4 ms·

That isn't how labor law works. Employees in his state are most likely at-will and can be fired without notice.

matsemann 3y ago
Damn your labor laws over there are wild. And you just accept that? To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  Why so you think working for uber is fundamentally worse than being a part time low wage worker with almost no flexibility anywhere else?
  - matsemann 3y ago
    That's my point. You accept one bad thing because other things are also bad. Should instead solve both.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      Right. But turning two things which are bad in different ways into one doesn’t seem to accomplish much besides limit whatever choice is left.
- sneak 3y ago
  We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary. Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday. I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    Why is it silly? To me it sounds silly never really knowing if you have a job the next day, if you can pay your bills, your mortgage, buy food. That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.
    - sneak 3y ago
      The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer. The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
      - matsemann 3y ago
        Can you find a new job the very next day? Can everyone? Why not at least have a few weeks, what's the harm in that?
        sneak 3y ago
        "the very next day" is arbitrary - you were talking about bills, those are usually due monthly. It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.
        matsemann 3y ago
        So all those living paycheck to paycheck should just be screwed? I think your views come from a point of privilege.
        sneak 3y ago
        It's not a matter of my view. The people you describe are only screwed if: - they have no savings or access to credit AND - they get fired on short notice AND - they can't get another job I'm not sure that making the employer fire them with a longer notice period, given that they can't get another job, means they won't be screwed. Therefore, I don't think there is any utility in so restricting the employer. Not having savings is bad and dangerous. That's not caused by labor law.

Damn your labor laws over there are wild. And you just accept that? To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.

ffhhttt 3y ago
Why so you think working for uber is fundamentally worse than being a part time low wage worker with almost no flexibility anywhere else?
- matsemann 3y ago
  That's my point. You accept one bad thing because other things are also bad. Should instead solve both.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    Right. But turning two things which are bad in different ways into one doesn’t seem to accomplish much besides limit whatever choice is left.
sneak 3y ago
We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary. Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday. I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
- matsemann 3y ago
  Why is it silly? To me it sounds silly never really knowing if you have a job the next day, if you can pay your bills, your mortgage, buy food. That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.
  - sneak 3y ago
    The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer. The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      Can you find a new job the very next day? Can everyone? Why not at least have a few weeks, what's the harm in that?
      - sneak 3y ago
        "the very next day" is arbitrary - you were talking about bills, those are usually due monthly. It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.
        matsemann 3y ago
        So all those living paycheck to paycheck should just be screwed? I think your views come from a point of privilege.
        sneak 3y ago
        It's not a matter of my view. The people you describe are only screwed if: - they have no savings or access to credit AND - they get fired on short notice AND - they can't get another job I'm not sure that making the employer fire them with a longer notice period, given that they can't get another job, means they won't be screwed. Therefore, I don't think there is any utility in so restricting the employer. Not having savings is bad and dangerous. That's not caused by labor law.