3 ms·

If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business? I frequently hear this being tr

If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business? I frequently hear this being trotted out as the reason why at-will employment is a good thing. This is, however, not the reality. You can fire employees for many reasons: Poor performance, breaking the rules, and - yes - lack of money. What you cannot do is fire people on the spot for any random reason. You can fire people, but you have to follow a process that is designed to protect both the employer and the employee. I have had to fire people in my employ a few times, and every time I was annoyed at the length and complication of the process I had to follow. I never once thought that at-will employment was a good alternative. As an employer, I strongly believe that the practice is barbaric and uncivilized. Well, you can also quit for any reason, at any time And...? If your business is structured in such a way that this situation would pose an existential threat to your business, you have failed as a business manager. If this situation doesn't pose an existential threat to your business, it is just an annoyance - sucks to be you, I guess. As a reward for the risks and hardships of being a company owner, you get to take home your profits.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
I'm trying to understand how in this and my other comment I am failing to communicate as you seem to be reading the exact opposite of what I'm saying. First, in an at-will state in the US, except for those cases relating to protected classes, you can indeed legally let any employee go for any random reason you desire. Any "complications" involved have been added by your company, in an attempt to protect them from employee lawsuits. Let me just cut to the chase and say this as simply as I can. I think at-will employment is a good thing. As an employee I like knowing I can simply decide to quit on a whim and I see no reason an employer shouldn't have the same freedom.
- dkersten 8y ago
  I live in a country that does not have at-will employment. I can quit at any time with one months notice (or, at the employers discretion, less). A person can be fired for the reasons mdekkers mentioned (bad behaviour, bad performance, lack of money) but there is a procedure to go through (eg for bad performance, you must give warnings first). It works well for employees, who don’t have to worry about the possibility of an asshole manager going on a firing rampage (as the article states happens in Tesla) and it works well for employers because they can fire when necessary, they just cannot legally abuse it. > I see no reason an employer shouldn’t have the same freedom Because its not an equal relationship. Unless the company is very, very small or badly managed, losing an employee or two is much less of a deal for employers than losing their jobs is for the average employee. If the employer really wants rid of the employee for a legitimate reason, they can do so, they just have to jump through a few hoops. If they want to get rid of the person just because, then no, they can’t do that and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed to either. It encourages an abusive or unfair work environment (work longer/harder/more dangerously or I’ll fire you! for example). For the average person, losing their job is devistating. For the average company, losing an employee barely registers. Remember, that most employees don’t have the same flexibility and job availability that most of us on HN do, yet the laws still apply the same.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago

I'm trying to understand how in this and my other comment I am failing to communicate as you seem to be reading the exact opposite of what I'm saying. First, in an at-will state in the US, except for those cases relating to protected classes, you can indeed legally let any employee go for any random reason you desire. Any "complications" involved have been added by your company, in an attempt to protect them from employee lawsuits. Let me just cut to the chase and say this as simply as I can. I think at-will employment is a good thing. As an employee I like knowing I can simply decide to quit on a whim and I see no reason an employer shouldn't have the same freedom.

dkersten 8y ago
I live in a country that does not have at-will employment. I can quit at any time with one months notice (or, at the employers discretion, less). A person can be fired for the reasons mdekkers mentioned (bad behaviour, bad performance, lack of money) but there is a procedure to go through (eg for bad performance, you must give warnings first). It works well for employees, who don’t have to worry about the possibility of an asshole manager going on a firing rampage (as the article states happens in Tesla) and it works well for employers because they can fire when necessary, they just cannot legally abuse it. > I see no reason an employer shouldn’t have the same freedom Because its not an equal relationship. Unless the company is very, very small or badly managed, losing an employee or two is much less of a deal for employers than losing their jobs is for the average employee. If the employer really wants rid of the employee for a legitimate reason, they can do so, they just have to jump through a few hoops. If they want to get rid of the person just because, then no, they can’t do that and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed to either. It encourages an abusive or unfair work environment (work longer/harder/more dangerously or I’ll fire you! for example). For the average person, losing their job is devistating. For the average company, losing an employee barely registers. Remember, that most employees don’t have the same flexibility and job availability that most of us on HN do, yet the laws still apply the same.