3 ms·
Possibly true, though nonexistent jobs must surely be a difficult thing to count. But at will employment also imposes economuc costs, which economists don't re
by your-nanny 9y ago
Possibly true, though nonexistent jobs must surely be a difficult thing to count.
But at will employment also imposes economuc costs, which economists don't really care to count, like economic security, health and psychological well being, mutual respect between companies and their public, and the opportunities to do stupid image damaging life-harmful shite like Marriot did to this man.
- gbacon 9y agoI’m sympathetic to the person in the story. Firing over such a slight, possibly inadvertent, infraction seems excessive, and that makes me suspect we don’t know the whole story. As much racket as people have made in this thread about at-will status in the U.S., the truth is more moderate. Not all states have at-will employment. Even in those that do, there are protected classes. The former Marriott employee might easily file an age-discrimination lawsuit, for example. But again, consider the unseen. Marriott’s management has created a possible advantage for their competitors. The man has been given his moment in the limelight, a fantastic opportunity to better himself and his situation.
- darawk 9y agoIndeed that is true. But stories like this have emotional salience, because they happened to real people. The jobs that didn't get created in the first place don't have that same resonance, because they're for theoretical people. But the harm is no less real. And the important question is that we at least try to empirically evaluate the question of which is worse, rather than simply indexing on the emotional resonance of anecdotes like this one.