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 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 104

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

  1. #21
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    To me, it's a matter of creating liberty and justice for both the employer and the employee in the matter, with neither being slighted.

    If an employee is terminated without being provided an accurate reason, is either the relevant freedom or security of either the employee or the employer thrown (more) toward imbalance?

    That is the question that I would seek to answer.

    Without engaging in a more deeper analysis at this point, it appears that the employee is having his security slighted at the benefit of the employer by not receiving a real reason for his termination. Thus the employee is not receiving justice.

    Thus if the employee is really being laid off, but is not told that, he won't file for unemployment if he thinks he's being fired (being fired doesn't entitle one to unemployment benefits), and thus the employer can just let it go as a "firing" and not have to pay additional unemployment premiums.

    So the employer's freedom, his liberty, is unjustly increased at the expense of the employee's security, his justice, if he does not receive a real reason as to why he's being terminated, whether it's indeed just a real firing (as the thread title suggests) or a layoff disguised as a firing.

    Thus, in the interest of liberty and justice for all, I would say, at this point, that an employer should indeed be legally required to provide (have) a real reason to (give to) the employee.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #22
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,701
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Most public entities, corporations and large businesses have published personnel policies that describe procedures for termination, for cause or not. This usually provides some protection to employees against being spitefully fired. That said, unless employer and employee have a private or union contract in place, most employers are free to fire whomever they please for whatever reason they please.

    That's how it should be. During hard economic times, businesses have to have the ability to cut staff without offering individual reasons. We like to call it lay offs, but it's termination nonetheless.

    Employers need the right to fire people for any reason. Most employers will tell terminated employees the reason, but they don't have to and if they believe they might be challenged by legal action... i.e., the employee is past age 55, is a minority, is gay, etc. ... then some employers will give no reason so they won't have to defend wayward comments later in court.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

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

    If there is no reason to fire and employee why would and employer want to do it?
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  4. #24
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,701
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    ...
    You are making an insulting generalization, it's no different than blatant racism. You, based on your behavior, should be ashamed.
    All he said was:
    ...this new generation of rich folks have lost their minds...they think they now ENTITLED to it all...instead of just MOST...
    How the hell can you possibly infer racism in that statement?

  5. #25
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

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

    If they turn up on time, rarely go sick, perform their job, and get along with the other employees, why should they be fired without reason?
    This assumes that they WERE fired without a reason. In almost every case (in every single case within my company) there IS a reason. And 98 out of 100 times, the employee knows the reason even if it is not specifically stated. The reason why companies do not always release a reason is because they are not obligated to, and if they did they are opening up a can of worms, ie. possible litigation. If litigation is even a possibility, good legal advice would be not to provide any information to the other party unless legally required to do so. With no reason given, the route to litigation is a tougher row to hoe.

    In my state, employment agreements are "at will," meaning that either party can sever the relationship at any time. Consider this: Two parties (a company and an individual) come together with neither having ever met or had any knowledge or relationship with the other. The individual wants to be hired, and will put forth all the reasons why the company should hire them. They will also cover up and not include negative information about themselves, their past, and their work history which might make the company think twice about hiring them. It is the employer's job to find this information out, and the employee has the advantage- because it is difficult to dig up ALL the needed pertinent information prior to making a hiring decision. Companies are hesitant to release any work history or reference information for fear of suit, and there are all sorts of protections in place preventing an employer from aquiring certain information, and if they are allowed to aquire it (for instance a rape charge that has been pardoned- which I actually dealt with once) they may not be allowed to use that information as part of their hiring decision. So neither party knows the other at the interview.

    Once hired companies begin to find out a lot more about these workers, because that is how relationships work. You get to know people over time. Sometimes it becomes clear that, whereas there is not violation of company policy, a person either may not be a good fit for your team personality wise (ie everyone in the office dislikes them, creating low morale and poisoning the office environment) or they may just be barely doing the minimum- whereas there are better, more productive people to do the job.

    Giving a reason to an employee when firing them also effectively shifts the burden of proof to the employer- and sometimes there are about a thousand reasons to fire the person. Not just one. I think it would be really rare case where a company let a person go for absolutely no reason. It is generally better practice to ensure you have a good reason, but not provide that reason to the employee. Because the job belongs to the owner of the company. Not to the employee.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

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

    I am waiting for a response to this:

    If there is no reason to fire and employee why would and employer want to do it?
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #27
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I am waiting for a response to this:

    If there is no reason to fire and employee why would and employer want to do it?
    yes- it's not so much 'no reason' it's 'whether that reason is acceptable or not'
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  8. #28
    Guru
    Verthaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I am waiting for a response to this:

    If there is no reason to fire and employee why would and employer want to do it?
    Spellcheck,Navy Pride,spell check.
    And if I don't have a reason to fire an (notice no "d" at the end) then as an employer I won't.
    That wouldn't make good business,especially if the employee is a good one.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Yes, as long as one of the acceptable reasons is "cause I want to."
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #30
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    Every job is different and requires different standards. Trying to impose blanket regulations covers up a lot of gray area.
    On the contrary, all jobs have common employment themes, hours of work, rates of pay, skills required, performance, etc. Verthaine's list on the last page would get a European worker fired. The "three-strikes" type rule is widely applied, but if a failure is severe enough, instant dismissal is an option here too.
    Not personally liking someone is not an adequate reason to take away their livelihood, and begs the question why you would have employed them in the first place.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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