America is the Only Major Industrial Power with Employment at Will

[SPECTRE1]

A common-law rule that an employment contract of indefinite duration can be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any time for any reason; also known as terminable at will.

Traditionally, U.S. employers have possessed the right to discharge their employees at will for any reason, be it good or bad. The "at-will" category encompasses all employees who are not protected by express employment contracts that state that they may be fired only for good cause. "Good cause" requirements are typically a part of collective bargaining agreements negotiated by employee unions; nonunion workers rarely have this form of protection. The at-will doctrine also does not apply to contracts for a specified term, such as an employment contract that contemplates the employee providing service for a expressly designated number of years.

The United States is the only major industrial power that maintains a general employment-at-will rule. Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Sweden all have statutory provisions that require employers to show good cause before discharging employees.

Employment at will was used against the Civil Rights Movement to intimidate people and shut them down. Many people speaking out like Rosa Parks were fired from their jobs and blacklisted. Since more people are working for somebody instead of living on a farm, it is time for employment at will to go. You need employment rights to have democratic freedoms....

 

[Greed]

Will employees have to show good cause before they quit?

 

[SPECTRE1]

Will employees have to show good cause before they quit?

They just replace you, or if you are really needed to perform, the require you to sign a contract.

The relationship between employer and employee is already advantaged toward the employers. Besides Union Contracts already limit employment at will with many employers. Most government employers have to show cause to fire you.

What is wrong with an employer having a good cause to fire, they can still layoff if they have too many workers.

You can get rid of the discrimination laws regarding terminations that are hard to prove in many cases, and use this. Your skin color won't put you at a disadvantage when looking for a job. Employers face more liability hiring somebody black than white.

Time for America to be like the rest of world, instead of using some ancient common law practice when people were farmers.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Will employees have to show good cause before they quit?

They just replace you, or if you are really needed to perform, the require you to sign a contract.

The relationship between employer and employee is already advantaged toward the employers. Besides Union Contracts already limit employment at will with many employers. Most government employers have to show cause to fire you.

What is wrong with an employer having a good cause to fire, they can still layoff if they have too many workers.

You can get rid of the discrimination laws regarding terminations that are hard to prove in many cases, and use this. Your skin color won't put you at a disadvantage when looking for a job. Employers face more liability hiring somebody black than white.

Time for America to be like the rest of world, instead of using some ancient common law practice when people were farmers.

 

[SPECTRE1]

They just replace you, or if you are really needed to perform, the require you to sign a contract.

The relationship between employer and employee is already advantaged toward the employers. Besides Union Contracts already limit employment at will with many employers. Most government employers have to show cause to fire you.

What is wrong with an employer having a good cause to fire, they can still layoff if they have too many workers.

You can get rid of the discrimination laws regarding terminations that are hard to prove in many cases, and use this. Your skin color won't put you at a disadvantage when looking for a job. Employers face more liability hiring somebody black than white.

Time for America to be like the rest of world, instead of using some ancient common law practice when people were farmers.

 

[BrainChild09]

I don't think businesses should be subject to the judgements of an outside party this way. There are already laws to protect employees against harmful actions by employers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur. I don't feel we need a third party to become so deeply involved in business activities as determining such a vague concept as "good cause for reducing their payroll."

 

[Spectrum]

I don't think businesses should be subject to the judgements of an outside party this way. There are already laws to protect employees against harmful actions by employers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur. I don't feel we need a third party to become so deeply involved in business activities as determining such a vague concept as "good cause for reducing their payroll."

Agreed.

 

[Greed]

I don't think businesses should be subject to the judgements of an outside party this way. There are already laws to protect employees against harmful actions by employers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur. I don't feel we need a third party to become so deeply involved in business activities as determining such a vague concept as "good cause for reducing their payroll."

What is this, "opposite day" on BGOL.

 

[Greed]

They just replace you, or if you are really needed to perform, the require you to sign a contract.

The relationship between employer and employee is already advantaged toward the employers. Besides Union Contracts already limit employment at will with many employers. Most government employers have to show cause to fire you.

What is wrong with an employer having a good cause to fire, they can still layoff if they have too many workers.

You can get rid of the discrimination laws regarding terminations that are hard to prove in many cases, and use this. Your skin color won't put you at a disadvantage when looking for a job. Employers face more liability hiring somebody black than white.

Time for America to be like the rest of world, instead of using some ancient common law practice when people were farmers.

I take it that's a "no" to my question.

 

[thoughtone]

I don't think businesses should be subject to the judgements of an outside party this way. There are already laws to protect employees against harmful actions by employers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur. I don't feel we need a third party to become so deeply involved in business activities as determining such a vague concept as "good cause for reducing their payroll."

There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur.

The way the republicans have gone after trial lawyers over the last 30 years! Employees and labor have almost no rights against business interests today.

 

[SPECTRE1]

I don't think businesses should be subject to the judgements of an outside party this way. There are already laws to protect employees against harmful actions by employers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a court system in place for people to seek compensation for such actions if they still occur. I don't feel we need a third party to become so deeply involved in business activities as determining such a vague concept as "good cause for reducing their payroll."

The EEOC rules in a claimant favor only four percent of the time. The NLRB which covers Unions is similar. Difficult to prove discrimination unless they get stupid and lay a noose on your desk. Much easier prove that you fully performed on your job, you can get rid of some of the discrimination laws by getting rid of employment at will.

I think it will help African-American by keeping you in a job and reducing the disadvantage when looking for work compared to a white candidate; minorities and older workers have a difficult time finding work because of the liability of being a protected class.

 

[BrainChild09]

What is this, "opposite day" on BGOL.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[BrainChild09]

The EEOC rules in a claimant favor only four percent of the time. The NLRB which covers Unions is similar. Difficult to prove discrimination unless they get stupid and lay a noose on your desk. Much easier prove that you fully performed on your job, you can get rid of some of the discrimination laws by getting rid of employment at will.

I think it will help African-American by keeping you in a job and reducing the disadvantage when looking for work compared to a white candidate; minorities and older workers have a difficult time finding work because of the liability of being a protected class.

I disagree that introducing laws that require employers to show "good cause" for laying off an employee will help African-Americans or anyone else when looking for work in a general sense or in comparison to another group. The getting fired aspect of employment vs. the getting hired aspect are not related enough to say that since a business may have new requirements to fulfill to fire someone then they will be more likely to hire someone. I don't see a good correlation.

Besides this, I don't think the fact that judges rule in favor of employers more than employees or unions means that the new laws should be introduced. Maybe the employers have a stronger case than the employee or union most of the time. I don't want to see government interject itself even further into the private sector so they can make even such key business decisions as this another political football to manipulate its citizens with.

 

[BrainChild09]

The way the republicans have gone after trial lawyers over the last 30 years! Employees and labor have almost no rights against business interests today.

Your last statement is incorrect. Big labor wields an enormous amount of influence. But it's only spread across a relatively small number of industries at the expense of others. So those left out feel like all members of so-called labor are powerless. I'd like you to read the link I've posted below. It's concerned with public-sector unions but they are "labor" nonetheless.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions