3 ms·

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

ilovetux 3y ago
There are two main reasons: First, and probably the largest motivator, is that if you fire someone without cause they will typically be able to collect on unemployment insurance which would increase the employers premiums each month. Second, nobody likes to fire people especially if they haven't done anything wrong. Also, layoffs like this hurt the moralle of the remaining workers which could turn into too much turnover. Having someone quit is usually preferable to increasing costs and hurting moralle, but that will not stop businesses from doing what they feel the need to do.
- Ajay-p 3y ago
  You forget the legal ramifications of firing someone. If they are a protected class - POC, women, disabled, etc. - it can mean a large headache in the form of a lawsuit, or a complaint to a labor board. Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Without proof, plaintiffs will not get anywhere. If an employer wants to terminate employment just to reduce expenses, there is negligible legal risk.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization. Just to quickly clarify on this, firing someone for advocating for a union is illegal regardless of their protected status, employee organization is itself a protected activity. If a business ever does get into hot water over something this, I would very much advise against saying to a judge, "no, our decision to fire had nothing to do with discrimination, we were merely retaliating against an employee for organizing."
stronglikedan 3y ago
Only in "at will" states, and usually then, only when your company is small enough (like <50 employees). And even then, you still have to be careful to not give a reason. If you give any hint of a reason, the employee can sue for it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Only Montana is not at will, and their population is negligible. And the reason can be as simple as “no business need to continue employment”. And you can sue for anyone for anything at anytime, but it does not mean you will get anywhere, except losing money on court fees or lawyers. The only direct monetary cost to employers is increased unemployment benefit insurance premiums due to having more previous employees collecting unemployment benefits.
pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
Plausible deniability. Laying off people sends a signal to the market that failing to hire does not.
michaelt 3y ago
Well, the headaches are pretty minor: Bosses who want to cut headcount without layoffs can do so by just not replacing people who quit - if nobody's quitting, that's not possible. Things like training schemes might have been sized on the assumption you'll have >100 open positions in a year's time, when these 100 trainees finish the scheme. Firing them instead is not good for anyone involved. Bored star employees can't move teams if other teams don't have open spaces. And some people think constant employee movement stops teams becoming 'stagnant' as job hoppers sometimes bring in experience, ideas and methods from outside.
davio 3y ago
It's a headache at a population level. Given a 10,000+ company, they will have plans for X% retiring, Y% leaving, Z% college hires to replace them. Most HR departments I have worked with track "regrettable turnover" - how many high performers are we losing.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Answer is media companies need clicks to earn money, so they pump out garbage articles proposing nonsense premises to increase likelihood of people clicking on it.

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

ilovetux 3y ago

There are two main reasons: First, and probably the largest motivator, is that if you fire someone without cause they will typically be able to collect on unemployment insurance which would increase the employers premiums each month. Second, nobody likes to fire people especially if they haven't done anything wrong. Also, layoffs like this hurt the moralle of the remaining workers which could turn into too much turnover. Having someone quit is usually preferable to increasing costs and hurting moralle, but that will not stop businesses from doing what they feel the need to do.

Ajay-p 3y ago
You forget the legal ramifications of firing someone. If they are a protected class - POC, women, disabled, etc. - it can mean a large headache in the form of a lawsuit, or a complaint to a labor board. Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Without proof, plaintiffs will not get anywhere. If an employer wants to terminate employment just to reduce expenses, there is negligible legal risk.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization. Just to quickly clarify on this, firing someone for advocating for a union is illegal regardless of their protected status, employee organization is itself a protected activity. If a business ever does get into hot water over something this, I would very much advise against saying to a judge, "no, our decision to fire had nothing to do with discrimination, we were merely retaliating against an employee for organizing."

stronglikedan 3y ago

Only in "at will" states, and usually then, only when your company is small enough (like <50 employees). And even then, you still have to be careful to not give a reason. If you give any hint of a reason, the employee can sue for it.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Only Montana is not at will, and their population is negligible. And the reason can be as simple as “no business need to continue employment”. And you can sue for anyone for anything at anytime, but it does not mean you will get anywhere, except losing money on court fees or lawyers. The only direct monetary cost to employers is increased unemployment benefit insurance premiums due to having more previous employees collecting unemployment benefits.

pwdisswordfishc 3y ago

Plausible deniability. Laying off people sends a signal to the market that failing to hire does not.

michaelt 3y ago

Well, the headaches are pretty minor: Bosses who want to cut headcount without layoffs can do so by just not replacing people who quit - if nobody's quitting, that's not possible. Things like training schemes might have been sized on the assumption you'll have >100 open positions in a year's time, when these 100 trainees finish the scheme. Firing them instead is not good for anyone involved. Bored star employees can't move teams if other teams don't have open spaces. And some people think constant employee movement stops teams becoming 'stagnant' as job hoppers sometimes bring in experience, ideas and methods from outside.

davio 3y ago

It's a headache at a population level. Given a 10,000+ company, they will have plans for X% retiring, Y% leaving, Z% college hires to replace them. Most HR departments I have worked with track "regrettable turnover" - how many high performers are we losing.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Answer is media companies need clicks to earn money, so they pump out garbage articles proposing nonsense premises to increase likelihood of people clicking on it.