Originally Posted by Slug71
Forever?? Because a warning is required before termination?
I hardly doubt businesses with employees belonging to union would object to having to give a warning and take unions out of the picture.
I will bet money my ex employer would love that. 3 lazy ass employees would no longer be working there if they weren't union and the warning thing was in place.
By warning do you mean - you are losing your job in 60 days - or you have been given X warnings because of bad behavior and after this many you are terminated?
It was an example - looking at both ends of the extreme can help folks understand the concept.
The point I am making is fairly simple - the more obstacles you put in place to terminate someone - the less likely the employer will be to hire someone in the first place.
DO YOU AGREE?
It would be much better if there was a safe harbor employers could use - say - you must pay 2 weeks pay at termination - or a week per year of service - whatever - just have a known limit - that would allow an employer to fire whoever they wanted for any reason -
The uncertainty of - if you fire this person you may get in legal trouble.
The result would be more people with jobs.
As a side note laws based on age or race or gender -
Hurt the very people the laws are trying to protect - more would be hired if they did not have a special legal class that makes it MUCH more difficult to fire them.
It is typical government action - they want to solve a problem and end up hurting the very thing they want to support.
BTW - I am not against some basic regs to control outright abuse - but when a company decides they no longer need / want a person working for them they should have the ability to say - Sorry - but you are no longer needed.