4 ms·

Yeah - I've never quite understood that "at will" employment status you have over there. Here in Australia, we're a fair bit more heavily unionised than you ar

Yeah - I've never quite understood that "at will" employment status you have over there. Here in Australia, we're a fair bit more heavily unionised than you are over there, which helps keep some of the power imbalance in the employers favour in check. Not that unionisation is perfect though either. When I was growing up it was a regular thing for unions to wield their collective power in aggressively overreaching ways - it was common for transport unions and fuel industry unions to have extended strikes over pay claims right before christmas, tand truck drivers would stop delivering to stores, oil refineries would shut down resulting in fuel rationing, and dock workers would stand down resulting in queues full of container ships full of imported goods on the horizon at the beach in summer.

ethbr0 5y ago
The point of at will employment is that there's supposed to be a free labor market. In that employers are free to act as they desire (hire and fire) and employees are free to act as they desire (hired and quit). The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Granted, there are substantial power balances between the parties, which is why even the US adds some federal protections (can't fire or decide not to hire for certain protected reasons, wage and work hour limitations) and states can add more (most relevant to HN, California's ignoring non-compete agreements). But this particular example just smacks of entitlement, when the government worker protection departments should probably be spending more time on chicken processing factories running 18 hour shifts around band saws and paying minimum wage.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Which is also an option in non At-Will Employment states.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Yes, but limitations on the fire and hire employer side make that a different proposition. The harder it becomes to fire people, the harder it becomes to hire them.

ethbr0 5y ago

The point of at will employment is that there's supposed to be a free labor market. In that employers are free to act as they desire (hire and fire) and employees are free to act as they desire (hired and quit). The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Granted, there are substantial power balances between the parties, which is why even the US adds some federal protections (can't fire or decide not to hire for certain protected reasons, wage and work hour limitations) and states can add more (most relevant to HN, California's ignoring non-compete agreements). But this particular example just smacks of entitlement, when the government worker protection departments should probably be spending more time on chicken processing factories running 18 hour shifts around band saws and paying minimum wage.

Talanes 5y ago
>The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Which is also an option in non At-Will Employment states.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Yes, but limitations on the fire and hire employer side make that a different proposition. The harder it becomes to fire people, the harder it becomes to hire them.