think is more important?
There are only two logical decisions that I see here: either implement a basic income so that people don't have to worry about not being able to pay rent because their employer decides to be a little jerk and fire the person for some random idiotic reason, or regulate the labor markets, in particular, the lower end jobs that has employees that are less likely to not have money saved up and as a result, completely dependent on that job to survive.
I'm sorry, but I don't support the rich's "right" to exploit the poor.