3 ms·

a boss only has power over you so far as you're being paid to act on behalf of the company, and that's the proper power you should have when you need to run a c

a boss only has power over you so far as you're being paid to act on behalf of the company, and that's the proper power you should have when you need to run a company, clearly having employees be able to harness some law and create a kind of capture on the employer wouldn't be ideal you could end up with job seekers that are just seeding for predatory lawsuits, or people end up squatting on a company to get whatever they can regardless of what cost/value impact they are having on the company, terrible for both businesses and competitive job seekers alike even if they made a law that says "you can't fire people for things discovered using data mining" you now run into the situation of having to provide some reason for firing someone, which is a messy situation, because you shouldn't need to provide proof or reasoning for no longer wanting to work with someone, it would make it dangerous to work with anyone that showed any potential risk for making things difficult, and we don't want to make it more risky and expensive for people to get jobs

wfo 9y ago
>a boss only has power over you so far as you're being paid to act on behalf of the company This is obviously untrue. You can be fired for any reason, anytime. Whether what you're doing is at work or not. Your boss can see you at a protest and fire you. Your boss can call you at 2am on your personal line and fire you if you don't pick up the phone. Your boss can fire you for not liking the right music or restaurants, or for refusing to go to certain parties (it's just not a good culture fit). > clearly having employees be able to harness some law and create a kind of capture on the employer wouldn't be ideal No, it wouldn't be ideal, but it would be very, very good. Asking for something ideal is a little Utopian, so I'll take the massive improvement you are suggesting. >people end up squatting on a company to get whatever they can regardless of what cost/value impact they are having on the company You have just described most bosses and corporate owners. >you now run into the situation of having to provide some reason for firing someone, which is a messy situation, because you shouldn't need to provide proof or reasoning for no longer wanting to work with someone This is how it works in nearly every developed country in the world, and how it used to work in the US. It works just fine. There is no need to give bosses ultimate complete power over all aspects of their employee's lives. There is no reasonable justification for it I have ever seen except ideological devotion to the unquestioned authority and power of the wealthy.
- dragonsky67 9y ago
  I don't know how many times I say it, but I'm glad I don't live in a country where somebody would think it acceptable to fire somebody for the type of music they like. I know you are joking, but even the fact that you think this is in any way acceptable implies that you are happy with the situation.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    I so no joke there. I believe the paragraph you are referring to was a statement of fact, not an approbation. I've read it as: "here's what US employers can do, and why it sucks big time".
s73ver_ 9y ago
At the same time, I feel that a boss should not be able to deprive someone of their livelihood on a whim. I feel there should be an actual reason why the person is being fired.

wfo 9y ago

>a boss only has power over you so far as you're being paid to act on behalf of the company This is obviously untrue. You can be fired for any reason, anytime. Whether what you're doing is at work or not. Your boss can see you at a protest and fire you. Your boss can call you at 2am on your personal line and fire you if you don't pick up the phone. Your boss can fire you for not liking the right music or restaurants, or for refusing to go to certain parties (it's just not a good culture fit). > clearly having employees be able to harness some law and create a kind of capture on the employer wouldn't be ideal No, it wouldn't be ideal, but it would be very, very good. Asking for something ideal is a little Utopian, so I'll take the massive improvement you are suggesting. >people end up squatting on a company to get whatever they can regardless of what cost/value impact they are having on the company You have just described most bosses and corporate owners. >you now run into the situation of having to provide some reason for firing someone, which is a messy situation, because you shouldn't need to provide proof or reasoning for no longer wanting to work with someone This is how it works in nearly every developed country in the world, and how it used to work in the US. It works just fine. There is no need to give bosses ultimate complete power over all aspects of their employee's lives. There is no reasonable justification for it I have ever seen except ideological devotion to the unquestioned authority and power of the wealthy.

dragonsky67 9y ago
I don't know how many times I say it, but I'm glad I don't live in a country where somebody would think it acceptable to fire somebody for the type of music they like. I know you are joking, but even the fact that you think this is in any way acceptable implies that you are happy with the situation.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  I so no joke there. I believe the paragraph you are referring to was a statement of fact, not an approbation. I've read it as: "here's what US employers can do, and why it sucks big time".

s73ver_ 9y ago

At the same time, I feel that a boss should not be able to deprive someone of their livelihood on a whim. I feel there should be an actual reason why the person is being fired.