[rdgrad15]

Am I the only one who hates the fire at will policy? I feel like the law should require employers to have a good reason to fire you rather than let them fire you whenever they want without reason and not even provide a reason. They would hate it if it happened to them, no one likes that. I feel like the fire at will policy can allow employers to fire people for illegal reasons and it would be very easy to do so.

If an employee commits a crime or something else that extreme, then I can understand why someone would be fored without warning or being told why. I would do that myself just to get them out of my work place as quickly as possible. But Other than that, I feel like the policy can allow employers to fire employees a little too quickly. All they have to do is dislike you from a personal standpoint and you are gone. They can easily just say you didn't work well when in fact, you worked fine, they just simply didn't like you. What do you think of the policy? Do you think it should be changed? Habe you ever lost a job for little or no reason at all and not even given a reason? Just wondered.

I couldn't agree more with this. Employers shouldn't have free reign to do whatever they want like this. The fire at will policy should be abolished entirely.

With that being said, the employer should be allowed to fire if, for example, there is a verifiable record of the employee constantly breaking rules, breaking the law, wasting company resources, or excessively underperforming on the job with no other means of correcting them helping.

For any reason less severe, especially for something as trivial as the employee having a difference of opinion or simply being disliked by the employer, firing the employee should be seen as outright discrimination and punished accordingly.

Then again, what would I know? After all, I am an "entitled" millienial, right?

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by DarknessIsMyFriend

I couldn't agree more with this. Employers shouldn't have free reign to do whatever they want like this. The fire at will policy should be abolished entirely.

With that being said, the employer should be allowed to fire if, for example, there is a verifiable record of the employee constantly breaking rules, breaking the law, wasting company resources, or excessively underperforming on the job with no other means of correcting them helping.

For any reason less severe, especially for something as trivial as the employee having a difference of opinion or simply being disliked by the employer, firing the employee should be seen as outright discrimination and punished accordingly.

Then again, what would I know? After all, I am an "entitled" millienial, right?

Exactly, if the employee is truly a horrible employee, breaking rules, consistant unprofessionalism, underperformance that does not improve after a cpuple warnings and a probationary period, and even crimminal acts, then yes, by all means fire them. I would do it. But not if there is little or no reason at all. Because it is too easy for employers to do so illegally wothout being caught. I was once let go because someone didn't like me. My performance was fine, but I was just simply not liked. I could have fought it but I hear it woild have been no good to do so.

[eyesclosed]

This law was designed for you also to leave without notice. At will. It worked good for unions to be formed in the workplace. This was back in the early days of manufacturing and then worked it's way into government. For this type of economy it benefits the employer big time. My last job I was a custodian at a college and was fired for trimming my broom. I did receive UC benefits because they found it was not a good reason to fire me. I haven't worked since.

[reb569]

I hate that policy. Sometimes I think it's used as a scare tactic for those left behind.

I've only worked one place where I felt that the managers used this on a regular basis. I saw them let go entire teams of call center workers. They would tell them at the beginning of their shift their team had been discontinued. If there were teams short on workers, they might offer some of them a position on another team, but they had to make a decision on the spot, and some of the workers depended on buses, taxis or family or friends to get to work and just couldn't make a decision like that on the spot. I got out of there as soon as I could.

Every week another team was, "disappeared" over a period of a couple months. It slowed down by the time I left, but pretty much everyone there worried about when they were going to be fired.

[leejosepho]

Originally Posted by rdgrad15

Am I the only one who hates the fire at will policy?

It is actually called "at-will employment", not "at-will firing", and it exists to prevent government regulation of labor markets.

Originally Posted by rdgrad15

Have you ever lost a job...and not even given a reason?

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.

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.

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by DarknessIsMyFriend

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.

Totally agree, if employers can't even take the time to tell you what is wrong, then I just assume they had a personal issue with you that they just didn't want to talk to you about. I agree, if they can't get rid of employment at will policy, then they should allow where someone who was fired for no reason a a very stupid trivial reason to receive money until they get a new job.

[rdgrad15]

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.

Yeah I know, I meant employment at will but I still don't think it is okay. Because I feel like it is dumb that a employer can get rid of you like that and not even tell you why. If you actually did something wrong, they should tell you so you can learn and fix your mistakes in the future, whether it be at the same job or a different want. When someone just leaves you in the dark, I just assume they just have a personal dislike towards you and much rather fire you than tell you what's wrong.

Where I live, when you start a job for the first 3 months you are on a "probation period" where you can be fired without explanation. After the 3 months, they need to provide a reason. To the OP, are you saying that where you live, someone can be fired without explanation even after being at a job for over 3 months? If so, I would also disagree with that policy and feel like an explanation should be given after the probation period.

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by scaredandconfused

Where I live, when you start a job for the first 3 months you are on a "probation period" where you can be fired without explanation. After the 3 months, they need to provide a reason. To the OP, are you saying that where you live, someone can be fired without explanation even after being at a job for over 3 months? If so, I would also disagree with that policy and feel like an explanation should be given after the probation period.

Yes, where I live, you can still be fired for little or no reason and without explanation after the probation period. During the probation period, there is a higher chance of being fired, but you can still be fired without warning and without explanation which I disagree with completely.

Originally Posted by rdgrad15

Yes, where I live, you can still be fired for little or no reason and without explanation after the probation period. During the probation period, there is a higher chance of being fired, but you can still be fired without warning and without explanation which I disagree with completely.

That's so weird to me. :/ And definitely not fair to employees - I think there should be a definitive reason for getting fired.

Speaking of probation periods, I'll have officially worked at my job for 3 months tomorrow so mine will be over, woo hoo!

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by scaredandconfused

That's so weird to me. :/ And definitely not fair to employees - I think there should be a definitive reason for getting fired.

Speaking of probation periods, I'll have officially worked at my job for 3 months tomorrow so mine will be over, woo hoo!

I know, I totally agree with you and congratulations!

[Oatter]

Originally Posted by rdgrad15

Am I the only one who hates the fire at will policy? I feel like the law should require employers to have a good reason to fire you rather than let them fire you whenever they want without reason and not even provide a reason.

In many countries, law enumerates reasons for which an employee may be fired. An employee may leave for whatever reason, but with notice and may in addition, depending on the reasons, be deprived of certain benefits.

Seems to me fire at will policy is there just to speed up the flow of cheap expendable labor and devalue workers even further.

[eyesclosed]

You can get Unemployment pay if they find they have no good reason for termination. The bad thing is to avoid this they will try and bully you out of there and have people in place to make things more difficult. I had 13 jobs in 6 yrs and was terminated in 9 of them. I work in a at will state.

[rechu]

Congrats scared and confused! That is great. I recently made it through my probation 3 months too, so my contract is indefinite now. That means usually if I am let go, I will get severance based on time worked. Here if they fire you they do need to cite a reason, but there is always the blanket "needs of the organization", generally used when a company is having financial problems.

My husband works for a government agency that is having some budget issues. They let an entire department of 20 people go last Friday, with no notice, citing needs of the organization. They qualify for severance, but weren't paid so they are going to have to sue. I guess it is good that most of them are lawyers, since they can help to represent each other in legal actions to get their money, and they can receive whatever money there is in their individual unemployment accounts in the meantime. Still, that is an awful way to treat people, to not give them any warning or time to plan, they were just told not to come back.

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by rechu

Congrats scared and confused! That is great. I recently made it through my probation 3 months too, so my contract is indefinite now. That means usually if I am let go, I will get severance based on time worked. Here if they fire you they do need to cite a reason, but there is always the blanket "needs of the organization", generally used when a company is having financial problems.

My husband works for a government agency that is having some budget issues. They let an entire department of 20 people go last Friday, with no notice, citing needs of the organization. They qualify for severance, but weren't paid so they are going to have to sue. I guess it is good that most of them are lawyers, since they can help to represent each other in legal actions to get their money, and they can receive whatever money there is in their individual unemployment accounts in the meantime. Still, that is an awful way to treat people, to not give them any warning or time to plan, they were just told not to come back.

I agree, it is awful. They should be let it be known ahead of time if they are going to be laid off and if it is a performance or behavioral issue, then a warning and maybe even a deadline to improve performance or behavior would be good before letting someone go.

[amandalouise]

NY has fire at will here is how it works... it goes hand in hand with whats called employed at will....

employed at will means a person has been hired for a certain job or time frame . when the job is complete or the jobs time frame has expired a person is laid off/ let go or re employed for a longer time frame or another job with the same company.

example christmas season many stores employ extra employees to meet the demand of the public. when christmas season is over those employees are let go/laid off due to the job is no longer available or has expired.

but with this also comes a situation where an employer can make a temporary employee permanent if they choose to by signing a new contract...

example a store employer notices how well an employee works with the public, comes to work on time basically is an asset to the company and the employee knows that in the future there will be people retiring or leaving due to what ever reasons. they offer the temp employee a permanent position complete with a full time paycheck and benefits if the job comes with that.

that is what "hiring and firing at will" means here in the USA. employers cant just fire someone for no reason but there are special terms of contracts and such that comes with being hired as a temp (temporary employee)

if you feel your position was not a temp position and were fired unjustly or at will you can contact your labor union/ labor commission / temp agency that sent you to the job placement/ local unemployment office/ or the civil rights department. any of those can help you to investigate the terms of your employment and whether the company has fired you illegally. they can also help to prosecute employees that have illegally fired you.

It enables discrimination. And employees CAN'T just quit at will without repercussions, they have to put in a 2 week notice.

I've been fired before because of my mental illness.

[rdgrad15]

Originally Posted by iPhone

It enables discrimination. And employees CAN'T just quit at will without repercussions, they have to put in a 2 week notice.

I've been fired before because of my mental illness.

Exactly. Yes it is illegal to fire someone based on discrimination but that is easy to cover up. All they need to do is lie sand say their performance or behavior wasn't up to par with company standards and they are gone.

I come down in the middle. I think that some companies should be encouraged to be founded with a commitment to workers and as an added benefit, should have "cause" policy for firing people. The reason I don't think all employers should be forced to have it is that they just will make things up. As it is now, they MAKE up reasons to fire you. Even now. If this was forced upon them they would take less chances on "questionable" people and they would simply increase their harassment of you in order to trump up reasons to fire you.

I would go further and say if you really want this to stop the real reason this is happening is too many people applying for jobs. You should make sure that you do not support HB1 Visa holders or any sort of guest worker program, immigrants, and anything that could change the market forces that keep companies in check. Right now companies can abuse these systems because they can ship in cheap labor from other companies and literally these people will have to leave the country if they get fired.

In the 80s there wasn't enough employees and I had retail stores begging me to work for them and giving me bonuses. Force out 1/2 of these cheap labor sources and employers won't be so quick to fire.

Originally Posted by Emily Fox Seaton

I come down in the middle. I think that some companies should be encouraged to be founded with a commitment to workers and as an added benefit, should have "cause" policy for firing people. The reason I don't think all employers should be forced to have it is that they just will make things up. As it is now, they MAKE up reasons to fire you. Even now. If this was forced upon them they would take less chances on "questionable" people and they would simply increase their harassment of you in order to trump up reasons to fire you.

I would go further and say if you really want this to stop the real reason this is happening is too many people applying for jobs. You should make sure that you do not support HB1 Visa holders or any sort of guest worker program, immigrants, and anything that could change the market forces that keep companies in check. Right now companies can abuse these systems because they can ship in cheap labor from other companies and literally these people will have to leave the country if they get fired.

In the 80s there wasn't enough employees and I had retail stores begging me to work for them and giving me bonuses. Force out 1/2 of these cheap labor sources and employers won't be so quick to fire.

Agreed. If I didn't believe that all politicians are liars with hidden agendas and if I didn't value my independence from any political party, I probably would be a Trump supporter because of this reason alone. While some of his ideas are a bit over the top, such as wanting to build a wall to block out Mexico, I understand where those ideas come from.

I believe any country, no matter what it is, should prioritize taking care of it's own citizens first and foremost. If somebody wants to work in that country, unless they are having a shortage of workers, then somebody who wants to work in that country should make an effort to prove themselves and become an actual citizen. The U.S is no exception.

[Gr3tta_0]

I have a differing view. Yes, there are ways employed at will policy proects employers, and yes, it can be abused.
But here are all the ways it protects me as an employee:

I can leave at any time. Yes, 2 weeks notice is the standard courtesy, but that's all it is. I can leave at any time and face no legal repircussions.
If I'm fired for no reason, i can collect unemployment benefits while i look for a new job.
If I'm fired for no reason, i can state this in my defense at job interviews. "I was given no reason ma'am. I would have welcomed the opportunity to improve my performance, or address the issue. Perhaps it was a financial issue within the company. I simply don't know."

Losing a job is devastating- i really do understand this. Ive been on the receiving end of this bad news before. But i prefer it to working under obligatory contract, which i feel pavez the way for worse abuse.
Just my opinion.

This is one my biggest fears ; getting a job, losing my SSI as a safety net, and getting fired. So far I haven't even been able to FIND anything I could do.

I've tried working in fast food, but all the commotion just aggravated my anxiety and PTSD and I ended up in the hospital. I do NOT do well in high energy situations. I have absolutely no experience in anything else or degrees so no office jobs want me. Because of very complicated financial aid issues I can't go back to school right now. I also don't have a driver's license. If I could manage that, maybe I could drive for lyft or something.

[Gr3tta_0]

I freaking hate how ssi and ssdi can keep people trapped.
If you want to work, keep at it. It is really hard, but i don't have a degree and I've always managed. Oh, and I've never woked fast food. I've never had to keep track of benefits, and i can only imagine the pain in the neck that is, but i know its possible. Ive witnessed lots of people be successful at it.