7 ms·

For salaried, at-will employment, the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want. There are exceptions for, like, sexual

For salaried, at-will employment, the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want. There are exceptions for, like, sexual harassment and racial discrimination, but not for "I disagree with the boss about what is a realistic project timeline".

gitfan86 4y ago
The nice thing is that this goes both ways. If you are an at-will employee you can send an email that says "I resign effective immediately" and walk away and never speak to anyone at that company ever again.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  Who’s hurt more: the company whose employee leaves on the spot, or the employee whose company fires them on the spot? At-will is asymmetric.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    It is the definition of symmetrical. Both parties can cut ties at any time without any warning. In general employers are able to benefit from this symmetrical relationship more often though since they are only losing a small percentage of their workers while the employee is losing 100% of the income they were getting from that employeer.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      Symmetry can exist on one axis but not another. Sure it's symmetrical on the "actions an entity can take axis", but when people refer to the employee/employer relationship being asymmetrical they are discussing the risk or impact axis.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      >It is the definition of symmetrical. GP was clearly talking about the assymetry of consequences, not the action itself. You intentionally misinterpreted them.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Depends on the role, the company, and the timing. A single worker in an important position leaving on the spot, dropping some critical work half-way done and taking all the context and specific knowledge with them, could easily torpedo a million dollar deal. Or, a single employee leaving could trigger a cascade, and soon you're short a whole project team. In general, I'd say at-will still favors employers, who are in a better position to structurally mitigate the threat of a critical employee leaving, even though they often don't do so.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      I'll note that a company that depends on a single employee like this has failed to plan and is already in trouble. No matter how well you treat them, your critical employees will leave. You might be able to pay them well enough to limit the risk on them taking another job (though few employers do) but even with that sooner or later they'll win the lottery, get hit by a bus, or just retire. A business can and must hedge against critical employees leaving. It's much harder as an employee to hedge against your employer giving you the boot.
      - josho 4y ago
        As an example to further illustrate your point, it is possible for a business to purchase key employee insurance. As an employee we do not have the same privilege.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        It's just a nitpick and it doesn't impact GP's point all that much, but: surely employees in the US have some sort of job loss insurance - if not standalone, then attached to a mortgage or life insurance?
        bombcar 4y ago
        It's usually unemployment insurance and it's provided by the state (literally, it'll be the state the employee resides in - here's California's: https://edd.ca.gov https://edd.ca.gov ). There ARE "insurance" products that will "defer your credit/mortgage payments in case of a job loss" - they are almost all universally some form of scam (or at least a very bad "insurance").
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - prepend 4y ago
    I’ve worked in many positions where I had unique knowledge. If the company fired me without notice, I’d have a new job within a few days. If I quit without notice, high revenue systems could fail or not launch. I kind of like software because of this. An individual has great value. Of course, I wouldn’t want to work for a company that fires people Willy nilly. But for software at-will can definitely be asymmetric benefiting the employee. Software developers aren’t replaceable cogs.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  This causes minimal hard to a business and zero harm to Musk's ability to afford yachts. But a very large number of employees have jobs because they need to pay rent and buy food. Losing that job is a significant change to their lives. Software engineers are more likely to have large savings that make it easier for them to say "fuck you" to their boss and leave but in general this system of at will employment is not actually balanced.
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
Correct. In the US, all working people serve and exist under authoritarian regimes as a matter of life or death.
xnorswap 4y ago
> the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want In the US. I'm glad I work in a country where workers actually have rights.
- drstewart 4y ago
  Good for you.
  - lucozade 4y ago
    Well yes. Yes it is.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  You probably don't work in a country with a 3.5% unemployment rate.
  - xnorswap 4y ago
    Actually I do, precisely 3.5% in fact: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
  - nebula8804 4y ago
    That unemployment rate is nonsense. If you want a job that does not pay you enough to even afford a studio apartment in many locales then yes there are multiple jobs ready to take you. Hell they'll even provide you some free (candy\pens\fast food\a pat on the back) to further tempt the deal. For everyone else that unemployment rate is a mirage.
    - LightG 4y ago
      Are you telling me there are no housing affordability problems in the US? Fascinating.
- jdm2212 4y ago
grumple 4y ago
This is not true. I don't know who told you this. All of these relationships are two way. If they make a demand to change the expectations of working hours and work time, you say no, I won't do that. They can fire you if they don't like the relationship, but even in the US you're likely to win at least unemployment benefits.
monksy 4y ago
That is not true in the least. Keeping corps honest about that requires legal action. https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overtime-lawsuit/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overt... There are legal, labor, consequences for cultures that expect more than 40 hours on average.

gitfan86 4y ago

The nice thing is that this goes both ways. If you are an at-will employee you can send an email that says "I resign effective immediately" and walk away and never speak to anyone at that company ever again.

robin_reala 4y ago
Who’s hurt more: the company whose employee leaves on the spot, or the employee whose company fires them on the spot? At-will is asymmetric.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  It is the definition of symmetrical. Both parties can cut ties at any time without any warning. In general employers are able to benefit from this symmetrical relationship more often though since they are only losing a small percentage of their workers while the employee is losing 100% of the income they were getting from that employeer.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    Symmetry can exist on one axis but not another. Sure it's symmetrical on the "actions an entity can take axis", but when people refer to the employee/employer relationship being asymmetrical they are discussing the risk or impact axis.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    >It is the definition of symmetrical. GP was clearly talking about the assymetry of consequences, not the action itself. You intentionally misinterpreted them.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Depends on the role, the company, and the timing. A single worker in an important position leaving on the spot, dropping some critical work half-way done and taking all the context and specific knowledge with them, could easily torpedo a million dollar deal. Or, a single employee leaving could trigger a cascade, and soon you're short a whole project team. In general, I'd say at-will still favors employers, who are in a better position to structurally mitigate the threat of a critical employee leaving, even though they often don't do so.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    I'll note that a company that depends on a single employee like this has failed to plan and is already in trouble. No matter how well you treat them, your critical employees will leave. You might be able to pay them well enough to limit the risk on them taking another job (though few employers do) but even with that sooner or later they'll win the lottery, get hit by a bus, or just retire. A business can and must hedge against critical employees leaving. It's much harder as an employee to hedge against your employer giving you the boot.
    - josho 4y ago
      As an example to further illustrate your point, it is possible for a business to purchase key employee insurance. As an employee we do not have the same privilege.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        It's just a nitpick and it doesn't impact GP's point all that much, but: surely employees in the US have some sort of job loss insurance - if not standalone, then attached to a mortgage or life insurance?
        bombcar 4y ago
        It's usually unemployment insurance and it's provided by the state (literally, it'll be the state the employee resides in - here's California's: https://edd.ca.gov https://edd.ca.gov ). There ARE "insurance" products that will "defer your credit/mortgage payments in case of a job loss" - they are almost all universally some form of scam (or at least a very bad "insurance").
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 4y ago
  I’ve worked in many positions where I had unique knowledge. If the company fired me without notice, I’d have a new job within a few days. If I quit without notice, high revenue systems could fail or not launch. I kind of like software because of this. An individual has great value. Of course, I wouldn’t want to work for a company that fires people Willy nilly. But for software at-will can definitely be asymmetric benefiting the employee. Software developers aren’t replaceable cogs.
UncleMeat 4y ago
This causes minimal hard to a business and zero harm to Musk's ability to afford yachts. But a very large number of employees have jobs because they need to pay rent and buy food. Losing that job is a significant change to their lives. Software engineers are more likely to have large savings that make it easier for them to say "fuck you" to their boss and leave but in general this system of at will employment is not actually balanced.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

Correct. In the US, all working people serve and exist under authoritarian regimes as a matter of life or death.

xnorswap 4y ago

> the employer can demand whatever they want and fire you for whatever reason they want In the US. I'm glad I work in a country where workers actually have rights.

drstewart 4y ago
Good for you.
- lucozade 4y ago
  Well yes. Yes it is.
bpodgursky 4y ago
You probably don't work in a country with a 3.5% unemployment rate.
- xnorswap 4y ago
  Actually I do, precisely 3.5% in fact: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...
- nebula8804 4y ago
  That unemployment rate is nonsense. If you want a job that does not pay you enough to even afford a studio apartment in many locales then yes there are multiple jobs ready to take you. Hell they'll even provide you some free (candy\pens\fast food\a pat on the back) to further tempt the deal. For everyone else that unemployment rate is a mirage.
  - LightG 4y ago
    Are you telling me there are no housing affordability problems in the US? Fascinating.
jdm2212 4y ago

grumple 4y ago

This is not true. I don't know who told you this. All of these relationships are two way. If they make a demand to change the expectations of working hours and work time, you say no, I won't do that. They can fire you if they don't like the relationship, but even in the US you're likely to win at least unemployment benefits.

monksy 4y ago

That is not true in the least. Keeping corps honest about that requires legal action. https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overtime-lawsuit/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/electronic-arts-faces-overt... There are legal, labor, consequences for cultures that expect more than 40 hours on average.