4 ms·
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 unem
by 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 agoYou 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 agoWithout 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."