3 ms·
>Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job. This sounds strange to me. Since there's a massive power imbalance between employee and employer, h
by itsoktocry 4y ago
>Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job.
This sounds strange to me. Since there's a massive power imbalance between employee and employer, how is that seen as an equivalent tradeoff?
- notafraudster 4y agoAt-will employment laws aren't an equivalent tradeoff -- which is why they are very uncommon outside the United States -- but the alleged benefit of such an arrangement to an employee is two-fold: 1. In places where termination is for cause, termination often causes an employee not to have access to various government benefits 2. At-will employment likely encourages more hiring in the first place, so it's possible that with more restricted firing you'd never have gotten the job. I do not feel these benefits make up for the drawbacks and do not favour at-will as an organizing principle for industrial relations. But I just figured it would make sense to at least say the apparent argument.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoIt should be mentioned here that "for cause" can be any number of things, including simply "attendence issues", which realistically can be any sickness of you or your children that aren't quite covered by FMLA. All this realistically takes is you plus your three young children getting influenza at different times in a span of two months. Or not working mandatory overtime due to child care issues.
- scollet 4y agoYou may also be fired for your race and gender. They just have to find an excuse.
- djbebs 4y agoHow is there a power imbalance?
- 0daystock 4y agoDoesn't seem imbalanced to me. I can leave and take my labor to any other company tomorrow without obligations, covenants or restrictions (non-compete agreements notwithstanding). I prefer at-will employment. Perhaps low-skill or low-quality workers feel otherwise, but I'm confident in my ability to gain employment.