View Poll Results: Should employers be legally required to provide a reason for firing?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Employers should not be allowed to fire for no reason

    20 42.55%
  • No, It's the employer's right to fire people.

    27 57.45%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 104 of 104

Thread: Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?

  1. #101
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?

    although it's cute that you think that employees being fired would give up their anger and plans to sue if employers simply told them that they were being fired for a reason,
    I don't think this at all. I think giving a reason is meaningless. I think NOT giving a reason is more practical, as "most american's are self entitled sue happy people."

    I think it is the other guy that thinks that.

  2. #102
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    Although I, honestly, think that the reason is not important- considering the fact that the reason will not (can not) change the result, most companies would have no problem releasing their "reason," if it weren't for one teensy weensy problem: litigation.

    Consider this: Alan owns a trucking company with three trucks and three drivers. Leroy, 74, has driven a truck for Alan for 15 years, averaging about 60K/year in wages during that time. Recently, Leroy was diagnosed with macular degeneration. He is going blind. According to the doctors, his sight will continue to worsen until he is completely blind.

    Because of this, Leroy can no longer drive a truck for Alan (because he can not see to drive.) Leroy's truck route produced 1/3 of Alan's company's income each year. Since Leroy can not drive, Alan is faced with a choice: A) He can terminate Leroy and replace him with a truck driver who has good eyesight, thereby protecting the 1/3 of his income which Leroy's routes generate, or B) he can allow a blind Leroy to remain employed (but obviously not drive, since he is blind). This option would require Alan to hire another driver in addition to Leroy, which (since Leroy makes 60k, and a younger driver could be hired in at 30k) would reduce Alan's profits by 30k each year.

    Because of the substantial loss in profits resulting from option B, Alan chooses to let Leroy go and hire a driver that can actually drive the truck. He sits down with Leroy and explains that he is really sorry, but since Leroy is no longer able to drive the truck, he is being fired. On his separation notice, Alan writes "Employee is terminated due to inability to perform assigned work tasks."

    Leroy, angry with Alan after working with him for 15 years, feels that he has been wronged- that he was being fired because he was aging and no longer able to do the things he used to do. He finds a tort attorney, who promptly sues Alan for discrimination.

    Alan's talks to his attorney, who tells him that because poor eyesight generally comes with old age, Leroy just might have a case- along with the fact that by hiring a younger driver to replace Alan, Alan's profits actually increase by 30k- giving Leroy yet another argument when the trial comes around. So the lawyer's advice to Alan: Hire another 74 year old driver.

    If Alan had not given Leroy the courtesy of providing a reason, his profits would have increased by 30k, and he would have avoided the legal expenses. Leroy was not fired because he was old. He was fired because he couldn't perform his duties. These types of HR/legal nightmares are the reason why employers don't like to provide a reason to the employee.
    Note that in my first post in this thread I specified that today's litigious realities are why I don't think it would be a good idea.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #103
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?

    So the Question becomes in my mind, if I don't need a reason to fire a person, shouldn't that make litigation for wrongful termination moot? If asked why I fired them I say I don't like her. Well no we think you fired her for having IVF, or being a woman or being black etc. My point being, If I can fire you FOR ANY REASON, why does the reason make a difference?
    From the ashes.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    If the person fired has no complaints all is good...if the person fired has a story it should be heard...anyone that thinks all employers are honest and decent is nuts and that they have ABSOLUTE control over every one else is MORE NUTS....and there can be a myriad of reasons people are fired unfairly or worse...of course they should be heard....the constitution does not give certain people ABSOLUTE rights over others and doesnt allow for the creating of private Kingdoms....this new generation of rich folks have lost their minds...they think they now ENTITLED to it all...instead of just MOST...
    The third post in this thread starts right in on the hyperbole. Why is it that threads like this never get past that point?

    Anyway, I guess I will respond to your post. I don't think people are honest and I don't think honest or lack of honestly has anything to do with it. I can't imagine how they have control over other people when its their business and their money that exists for their purposes or why you think that is so, to be perfectly frank. The hiring of the individual is the will of the employer and if they want whoever it might to stay around is also the will of the employer. Its really that simple. There is nothing hard to understand here, its a simple property rights and liberty argument that forming a certain standard for firing people is basically saying you have a right to their property and a right to force people to do what you desire. The fact is if anyone here feels entitled its the people that believe the employer has to give a reason to not allow someone to not use their property, and believes that they have a right to force people to continue acts they have no willingness to do for the benefit of the other party. Before you tell people who is entitled, maybe you should check it first.
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-04-12 at 05:16 AM.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •