View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 21:24   #129
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
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 -

VS

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.

Yes I agree.

Warning as in, 'You can't do this again for what ever reason OR I'm not happy with your performance...blah blah blah.......if I don't see any improvement I have no choice but to replace you'.....

A point I think many people miss is that this also creates a paper trail PROTECTING a employer against liability.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote