7 ms·

Just cause feels like a stretch. Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? Feels like one of those rules that sounds like it could make sense but in real

Just cause feels like a stretch. Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? Feels like one of those rules that sounds like it could make sense but in reality it does not play out and you get this weird cohort of unproductive employees that you can never get rid of.

kayo_20211030 2y ago
I'll take a wild guess and assume that the big sticking point is the demand for just cause termination, with RTO being a somewhat distant second. I can't see management being in love with a just cause protection for employees as an alternative to what I assume is the current employee-at-will arrangement. But, from labor's perspective, it's probably the one thing they'd really like to gain, and for which they'd sacrifice or adjust all their other demands if necessary. To be safe in ones position, with its earnings and benefits, is a desirable position.
dfxm12 2y ago
The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. The definition of "just cause" would be collectively bargained, so both management and the union will understand and agree on what constitutes just cause or not. FWIW, layoffs are regulated differently from firings.
- gruez 2y ago
  >The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. Imagine having to give documentation to move out of your current apartment, for instance. Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified, but "you have to give just cause" (which in practice, means multiple formal write-ups and several months of PIP, even in places without a union contract) seems excessive.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    >>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. >> That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. You like having a sword over your neck at all times that an employer can just swing and take away your salary and your health insurance for any reason at all?
    - gruez 2y ago
      Did you stop reading there and not the subsequent sentence? >Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        Did you stop reading there and not the subsequent independent clause? > but "you have to give just cause" (which in practice, means multiple formal write-ups and several months of PIP, even in places without a union contract) seems excessive. You still said requiring "just cause" is excessive. So you still want an "at-will" sword over your head.
        gruez 2y ago
        >So you still want an "at-will" sword over your head. That sword is still going to be over your head regardless of at will employment. You could be laid off (no cause needed), the company goes bankrupt, or you become disabled. Where do you draw the line? If you don't want to accept "sword over your head" for firings, why would you accept it for layoffs?
        miltonlost 2y ago
        But whatabout being laid off, whatabout company bankruptcy, and whatabout becoming disabled? MY god, we're talking about at-will employment being a threat to a human's life insurance and salary, and you bring up NON at-will issues? Those are fundamentally different swords than an at-will employment one. Is your manager going to disable your body? How is this even remotely close to a manager being able to fire you for whatever? You're just ignoring the whole "at-will". I'm not talking about a "sword" of any possible negative thing happening to you. Why not bring up asteroids? Or another plague? Or just suddenly a REAL sword beheads me? THe "sword" is solely the at-will. Learn how metaphors work.
keybored 2y ago
It “feels like a stretch” and “sounds like it could make sense” and “but in reality it does not play out”. You’re just gesturing here. In turn the reply is either yes/no depending on if we agree with the general vibes you are putting out.
- infecto 2y ago
  Can you be clearer with what you are trying to say? I am simply stating that I have rarely heard of "Just Cause" clauses and I wonder how it plays out in reality. I have my ideas about it but I don't have much of any data but I also generally think its hard to craft well thought out rules like this. Maybe you should take your vibes elsewhere if you don't like data and questions.
School-Cotton 2y ago
> Just cause feels like a stretch. Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? Very rare in the US
purple_ferret 2y ago
It's very common in union contracts. They way it usually works is there is a probationary period that you can fire someone under for any reason (usually 90 days), but after that, supposedly you're more protected. That said, in practice, it doesn't really prevent you from being part of a layoff or anything. You'll just get more notice and complaints.
- itake 2y ago
  Probation periods are a mess, b/c they incentivizes "hire and fire".
  - SiempreViernes 2y ago
    Though only for employers that don't care who they hire in the first place, if you fire someone simply because they might be harder to fire lately you don't really care about who you hired.
    - itake 2y ago
      I actually came to the opposite conclusion: you really care about who you hired, because you define who they work with. If you hire a low performer or someone that isn't a good culture fit, the productivity of your other team members will suffer.
      - SiempreViernes 2y ago
        The claim is you would fire someone purely because they are about to age into a bit more job security. If you fire some because they are a bad employee in some well defined way, that's a completely different situation.
- willsmith72 2y ago
  Union contracts, or just about any permanent contract in "the west" except America
quandrum 2y ago
Due process for employment is probably more important than fair pay in most union contracts. Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities." If you are in a union shop and have a large contingent of unproductive employees, it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management. Just Cause is almost entirely asking management to do a little paperwork and a little planning, things that are supposed to be their job anyway.
- kortilla 2y ago
  > Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities." Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery. > it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management. No, sometimes employees are just bad and work the system to keep the job as long as possible with no intention of improving.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Where is this legendary employer who instantly hires all takers, no questions asked?
    - FredPret 2y ago
      The actual development of capitalism around the world has shown that when business is thriving, there tends to be lots of employers willing to mop up any excess labour. We’ve seen a ton of automation and offshoring for centuries now but employment around the world just keeps improving.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        And yet, we have a positive unemployment rate!
caesil 2y ago
Seems like it could drive NYT engineering to be much more conservative in hiring, resulting in engineers being pushed to do more work.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Which is why Europe has more time off, more benefits, happier employees, etc right?
M4v3R 2y ago
It’s not common in the US but over here in Europe it’s standard practice that you cannot fire an employee at will, most of the time you need to give 1-3 months notice. You can only fire them immediately if there’s misconduct, breach of contract etc.
ForHackernews 2y ago
> Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? It's a legal requirement in many parts of the world.

kayo_20211030 2y ago

I'll take a wild guess and assume that the big sticking point is the demand for just cause termination, with RTO being a somewhat distant second. I can't see management being in love with a just cause protection for employees as an alternative to what I assume is the current employee-at-will arrangement. But, from labor's perspective, it's probably the one thing they'd really like to gain, and for which they'd sacrifice or adjust all their other demands if necessary. To be safe in ones position, with its earnings and benefits, is a desirable position.

dfxm12 2y ago

The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. The definition of "just cause" would be collectively bargained, so both management and the union will understand and agree on what constitutes just cause or not. FWIW, layoffs are regulated differently from firings.

gruez 2y ago
>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. Imagine having to give documentation to move out of your current apartment, for instance. Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified, but "you have to give just cause" (which in practice, means multiple formal write-ups and several months of PIP, even in places without a union contract) seems excessive.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  >>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. >> That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. You like having a sword over your neck at all times that an employer can just swing and take away your salary and your health insurance for any reason at all?
  - gruez 2y ago
    Did you stop reading there and not the subsequent sentence? >Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      Did you stop reading there and not the subsequent independent clause? > but "you have to give just cause" (which in practice, means multiple formal write-ups and several months of PIP, even in places without a union contract) seems excessive. You still said requiring "just cause" is excessive. So you still want an "at-will" sword over your head.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >So you still want an "at-will" sword over your head. That sword is still going to be over your head regardless of at will employment. You could be laid off (no cause needed), the company goes bankrupt, or you become disabled. Where do you draw the line? If you don't want to accept "sword over your head" for firings, why would you accept it for layoffs?
        miltonlost 2y ago
        But whatabout being laid off, whatabout company bankruptcy, and whatabout becoming disabled? MY god, we're talking about at-will employment being a threat to a human's life insurance and salary, and you bring up NON at-will issues? Those are fundamentally different swords than an at-will employment one. Is your manager going to disable your body? How is this even remotely close to a manager being able to fire you for whatever? You're just ignoring the whole "at-will". I'm not talking about a "sword" of any possible negative thing happening to you. Why not bring up asteroids? Or another plague? Or just suddenly a REAL sword beheads me? THe "sword" is solely the at-will. Learn how metaphors work.

keybored 2y ago

It “feels like a stretch” and “sounds like it could make sense” and “but in reality it does not play out”. You’re just gesturing here. In turn the reply is either yes/no depending on if we agree with the general vibes you are putting out.

infecto 2y ago
Can you be clearer with what you are trying to say? I am simply stating that I have rarely heard of "Just Cause" clauses and I wonder how it plays out in reality. I have my ideas about it but I don't have much of any data but I also generally think its hard to craft well thought out rules like this. Maybe you should take your vibes elsewhere if you don't like data and questions.

School-Cotton 2y ago

> Just cause feels like a stretch. Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? Very rare in the US

purple_ferret 2y ago

It's very common in union contracts. They way it usually works is there is a probationary period that you can fire someone under for any reason (usually 90 days), but after that, supposedly you're more protected. That said, in practice, it doesn't really prevent you from being part of a layoff or anything. You'll just get more notice and complaints.

itake 2y ago
Probation periods are a mess, b/c they incentivizes "hire and fire".
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  Though only for employers that don't care who they hire in the first place, if you fire someone simply because they might be harder to fire lately you don't really care about who you hired.
  - itake 2y ago
    I actually came to the opposite conclusion: you really care about who you hired, because you define who they work with. If you hire a low performer or someone that isn't a good culture fit, the productivity of your other team members will suffer.
    - SiempreViernes 2y ago
      The claim is you would fire someone purely because they are about to age into a bit more job security. If you fire some because they are a bad employee in some well defined way, that's a completely different situation.
willsmith72 2y ago
Union contracts, or just about any permanent contract in "the west" except America

quandrum 2y ago

Due process for employment is probably more important than fair pay in most union contracts. Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities." If you are in a union shop and have a large contingent of unproductive employees, it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management. Just Cause is almost entirely asking management to do a little paperwork and a little planning, things that are supposed to be their job anyway.

kortilla 2y ago
> Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities." Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery. > it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management. No, sometimes employees are just bad and work the system to keep the job as long as possible with no intention of improving.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Where is this legendary employer who instantly hires all takers, no questions asked?
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The actual development of capitalism around the world has shown that when business is thriving, there tends to be lots of employers willing to mop up any excess labour. We’ve seen a ton of automation and offshoring for centuries now but employment around the world just keeps improving.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      And yet, we have a positive unemployment rate!

caesil 2y ago

Seems like it could drive NYT engineering to be much more conservative in hiring, resulting in engineers being pushed to do more work.

mrguyorama 2y ago
Which is why Europe has more time off, more benefits, happier employees, etc right?

M4v3R 2y ago

It’s not common in the US but over here in Europe it’s standard practice that you cannot fire an employee at will, most of the time you need to give 1-3 months notice. You can only fire them immediately if there’s misconduct, breach of contract etc.

ForHackernews 2y ago

> Is that common in a lot of employment contracts? It's a legal requirement in many parts of the world.