Originally Posted by devildog2067
Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.
You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.
Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.
Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.
Its not truly balanced though since we have unions.
I see all these lazy asses that is near impossible to fire and then my situation comes along.
I would rather have mandatory warnings in place giving an employee the chance to correct an issue management has and see the unions disappear.
Theft, sexual harassment, financial hard ship on the employer etc. would still be grounds to term an employee immediately.
Although, financial hardship relates more to a lay-off than being terminated.
Most employers give a 90 day evaluation period anyway.