5 ms·

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good

"At-will"?! I had no idea that in California you could just terminate employment for no reason. Coming from Australia where you can't fire anybody without good reason (even demoting people can be considered unfair dismissal) this just sounds insane.

frossie 15y ago
In fact the majority of states in the US are at-will employment states. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Pretty much the only significant reason you can't get terminated in the US is as a direct result of being in a protected class (so you can't fire someone for being black but you can fire a black person for any other reason including no reason at all)
josephcooney 15y ago
I'm not an Australian employment lawyer (or any kind of lawyer for that matter), but I believe companies under a certain size are exempt from unfair dismissal laws.
- alastairpat 15y ago
  I may be wrong, but I think that was wound back as part of WorkChoices being repealed.
acheron 15y ago
Can you quit your job for no reason in Australia?
- alastairpat 15y ago
  Yeah, of course. You might be required to give 2 weeks' notice or something and if you're contracted you might be liable for breach of contract but nobody's going to force you to work.
postfuturist 15y ago
"At-will" means that either both the employer and employee can break it off at any time. It's the maximum freedom for everyone involved. No company is compelled to hire anyone, why should they be compelled to continue employing someone indefinitely?
- alastairpat 15y ago
  It's a compelling argument, but if there wasn't "at-will" firing, this sort of underhanded "give us our shares back or we'll fire you" stuff that Zynga is purportedly doing couldn't happen without nasty court cases.
- nknight 15y ago
  Notice how you say "maximum freedom for everyone involved", and then "no company is compelled to hire anyone". The cultural disconnect lies right there. Corporate personhood is a funny artifact of English Common Law, and its present state in the US is almost unique. Much of the world views corporations rather differently than our (I'm assuming you're American) legal system does. When you start from the premise that a corporation is an artificial construct that exists at the whim of, for the purposes intended by, and for the general good of, society as expressed through laws, including a corporation in words like "everyone", and speaking of its "freedom", becomes nonsensical.
Kavan 15y ago
Most of Europe is the same too. Employment laws are pretty onerous. This is great for employees and I think more or less works in mature industries and businesses (think of a 10 year employee, who gets a new boss that they dont get on with so the boss just fires them). This stricter regulation does make starting businesses very difficult, and a definite advantage the US has over Europe. I think the answer is combination of the two where there is some kind of threshold where new/small companies have more freedom to dismiss, but forces larger businesses to treat their employees fairly.
chollida1 15y ago
Playing devils advocate, Why shouldn't things be symmetrical between the employee and employer when it comes to leaving? If an employee can give 2 weeks notice to say they are quiting at any time for any reason, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to do the same.
- alastairpat 15y ago
  As I said below (above? Depends on how it renders), it's a valid argument. I guess the only real counterargument is that employers (by default) have a lot of power over their employees. If an employer decides to fire somebody, it'll make very little difference to the company - they'll just hire somebody else. However, losing your job as an employee is devastating. It's financially difficult and job hunting (particularly in this economic climate) is difficult. I suppose that Australian employment laws are an attempt to make things more equal and force employers to really think before hiring/firing – it makes employees people again rather than just entries in a payroll system.
  - chollida1 15y ago
    > it's a valid argument. I guess the only real counterargument is that employers (by default) have a lot of power over their employees. If an employer decides to fire somebody, it'll make very little difference to the company - they'll just hire somebody else. However, losing your job as an employee is devastating. Ah, this is a very good point!
aneth 15y ago
I think this is illustrative of a fundamental difference in philosophy between employment in the USA versus elsewhere, and one which favors economic growth and innovation over social stability. Requiring cause to fire someone is business-hostile at best. Business can not improve efficiency, pivot, or generally adapt to changing markets if they are not free to hire and fire at will. The one major point most "liberals" (in the American sense) miss regarding employment security is that employers are far less likely to take risks on hiring - whether in quantity, salary, or experience - when they can not fire at-will. This leads to less employment overall, not more. The arguments are similar to other well intentioned, but seriously deleterious policies, such as rent control and Calfornia's "Prop 13." That said, ethics and treating people well are very important. I find Zynga's actions unethical and think there is a good chance they should be held civilly liable.
- A1kmm 15y ago
  > Requiring cause to fire someone is business-hostile at best Generally, in countries which require reasons for dismissal, there is a distinction between a redundancy and a dismissal. A redundancy means that the position someone is working in is declared not to exist (and so no one will be hired to replace the redundant employee), while a dismissal means the position continues but the employment of the employee filling that position is ended by the company. Changing the size of a workforce to "improve efficiency, pivot, or generally adapt to changing markets" is done through redundancies, not through dismissals, and redundancies can generally happen on whatever terms are agreed to in the employment agreement. If an employee genuinely isn't working out in a no-fire-at-will country, the employee generally has to be treated fairly and given an opportunity to correct the problems, but they can still be dismissed if they are unable to rectify the problems. The cost of a dismissal might be slightly higher in a non-fire-at-will company, due to the time period when the employee is given a chance to correct the problems, but not significantly, and businesses can still adapt to changing conditions through redundancies. Non-fire-at-will is therefore not a significant barrier to business. However, it protects employees against abusive practices like those of Zynga in this instance - employees who do not have anything like the same bargaining power as the companies they are working for.

frossie 15y ago

In fact the majority of states in the US are at-will employment states. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Pretty much the only significant reason you can't get terminated in the US is as a direct result of being in a protected class (so you can't fire someone for being black but you can fire a black person for any other reason including no reason at all)

josephcooney 15y ago

I'm not an Australian employment lawyer (or any kind of lawyer for that matter), but I believe companies under a certain size are exempt from unfair dismissal laws.

alastairpat 15y ago
I may be wrong, but I think that was wound back as part of WorkChoices being repealed.

acheron 15y ago

Can you quit your job for no reason in Australia?

alastairpat 15y ago
Yeah, of course. You might be required to give 2 weeks' notice or something and if you're contracted you might be liable for breach of contract but nobody's going to force you to work.

postfuturist 15y ago

"At-will" means that either both the employer and employee can break it off at any time. It's the maximum freedom for everyone involved. No company is compelled to hire anyone, why should they be compelled to continue employing someone indefinitely?

alastairpat 15y ago
It's a compelling argument, but if there wasn't "at-will" firing, this sort of underhanded "give us our shares back or we'll fire you" stuff that Zynga is purportedly doing couldn't happen without nasty court cases.
nknight 15y ago
Notice how you say "maximum freedom for everyone involved", and then "no company is compelled to hire anyone". The cultural disconnect lies right there. Corporate personhood is a funny artifact of English Common Law, and its present state in the US is almost unique. Much of the world views corporations rather differently than our (I'm assuming you're American) legal system does. When you start from the premise that a corporation is an artificial construct that exists at the whim of, for the purposes intended by, and for the general good of, society as expressed through laws, including a corporation in words like "everyone", and speaking of its "freedom", becomes nonsensical.

Kavan 15y ago

Most of Europe is the same too. Employment laws are pretty onerous. This is great for employees and I think more or less works in mature industries and businesses (think of a 10 year employee, who gets a new boss that they dont get on with so the boss just fires them). This stricter regulation does make starting businesses very difficult, and a definite advantage the US has over Europe. I think the answer is combination of the two where there is some kind of threshold where new/small companies have more freedom to dismiss, but forces larger businesses to treat their employees fairly.

chollida1 15y ago

Playing devils advocate, Why shouldn't things be symmetrical between the employee and employer when it comes to leaving? If an employee can give 2 weeks notice to say they are quiting at any time for any reason, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to do the same.

alastairpat 15y ago
As I said below (above? Depends on how it renders), it's a valid argument. I guess the only real counterargument is that employers (by default) have a lot of power over their employees. If an employer decides to fire somebody, it'll make very little difference to the company - they'll just hire somebody else. However, losing your job as an employee is devastating. It's financially difficult and job hunting (particularly in this economic climate) is difficult. I suppose that Australian employment laws are an attempt to make things more equal and force employers to really think before hiring/firing – it makes employees people again rather than just entries in a payroll system.
- chollida1 15y ago
  > it's a valid argument. I guess the only real counterargument is that employers (by default) have a lot of power over their employees. If an employer decides to fire somebody, it'll make very little difference to the company - they'll just hire somebody else. However, losing your job as an employee is devastating. Ah, this is a very good point!

aneth 15y ago

I think this is illustrative of a fundamental difference in philosophy between employment in the USA versus elsewhere, and one which favors economic growth and innovation over social stability. Requiring cause to fire someone is business-hostile at best. Business can not improve efficiency, pivot, or generally adapt to changing markets if they are not free to hire and fire at will. The one major point most "liberals" (in the American sense) miss regarding employment security is that employers are far less likely to take risks on hiring - whether in quantity, salary, or experience - when they can not fire at-will. This leads to less employment overall, not more. The arguments are similar to other well intentioned, but seriously deleterious policies, such as rent control and Calfornia's "Prop 13." That said, ethics and treating people well are very important. I find Zynga's actions unethical and think there is a good chance they should be held civilly liable.

A1kmm 15y ago
> Requiring cause to fire someone is business-hostile at best Generally, in countries which require reasons for dismissal, there is a distinction between a redundancy and a dismissal. A redundancy means that the position someone is working in is declared not to exist (and so no one will be hired to replace the redundant employee), while a dismissal means the position continues but the employment of the employee filling that position is ended by the company. Changing the size of a workforce to "improve efficiency, pivot, or generally adapt to changing markets" is done through redundancies, not through dismissals, and redundancies can generally happen on whatever terms are agreed to in the employment agreement. If an employee genuinely isn't working out in a no-fire-at-will country, the employee generally has to be treated fairly and given an opportunity to correct the problems, but they can still be dismissed if they are unable to rectify the problems. The cost of a dismissal might be slightly higher in a non-fire-at-will company, due to the time period when the employee is given a chance to correct the problems, but not significantly, and businesses can still adapt to changing conditions through redundancies. Non-fire-at-will is therefore not a significant barrier to business. However, it protects employees against abusive practices like those of Zynga in this instance - employees who do not have anything like the same bargaining power as the companies they are working for.