5 ms·

So what would that look like? Would employers no longer field public complaints about potential problem employees, under any circumstances? In effect, they woul

by zxzax 5y ago

So what would that look like? Would employers no longer field public complaints about potential problem employees, under any circumstances? In effect, they would be required to always side with the employee in case of a dispute?

exporectomy 5y ago
Perhaps it would exclude complaints about what they do in their job but firing someone for things they do that are unrelated to their job could be protected, like what happened in their personal relationships or what they posted on the internet if it's not part of their work.
- zxzax 5y ago
  That seems to hinge a lot on having a specific and consistent definition of what "related to the job" and "part of their work" means that won't unfairly affect some companies, maybe there is an established legal definition of that somewhere?
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    The legal system manages to work out vague definitions. Here's an excerpt from New Zealand's employment law regarding unjustifiable dismissal: "The test is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred." How's that for specific and consistent! Yet it still provides protection against capricious firing.
    - zxzax 5y ago
      Some US states do have laws of that type, though not all of them. In general, the answer to any kind of employer abuse is mostly the same as always: unionize.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Picture someone you really dislike, for some good reason. Now imagine you hired that person before they did whatever, or before you found out. Now you're stuck with them. Now your company is known primarily for what they did and you are losing business.
  - lordloki 5y ago
    If everyone knows the company can't fire them, then why target the company in the first place?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      The company is paying George the Putrescent Person to do nothing, because nobody there wants to work with him, either?
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    So basically the way it was with overt racist and sexist hiring before that was illegal? The solution is to suck it up and let the other employees who are too bigoted to cope quit.
lmm 5y ago
It would look like France, Japan, or, y'know, most industrialised countries. Employers would be required to give cause for any firing, and follow a documented process in which the employee has certain rights (e.g. the right to be assisted by a union representative, see the evidence against them, respond to allegations).
- zxzax 5y ago
  In some cases, that is how it already works in the US: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/the-nlrb-and-social-media https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... As usual with legal stuff, the answer really seems to depends on the nature of was posted, and the employment contract that is in place.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > In some cases, that is how it already works in the US: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... Not really. Per your link, employees are protected in a very narrow subset of cases - where what they are doing on social media is 100% protected labour activity. But firing employees arbitrarily for social media posts (outside of those narrow protections) is completely fine. That's completely backwards from how it works in most of the developed world, where the burden of proof is on the employer who must show that the firing was for a permitted cause, rather than the employee having to show that they were fired for a non-permitted cause.

by zxzax 5y ago

exporectomy 5y ago

Perhaps it would exclude complaints about what they do in their job but firing someone for things they do that are unrelated to their job could be protected, like what happened in their personal relationships or what they posted on the internet if it's not part of their work.

zxzax 5y ago
That seems to hinge a lot on having a specific and consistent definition of what "related to the job" and "part of their work" means that won't unfairly affect some companies, maybe there is an established legal definition of that somewhere?
- exporectomy 5y ago
  The legal system manages to work out vague definitions. Here's an excerpt from New Zealand's employment law regarding unjustifiable dismissal: "The test is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred." How's that for specific and consistent! Yet it still provides protection against capricious firing.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    Some US states do have laws of that type, though not all of them. In general, the answer to any kind of employer abuse is mostly the same as always: unionize.
mcguire 5y ago
Picture someone you really dislike, for some good reason. Now imagine you hired that person before they did whatever, or before you found out. Now you're stuck with them. Now your company is known primarily for what they did and you are losing business.
- lordloki 5y ago
  If everyone knows the company can't fire them, then why target the company in the first place?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    The company is paying George the Putrescent Person to do nothing, because nobody there wants to work with him, either?
- exporectomy 5y ago
  So basically the way it was with overt racist and sexist hiring before that was illegal? The solution is to suck it up and let the other employees who are too bigoted to cope quit.

lmm 5y ago

It would look like France, Japan, or, y'know, most industrialised countries. Employers would be required to give cause for any firing, and follow a documented process in which the employee has certain rights (e.g. the right to be assisted by a union representative, see the evidence against them, respond to allegations).

zxzax 5y ago
In some cases, that is how it already works in the US: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/the-nlrb-and-social-media https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... As usual with legal stuff, the answer really seems to depends on the nature of was posted, and the employment contract that is in place.
- lmm 5y ago
  > In some cases, that is how it already works in the US: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right... Not really. Per your link, employees are protected in a very narrow subset of cases - where what they are doing on social media is 100% protected labour activity. But firing employees arbitrarily for social media posts (outside of those narrow protections) is completely fine. That's completely backwards from how it works in most of the developed world, where the burden of proof is on the employer who must show that the firing was for a permitted cause, rather than the employee having to show that they were fired for a non-permitted cause.