4 ms·

I find it so odd to describe firing someone as "whimsical" I think its even more whimsical to expect the government to step in and force your employer to conti

I find it so odd to describe firing someone as "whimsical" I think its even more whimsical to expect the government to step in and force your employer to continue employing you if they dont want to.

diroussel 2y ago
So should you be able to terminate any contract for no reason and no notice whenever you want? Or should you be able to go to court and sue for breach of contract?
- piker 2y ago
  You’re operating under an assumption that there is an employment contract with a long notice period in place. In many (most?) American jobs this is not the case.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    In Britain the "casualisation" of labour is considered a big problem and unions fight it. As we see in this thread, many Americans believe that it's actually a good idea. But if you go look at the actual behaviour at the top and bottom you see that as with many of these things the supposedly "bad" benefits labour movements in Europe fought to get for their workers are just like the things "good" senior management have agreed for themselves (but deny to their workers) in the US.
    - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
      Honestly I think the difference is that there is a higher rate of self employment/small business ownership. The more legal burden placed on hiring and firing the more you fuck over small operations and give advantage to larger ones. I think this may at least partially explain the attitude of americans. Less of an us vs them mentality cause many lowly workers ARE senior management of their own gig.
- _xerces_ 2y ago
  Most jobs in the USA are "at will" meaning there is no contract and either you or your employer can decided to terminate the arrangement at any time for any (legal) reason.
- FredPret 2y ago
  In practice the first is sometimes true, and the second always. Employment contracts in the US can be at-will, which means either party can walk away at any point for no reason. Sounds awful, until you look at US salaries and average wealth levels. Turns out that easy firing = easy hiring = more demand for workers = easier to be an entrepreneur = even more hiring = more market power for workers.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I don't think you can infer causality here. There are plenty of countries with easy firing (think sweatshops) and abysmal wealth levels. The US is wealthy for a bunch of reasons, including being a superpower and controlling the global reserve currency.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      The US got to be a dollar-pringing superpower because of its commitment to economic growth. If you look at places with easy firing, I think you’ll find they are growing extremely rapidly. Vietnam and China used to be the poster children for kids making sneakers and look at them grow today.
      - davisoneee 2y ago
        The US got to be a superpower because of 2 world wars and massive purchasing of US armaments by the allies, effectively transferring British Empire wealth across the water, kickstarting large local manufacturing, and being a safe production hub after the wars.
        FredPret 2y ago
        Only militarily did the US become a superpower in WW2. I was an economic powerhouse long before then. The 1930's US stock market crash brought down the entire world! As another point, it's not possible to make a ton of money selling weapons if you don't already have a thriving manufacturing sector. You have to at least be doing well to begin with. According to [0], the US reached parity with the UK (probably the richest country in Europe at the time?) in terms of GDP per capita in 1880! [0] https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020?lang=en https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/relea...
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  No I think you just should have the ability to have your contract with employees setup however you want it and the government can keep their mitts out
criley2 2y ago
A business having to keep someone for some time that they don't like is the reality of labor and the cost of doing business. If that business signed a contract for materials and turns out halfway through they don't like the materials, they can't just stop paying and fire the supplier. They have to deal with it as part of their business and move forward in the responsible and legal way. Treating labor similarly isn't shocking and the social benefits of folks having job security are hard to overstate. For example, all the places with these kinds of labor controls seem to have A LOT less homeless.
AlexandrB 2y ago
I think it's fair to describe the way Elon fires people[1] as "whimsical". The reason the government has a role here is to prevent people getting fired for being black/white/male/female/etc. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-fired-anyone-who-disagreed-spacex-report-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-f...
t_von_doom 2y ago
(UK) The govt. does not force the employer to continue employing you - but they do guarantee you are given a fair amount of notice and some severance pay depending on tenure. The above is in the case of redundancies, being ‘fired’ for cause has a different set of criteria and protections, but the onus is on the employer to prove beyond reasonable doubt what you are being fired for

I find it so odd to describe firing someone as "whimsical" I think its even more whimsical to expect the government to step in and force your employer to continue employing you if they dont want to.

diroussel 2y ago

So should you be able to terminate any contract for no reason and no notice whenever you want? Or should you be able to go to court and sue for breach of contract?

piker 2y ago
You’re operating under an assumption that there is an employment contract with a long notice period in place. In many (most?) American jobs this is not the case.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  In Britain the "casualisation" of labour is considered a big problem and unions fight it. As we see in this thread, many Americans believe that it's actually a good idea. But if you go look at the actual behaviour at the top and bottom you see that as with many of these things the supposedly "bad" benefits labour movements in Europe fought to get for their workers are just like the things "good" senior management have agreed for themselves (but deny to their workers) in the US.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    Honestly I think the difference is that there is a higher rate of self employment/small business ownership. The more legal burden placed on hiring and firing the more you fuck over small operations and give advantage to larger ones. I think this may at least partially explain the attitude of americans. Less of an us vs them mentality cause many lowly workers ARE senior management of their own gig.
_xerces_ 2y ago
Most jobs in the USA are "at will" meaning there is no contract and either you or your employer can decided to terminate the arrangement at any time for any (legal) reason.
FredPret 2y ago
In practice the first is sometimes true, and the second always. Employment contracts in the US can be at-will, which means either party can walk away at any point for no reason. Sounds awful, until you look at US salaries and average wealth levels. Turns out that easy firing = easy hiring = more demand for workers = easier to be an entrepreneur = even more hiring = more market power for workers.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  I don't think you can infer causality here. There are plenty of countries with easy firing (think sweatshops) and abysmal wealth levels. The US is wealthy for a bunch of reasons, including being a superpower and controlling the global reserve currency.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The US got to be a dollar-pringing superpower because of its commitment to economic growth. If you look at places with easy firing, I think you’ll find they are growing extremely rapidly. Vietnam and China used to be the poster children for kids making sneakers and look at them grow today.
    - davisoneee 2y ago
      The US got to be a superpower because of 2 world wars and massive purchasing of US armaments by the allies, effectively transferring British Empire wealth across the water, kickstarting large local manufacturing, and being a safe production hub after the wars.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        Only militarily did the US become a superpower in WW2. I was an economic powerhouse long before then. The 1930's US stock market crash brought down the entire world! As another point, it's not possible to make a ton of money selling weapons if you don't already have a thriving manufacturing sector. You have to at least be doing well to begin with. According to [0], the US reached parity with the UK (probably the richest country in Europe at the time?) in terms of GDP per capita in 1880! [0] https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020?lang=en https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/relea...
DontchaKnowit 2y ago
No I think you just should have the ability to have your contract with employees setup however you want it and the government can keep their mitts out

criley2 2y ago

A business having to keep someone for some time that they don't like is the reality of labor and the cost of doing business. If that business signed a contract for materials and turns out halfway through they don't like the materials, they can't just stop paying and fire the supplier. They have to deal with it as part of their business and move forward in the responsible and legal way. Treating labor similarly isn't shocking and the social benefits of folks having job security are hard to overstate. For example, all the places with these kinds of labor controls seem to have A LOT less homeless.

AlexandrB 2y ago

I think it's fair to describe the way Elon fires people[1] as "whimsical". The reason the government has a role here is to prevent people getting fired for being black/white/male/female/etc. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-fired-anyone-who-disagreed-spacex-report-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-f...

t_von_doom 2y ago

(UK) The govt. does not force the employer to continue employing you - but they do guarantee you are given a fair amount of notice and some severance pay depending on tenure. The above is in the case of redundancies, being ‘fired’ for cause has a different set of criteria and protections, but the onus is on the employer to prove beyond reasonable doubt what you are being fired for