Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities."
If you are in a union shop and have a large contingent of unproductive employees, it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management. Just Cause is almost entirely asking management to do a little paperwork and a little planning, things that are supposed to be their job anyway.
Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery.
> it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management.
No, sometimes employees are just bad and work the system to keep the job as long as possible with no intention of improving.
We’ve seen a ton of automation and offshoring for centuries now but employment around the world just keeps improving.
>Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery.
Because, as you just admitted, you can't just go get a different job if you're unfairly fired.
- in a thriving environment, lots of companies are hiring
- some people quit or get fired, and it takes a couple of months to get a new job. This is no biggie in a country where the median individual has a net worth of 192k. [0] (yet another argument in favour of a thriving business environment).
- so some % of people will always be temporarily unemployed.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/average-americans-net-worth-871....
Loll, youre a pretty funny person. No biggie, ill just sell my house to feed myself.
You conveniently ignore the fact that this is the median family net worth, not individual net worth. Further, this will include retired families, who will have access to social security, medicare, and mature 401k/pension plans. This is not anywherenearthe median net worth of a working individual.
If youre going to quote statistics, please at least do so responsibly.
The point is that the comparison to due process is shockingly stupid. If the government imprisons you, you are done. Your life in civilization is over for the duration of your incarceration and you have no other options.
Anyone who thinks due process against the monopoly of violence is the same as due process for a payment from a company is completely tone deaf and has never dealt with the impact of government imprisonment.
Being unemployed indefinitely is far better than imprisonment.
They way it usually works is there is a probationary period that you can fire someone under for any reason (usually 90 days), but after that, supposedly you're more protected.
That said, in practice, it doesn't really prevent you from being part of a layoff or anything. You'll just get more notice and complaints.
If you fire some because they are a bad employee in some well defined way, that's a completely different situation.
FWIW, layoffs are regulated differently from firings.
That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. Imagine having to give documentation to move out of your current apartment, for instance. Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified, 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.
>> 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?
>Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified
> 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.
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?
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.
> 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.
And a layoff aren't caused by "manager's whims"?
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
>Why the hell you're arguing (in extremely bad faith) against labor protections is beyond anyone's understanding
I'm not sure why you're focusing so hard on the "no severance/compensation" part, when from the start I said that "some notice/severance would be justified". Is it because I said that at-will employment "seems... fine?", and you can't get over that, despite my subsequent statements?
Until we get to the bottom of this, I don't think it's worth it for me to engage with any of your other points.
Your argument sucks at base level.
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.
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,
Edit: removed my reply in favor of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204
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.
It is not mandatory to sit on your old job for 3 months.
If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy.
Wut?
How does "you cannot be fired on the spot for no reason" prevent them?
At the very least, getting fired is a sign of no confidence from your boss.
It's not such an issue for me now that I have a fair bit of experience, but if I was fresh out of university it would be harder to convince an employer to take a risk.
Also severance is a thing.
> Also severance is a thing.
Indeed it is. Not in the US though
---
The absolute delusion Americans live in never ceases to amaze me. I'm surprised China came up with 996, not the US, and that the US didn't immediately adopt it with the masses cheering it on.
Not every delusion that Americans have is enlightenment.
I know that an online form makes it easy to just position yourself as correct, but you're arguing against reality.
1. You could make similar arguments about consumers being qualified to determine product quality. Are retailers dumbasses for wasting money accepting returns?
2. When it comes to hiring/firing decisions, perception of competence is as important (if not more so), as actual competence (if you can even define that). No manager is going to be assuaged by "well actually, you're pretty bad at determining competence, so you should be glad that we're requiring you to file a bunch of paperwork before you can fire someone".
>There's no evidence that it makes "finding a job more difficult". There are entire swaths of this earth that have the framework that we're talking about and their job markets are just fine.
New hires rate in Europe (with famously stronger labor protections) is around 10% per year in 2022. US meanwhile is more than 4% per month.
https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/skills-intelligence/r...
The unemployment rate in Europe is 6% vs. 4% in the US. I find that some evidence that it's at least a little more difficult.
In other words, one side will win, or both will compromise. It's just another contract negotiation, like any other between two parties. Unions are allowed to do it with businesses, just like businesses are allowed to do it among themselves. This is literally the ruling ideology of the West and has been for generations, but somehow when a union takes advantage of it, that's radical marxism.
Very rare in the US
It's a legal requirement in many parts of the world.