3 ms·
All firings for cause will reduce hiring. It will create more illiquidity in the labor market, drive down wages and reduce mobility and efficiency. Look at the
by briandear 9y ago
All firings for cause will reduce hiring. It will create more illiquidity in the labor market, drive down wages and reduce mobility and efficiency. Look at the French labor market if you want to see how that nightmare plays out. 10%+ unemployment and a vast increase in time-limited, non-permanent work.
I don’t owe you a job. If I don’t need you any more, why the hell should I be forced to owe you?
Are you required to buy the same amount of groceries each week? Why not? Same for labor. When you need less, you buy less, when you need more, you buy more.
- mjevans 9y agoI'm not an expert on that; however wouldn't the issue be with the /difficulty/ in firing, not the fact that it merely has to be documented and for a 'valid' reason? Though now that you mention it, such reasons probably should be regulated the same way sealed court records are; unless challenged in a lawsuit. Also, from the perspective of an employer, a valid reason very well could be the end of the project that a contract is for; such a termination / re-evaluation date should be built in to the contact and clear up front.
- tekknik 9y agoThat’s more laying off than firing. Forcing a cause to fire/lay off someone makes the company think long and hard before hiring you since they’ll be stuck with you, therefore less hiring. Not to mention “unfirable” workers leads to less quality.