[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Think like an employer - using your own cash to run a business.

Would be more or less willing to try and expand your business & hire an additional employee?

If - once you hired a person you had to keep them forever - plus provide them health care, retirement, pay them at least $XX per hour.

or

If - you could pay the salary & benefits you both agree to, terminate them any time you wanted.

If you want more jobs to be created - making it easier to get rid of people actually does it better than not allowing people to be terminated.

This will be EASY to understand if YOU ARE PAYING THE EMPLOYEE OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET.

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.

[Atlas]

[Z71bill]

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 -

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.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

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.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by Slug71

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.

Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.

In some countries it is almost impossible to do this - the result is companies don't expand for fear that the potential business will not pan out and they will then be stuck with extra staff and no way to get rid of them.

But this is sort of the point - a company should not need a paper trail - they should be able to say - we no longer wish for you to work here -

The paper trail is only required to protect yourself from legal action - the EEOC can also be a major PITA - I am pretty sure that their efforts - as noble as they may be - tying to keep employers from firing someone unfairly - have actually reduced the number of jobs by millions of positions.

What is better - having 25,000 people per year fired for no valid - supported - legal - reason - COMPLETELY UNFAIR -

But increase the total jobs by 500,000?

Are protecting these 25K people worth the 500K lost jobs?

(I am making up numbers - but no doubt the additional new jobs created would be X times the number of people fired unfairly)

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.

In this case I believe the company should be able to terminate.
But that would be more of a lay-off than being fired. Laid off still = a reference.

[JW1178]

Here is what I HATE about "At Will".... it's yet another idea really only applies against WHITE MALES. Yeah, you might get away with it with a white female, but go fire a black female lesbian and give her no reason, and next thing you know you'll have paperwork served from her attorney with their theory on why you fired her.

On the other hand, I think part of why minorities have higher unemployment rate is because of this very issue. I've heard several of my employers over the past tell me that "once you hire them, you can't get rid of them". So, at will works, but sometimes it works against you too. Then again, that freshly "let go" of white guy comes in, you know you can give him a shot, if you don't like him, you can get rid of him. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by JW1178

Here is what I HATE about "At Will".... it's yet another idea really only applies against WHITE MALES. Yeah, you might get away with it with a white female, but go fire a black female lesbian and give her no reason, and next thing you know you'll have paperwork served from her attorney with their theory on why you fired her.

On the other hand, I think part of why minorities have higher unemployment rate is because of this very issue. I've heard several of my employers over the past tell me that "once you hire them, you can't get rid of them". So, at will works, but sometimes it works against you too. Then again, that freshly "let go" of white guy comes in, you know you can give him a shot, if you don't like him, you can get rid of him. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Good point.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Fired.

No idea. All I know is one of the managers didn't like me for some reason.
I did Loss Prevention for a grocery store. Just after my probation/training period on my first shoplift stop, I made a small mistake and let the shoplifter pay for the items. Not supposed to do that since we can't send the civil fine by doing so.

This one manager blatantly lied and told upper management that I told her not to tell anyone that I let the shoplifter pay for the items. This is absolutely not true.
In fact I called both my supervisor and manager(LP department) and told them both immediately after.

I found out about this lie a few weeks later from the LP manager and immediately notified the upper two store managers that it was not true.
I think since then this manager obviously had something in for me.

So let me explain something.

If you piss management off, you will be gone. It doesnt matter if you get a warning or not. In fact, you probably made out better. In this case they probably terminated you but agreed not to fight unemployment with firing for termination.

If you make them document why they fired you with warnings, written warnings, performance plans, etc, management then has a very string case why you shouldnt get unemployment.

No matter how good you are, if you are a PITA and management has to spend too much time dealing with you then you wont be long in the company.

Also, I suspect there is a lot more to this story and you are not telling us how this really happened. Most of the time a manager isnt going to tell upper management that you didnt want her to say anything to them. Minor crap like that upper management has managers to take care of. I suspect you tried to move something you didnt like, up the chain and forced them to deal with it and you wont win against management. You should learn this.

[Roger1079]

I have been an at will employee at my last two jobs. The first I was with from early 2000 ontil early 2007. I left on good terms giving my 2 weeks notice, not because I had to, but as a professional courtesy. I know for a fact this employer has let people go without cause or notice, sometimes highly justified, other times not so much.

The place I am with now I have been at since late 2006 (there was a few months of overlap where I was working both jobs full time). This comapany is much larger and although they make it clear we are at will employees, I have never seen them terminate someone without cause or notice. They always have write ups or associated paperwork, and the option in most cases is given for the employee to tender their resignation.

Unions suck. Period. I have held union jobs and the union never promoted a productive workplace. It promoted laziness and an untouchable sense of security for the most worthless employees. We had one guy who transferred down from another state who was employed with this company for 5 years. He had a drug problem and was taking oxycontin at work in dosages that could put any normal person in a coma. He would either be an incoherent drooling mess or pass out at his terminal completely. The company could not drug test him, without written consent from the local union rep. Only after witnessing this behavior did the union rep allow the test, and even then the test had to be scheduled and could not be random. Of course he failed, even with the test being scheduled for him 30 days in advance. Rather than being terminated as he should have been, the company was forced to send him to rehab and let him relapse THREE times before termination of employment was allowed. This took a timespan of almost a year to complete where we were either shortstaffed because he was virtually unconcious at his workspace or away at rehab. In my eyes, this company should have canned him and sent him to rehab as a good gesture for him to get himself together right after an on the spot drug test.

All BS aside, if you work for a good employer and are a good employee, being at will should make no difference. I know I have never given it any real thought until this post. Just my .02.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.

Something you are not understanding. A large part of being a "team" is getting along. No matter how good you are, if you cant get along you are more hassle than you are worth. You can be the most skilled person at your job, but your net effect to the team may be negative.

Small businesses are run much on personal opinion. Many decisions of the future of a company are based upon personal opinion.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Jbar4Ranch

for saying to one of my problem employees, "Piss off, Chuck"

Did you say this?

[kenpoprofessor]

AZ is an "at will" state, and I'm so happy it is.

I tell people all the time that I know I'm not indispensable, I strive to make myself less dispensable by doing a quality job for my employer, and get more jobs based on my skills and knowledge through word of mouth.

I've landed us some pretty big contracts from my skills, and was even requested to do the work personally. Had I been a union guy, I don't think I'd have the incentive to do better.

Thing is, when I first came to the company, I had a supervisor that hated me, and even he didn't know why (he told other employees this info). I didn't get hired full time after the first probationary period because of him. Two months later, I was hired full time, and a few months after that, they canned the previous supervisor. I now have what he had, truck, raise, elevated status in the company.

I had to prove my worth to them, and now, it's all a bad memory, but I still strive to be the best employee in the company. And no, no brown nosing for me, I don't need to with my performance. Even when I've screwed up, I told them up front what I'd done, and even offered to fix it on my own time. Never heard a word about it, just make sure it doesn't happen again. That AZ heat can sometimes fry your brain when making critical measurements

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[TheJ]

Originally Posted by arclight610

Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

Yes and no.

How would that save them money?

[Remander]

A federal law, ERISA, prohibits employers from terminating employees prior to the vesting of their retirement plans in order to avoid the payment of a pension or the issuance of other pension benefits to the employee.

[Jbar4Ranch]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Did you say this?

Absolutely. He is an older man, 60 IIRC, retired from another job, and has a very sour attitude coupled with a caustic demeanor. He should have been fired several years ago, but for some reason the company won't allow the managers to take any disciplinary action against hourly employees. I had talked to him about his attitude, the hunting managers had talked to him about his attitude, and the store manager & assistant manager had talked to him about his attitude.

On the morning in question, I had tended to some business in the cash office, then walked back to the gun counter toward my office. When I passed the gun counter, "Chuck" looked at his watch and, loudly enough so that half the damn store could hear, "HA, late again, as usual". I said, "Piss off, Chuck" and continued to my office. The store manager had been looking for some time for a reason to terminate me, and this was his opportunity. The store manager is a younger man, I think he was only 25 when he took the store over, and he's done some things that don't sit well with me, not the least of which was several hundred dollars vandalism to my place that he and a couple of his friends did. I told them none of them needed to ever come back and that was the beginning of the end for me. He lost his private several hundred acre hunting, fishing, shooting, recreation area and got even.
I've seen this man actually punch one of the department managers, laying him out on the floor where he laid for at least a full minute holding his stomach before he attempted to get up. I've seen this man let one of his buddies, the archery lead, keep his job after being caught red handed on camera stealing an item from the store. He made him bring it back and that was the end of it. Nothing in his record, let alone not fired for it. Same with "Chuck" - he took a holster one day and was allowed to bring it back with no consequence.

I now work for the state of Montana as a "Delivery Services Driver" - good pay, weekends off, flexible hours, paid sick days, eleven paid holidays a year, but I don't enjoy it like I did that job.

[TheJ]

Originally Posted by Remander

A federal law, ERISA, prohibits employers from terminating employees prior to the vesting of their retirement plans in order to avoid the payment of a pension or the issuance of other pension benefits to the employee.

Correct. It's also illegal to term somebody based on their being old... Which is why I ask how it would save money.

The whole no-reason is practically never used by employers because it opens them up for expensive legal battles.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by Slug71

In this case I believe the company should be able to terminate.
But that would be more of a lay-off than being fired. Laid off still = a reference.

I think most larger companies stopped giving out references on past employees years ago. It does not matter why the person no longer works for the company - you still only give out the basic -

Start date, end date, maybe job held, if employee signed the release form you will agree to provide salary history.

Laid off is just a reason you were terminated -

I guess if you say - I was laid off it sounds better than - I was fired for being drunk & fighting on the job.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Jbar4Ranch

I now work for the state of Montana as a "Delivery Services Driver" - good pay, weekends off, flexible hours, paid sick days, eleven paid holidays a year, but I don't enjoy it like I did that job.

You should sell your story as a movie....

But reading your post, you were gone long before you told chuck to piss off; you just didnt know it.

When you have a personal grudge/vendetta/fight with your manager, you should be looking for a new job. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is how it is.

[Jbar4Ranch]

Yeah, it was just a matter of time.

[droidfire]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I think most larger companies stopped giving out references on past employees years ago. It does not matter why the person no longer works for the company - you still only give out the basic -

Start date, end date, maybe job held, if employee signed the release form you will agree to provide salary history.

Laid off is just a reason you were terminated -

I guess if you say - I was laid off it sounds better than - I was fired for being drunk & fighting on the job.

Yea, character references are dead in big business. Small business will still provide glowing reviews for good workers.

Mostly anymore it's simply a verification of employment within a specified time period from HR at large companies.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by droidfire

Yea, character references are dead in big business. Small business will still provide glowing reviews for good workers.

Mostly anymore it's simply a verification of employment within a specified time period from HR at large companies.

Can't recall exactly when maybe 1990 something - but there were a few court cases that changed companies view on giving references.

The obvious - not telling prospective employers that the X employee was a child molesting drunk that stole company assets to pay for his coke habit - had been in use for a long time.

Never say anything bad seemed reasonable -

Many companies were using the - if it is a good reference then go ahead and tell the person asking that the person was a good employee - hard worker - smart - whatever - how can telling them good things hurt you - just don't say anything bad.

Then a few companies - relying on the good reference from the prior employer - ended up hiring someone that actually was a child molesting drunk with a drug problem.

BAM - they get sued for big bucks for only telling the good.

The next round - what really killed references was when a company got sued because they gave out good references for good employees - but if the former employee had some problems then they would say - sorry we don't give out references.

So then the company ended up losing a law suit - and paying some loser former employee a pile of cash - because the fact that they would not give out a reference on a bad person - but would give them out for a good former employee - told everyone that - no reference must mean something REALLY BAD.


At this point the only reasonable thing you can do is just say - we don't give references...

[Hef]

Originally Posted by Slug71

I know it has it's benefits like being able to quit. But do you think that it should be revised so that employers can't terminate without reason or warning?

With the way the economy is, I think employees should at least be given a verbal and/or written warning before being terminated and have the chance to 'fix' whatever the issue may be.

Seems there's so much talk about getting people back to work and creating job but what about keeping people at work?

The only reason I have employees is to increase profits for myself. They are employed solely to increase the amount of work the business completes in a week, so I can invoice for more money (and thus more profit). If they aren't productive enough, and/or they make mistakes that cut into the profit, they get fired. If business slows down, I cut jobs as needed to stay profitable. I don't owe anybody a job.

That may sound harsh, but that is the reality of operating a small business in 2012. I do my best to land jobs to keep everyone working 40+hrs/wk but that doesn't always happen.

As for those who need to be fired, I am glad to operate in a state that doesn't interfere with my right to fire people as I see fit.

[CaptCave]

Originally Posted by Hef

The only reason I have employees is to increase profits for myself. They are employed solely to increase the amount of work the business completes in a week, so I can invoice for more money (and thus more profit). If they aren't productive enough, and/or they make mistakes that cut into the profit, they get fired. If business slows down, I cut jobs as needed to stay profitable. I don't owe anybody a job.

That may sound harsh, but that is the reality of operating a small business in 2012. I do my best to land jobs to keep everyone working 40+hrs/wk but that doesn't always happen.

As for those who need to be fired, I am glad to operate in a state that doesn't interfere with my right to fire people as I see fit.

Most people that have never had to make a payroll, won't understand that.

[Hef]

Originally Posted by CaptCave

Most people that have never had to make a payroll, won't understand that.

Sometimes I feel like employees think we just shake the magic money tree and payroll falls out of it. They don't understand that failing to meet deadlines has consequences, some if which are financial.