4 ms·

I note that if you build up four weeks of savings in at-will employment, then compared to four-weeks-notice, you have the same level of security and more time t

by philh 11y ago

I note that if you build up four weeks of savings in at-will employment, then compared to four-weeks-notice, you have the same level of security and more time to dedicate to job hunting. (For people living paycheck to paycheck, four weeks of savings might not be easy to accumulate. But those people can't suddenly start spending more money if they get better job security. So there might be a compassionate argument, but the economic one doesn't seem to hold.)

adwf 11y ago
And better yet, four weeks notice + 4 weeks savings. Split the responsibility for redundancy between employer and employee. I worked at one job where a guy was made redundant - for economic reasons, not incompetence - just two months after he started. He'd moved to the area and literally got a mortgage that week, spending his savings on the deposit. Without the notice period he'd have potentially faced economic ruin. Ignoring the morals of it for the moment, even speaking economically it's better for the country as a whole. How many mortgages are defaulted on in redundancy situations? The employee is bankrupted and defaults, the bank repossesses and sells the house at a loss (they generally go in quick auctions). The company itself may benefit but the overall economic harm to the country is greater imo. And that's before you get to the compassionate side of things with people who can't afford 4 weeks savings, ie. every minimum wage job in the country.
mschuster91 11y ago
> For people living paycheck to paycheck, four weeks of savings might not be easy to accumulate. That is the major problem: those who are poor and don't know their rights are hit the hardest - and this is why at-will should be abolished.
- philh 11y ago
  I'm confused by your addition of "and don't know their rights". In at-will, not knowing their rights means they get fired with no notice because that's allowed. Without at-will, not knowing their rights means they potentially get fired with no notice because they don't know it's not allowed. I would think that giving people more rights is more helpful when they do know their rights.

by philh 11y ago

adwf 11y ago

And better yet, four weeks notice + 4 weeks savings. Split the responsibility for redundancy between employer and employee. I worked at one job where a guy was made redundant - for economic reasons, not incompetence - just two months after he started. He'd moved to the area and literally got a mortgage that week, spending his savings on the deposit. Without the notice period he'd have potentially faced economic ruin. Ignoring the morals of it for the moment, even speaking economically it's better for the country as a whole. How many mortgages are defaulted on in redundancy situations? The employee is bankrupted and defaults, the bank repossesses and sells the house at a loss (they generally go in quick auctions). The company itself may benefit but the overall economic harm to the country is greater imo. And that's before you get to the compassionate side of things with people who can't afford 4 weeks savings, ie. every minimum wage job in the country.

mschuster91 11y ago

> For people living paycheck to paycheck, four weeks of savings might not be easy to accumulate. That is the major problem: those who are poor and don't know their rights are hit the hardest - and this is why at-will should be abolished.

philh 11y ago
I'm confused by your addition of "and don't know their rights". In at-will, not knowing their rights means they get fired with no notice because that's allowed. Without at-will, not knowing their rights means they potentially get fired with no notice because they don't know it's not allowed. I would think that giving people more rights is more helpful when they do know their rights.