5 ms·

>>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 tra

>>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.
      - gruez 2y ago
        It's the same sword: loss of income and healthcare. Semantic games aside, if the premise is that we shouldn't accept the risk of losing income/healthcare due to poor performance/internal politics, why would you accept losing income/healthcare due to layoffs (which also involve poor performance/internal politics)? It's fine to argue "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare", but you can't arbitrarily decide when it's fine to apply that principle.
        miltonlost 2y ago
        THAT'S LITERALLY NOT THE PREMISE. AND IT'S NOT THE SAME SWORD. So much whataboutism and changing definitions to fit your needs. And also, you keep forgetting the more important thing: SOMEONE IS SWINGING THE SWORD AND WHY. > It's fine to argue "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare", but you can't arbitrarily decide when it's fine to apply that principle. You keep deleting key parts, like "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare from manager's whims". It's not arbitrary.
        gruez 2y ago
        >You keep deleting key parts, like "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare from manager's whims". It's not arbitrary. And a layoff aren't caused by "manager's whims"?
        troupo 2y ago
        1. Layoffs are usually not "you manager fires you on the spot for whatever reason and with no severance/compensation" 2. Layoffs are usually a less common occurrence than firing people. While the US sucks at labor laws in general, there's at least the WARN act for mass layoffs 3. Layoffs are when multiple people are let go at the same time, which is a distinct category from firing a single person 4. Hence there are often separate negotiations and separate clauses in the union contracts regarding firing a single person (one category) and laying off multiple people (a separate category) Why the hell you're arguing (in extremely bad faith) against labor protections is beyond anyone's understanding
    - troupo 2y ago
      Layoffs are negotiated separately, and in normal countries (with collective bargaining and healthcare) layoffs, while impactful, won't cripple your life
      - gruez 2y ago
        >layoffs, while impactful, won't cripple your life You lose your income in both cases, and I said I'd support severance/notice period for firings. I don't see how the two are materially different.
        troupo 2y ago
        Severance is one of the many things unions negotiate. Yet you keep insisting that somehow at-will employment with immediate termination is somehow good.
        gruez 2y ago
        >Yet you keep insisting that somehow at-will employment with immediate termination is somehow good. I'm not sure how you got that impression. My original comment: >Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified,
        troupo 2y ago
        Some of us are capable of maintaining the context of conversation. Edit: removed my reply in favor of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204
    - dakiol 2y ago
      It doesn't work like that. I worked for a tech company in Germany and it went brankrupt. By contract I have 3 months notice period, and I got them. That's plenty of time to find another job (which I did). It goes both ways too (whenever I want to quit, I give my 3 months notice period). I would hate it to have an "at-will" contract. Just thinking that my manager or his manager or whoever can just fire me the very same day because of who knows what is just awful.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Yeah I don't want to give 3 months notice to quit, that sounds terrible. I'll take at will any day of the week if it means that I can quit immediately if needed.
        0x000xca0xfe 2y ago
        You can simply negotiate the remaining time with your employer after you quit. It is not mandatory to sit on your old job for 3 months.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
renewiltord 2y ago
To be honest, yeah. I want to reduce the fixed costs of job transfer so that I can be efficiently allocated in the economy because that usually means I can make a lot of money. But I can see how someone who is at a lower skill level would want to raise the friction for hiring - less job mobility is good for them. If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  > If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy. Wut?
  - gruez 2y ago
    The point is that he wants to be employed at a company because the company values him, not because they're forced to keep him around. This shouldn't be an alien concept. In personal relationships, you want your friends/partner to stay around because they like you, not because they're forced to. In other business relationships, you want to get paid because you're delivering value, not because you'd be a pain to get rid of.
    - troupo 2y ago
      What stops them from quitting and finding employment elsewhere?
      - gruez 2y ago
        The point isn't keeping a job, it's being well liked by others. While it's unlikely to be anyone's overriding objective (I too would rather be employed but hated, than well-liked but starving), it's still something that people care about. More importantly, it shows that he cares about the other side of the transaction, rather than being some sociopath that only cares about what he gets.
        troupo 2y ago

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.
    - gruez 2y ago
      It's the same sword: loss of income and healthcare. Semantic games aside, if the premise is that we shouldn't accept the risk of losing income/healthcare due to poor performance/internal politics, why would you accept losing income/healthcare due to layoffs (which also involve poor performance/internal politics)? It's fine to argue "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare", but you can't arbitrarily decide when it's fine to apply that principle.
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        THAT'S LITERALLY NOT THE PREMISE. AND IT'S NOT THE SAME SWORD. So much whataboutism and changing definitions to fit your needs. And also, you keep forgetting the more important thing: SOMEONE IS SWINGING THE SWORD AND WHY. > It's fine to argue "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare", but you can't arbitrarily decide when it's fine to apply that principle. You keep deleting key parts, like "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare from manager's whims". It's not arbitrary.
        gruez 2y ago
        >You keep deleting key parts, like "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare from manager's whims". It's not arbitrary. And a layoff aren't caused by "manager's whims"?
        troupo 2y ago
        1. Layoffs are usually not "you manager fires you on the spot for whatever reason and with no severance/compensation" 2. Layoffs are usually a less common occurrence than firing people. While the US sucks at labor laws in general, there's at least the WARN act for mass layoffs 3. Layoffs are when multiple people are let go at the same time, which is a distinct category from firing a single person 4. Hence there are often separate negotiations and separate clauses in the union contracts regarding firing a single person (one category) and laying off multiple people (a separate category) Why the hell you're arguing (in extremely bad faith) against labor protections is beyond anyone's understanding
  - troupo 2y ago
    Layoffs are negotiated separately, and in normal countries (with collective bargaining and healthcare) layoffs, while impactful, won't cripple your life
    - gruez 2y ago
      >layoffs, while impactful, won't cripple your life You lose your income in both cases, and I said I'd support severance/notice period for firings. I don't see how the two are materially different.
      - troupo 2y ago
        Severance is one of the many things unions negotiate. Yet you keep insisting that somehow at-will employment with immediate termination is somehow good.
        gruez 2y ago
        >Yet you keep insisting that somehow at-will employment with immediate termination is somehow good. I'm not sure how you got that impression. My original comment: >Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified,
        troupo 2y ago
        Some of us are capable of maintaining the context of conversation. Edit: removed my reply in favor of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204
  - dakiol 2y ago
    It doesn't work like that. I worked for a tech company in Germany and it went brankrupt. By contract I have 3 months notice period, and I got them. That's plenty of time to find another job (which I did). It goes both ways too (whenever I want to quit, I give my 3 months notice period). I would hate it to have an "at-will" contract. Just thinking that my manager or his manager or whoever can just fire me the very same day because of who knows what is just awful.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Yeah I don't want to give 3 months notice to quit, that sounds terrible. I'll take at will any day of the week if it means that I can quit immediately if needed.
      - 0x000xca0xfe 2y ago
        You can simply negotiate the remaining time with your employer after you quit. It is not mandatory to sit on your old job for 3 months.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

renewiltord 2y ago

To be honest, yeah. I want to reduce the fixed costs of job transfer so that I can be efficiently allocated in the economy because that usually means I can make a lot of money. But I can see how someone who is at a lower skill level would want to raise the friction for hiring - less job mobility is good for them. If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy.

miltonlost 2y ago
> If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy. Wut?
- gruez 2y ago
  The point is that he wants to be employed at a company because the company values him, not because they're forced to keep him around. This shouldn't be an alien concept. In personal relationships, you want your friends/partner to stay around because they like you, not because they're forced to. In other business relationships, you want to get paid because you're delivering value, not because you'd be a pain to get rid of.
  - troupo 2y ago
    What stops them from quitting and finding employment elsewhere?
    - gruez 2y ago
      The point isn't keeping a job, it's being well liked by others. While it's unlikely to be anyone's overriding objective (I too would rather be employed but hated, than well-liked but starving), it's still something that people care about. More importantly, it shows that he cares about the other side of the transaction, rather than being some sociopath that only cares about what he gets.
      - troupo 2y ago