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 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    We've had several discussions here about employees being sacked for various reasons. I am just curious how many here believe an employer should be legally required to have a reason to fire someone. I personally believe a person should be able to be fired without cause. Otherwise you grant an employee a right to the job provided by the employer. IMO that is a constitutional breach that grants one person greater protection from the law than the other.
    Employers do have the right to terminate an employee for "no reason". However, if "no reason" is given as the reason, then since this is not the employees fault, the employee may be entitled to draw off the employer's unemployment insurance.

  2. #82
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    How do you know religion was a deciding factor in the choices?
    I guess this question was actually for me. Several reasons. One being subtle comments and invitations from a boss of mine. Another was our group picnics becoming divided into two groups based on religion. Who was RIFed. And other things that happened. It was obvious to several.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    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?
    It's not really your business, is the point. The OP is not whether or not they should or should not be fired, it's whether or not the employer should legally be required to provide a written reason.

    Now, take real life examples, it's routine in a business to have situations where changes in strategy, changes in growth, in revenue, expenses, etc., may necessitate (according to management) dropping expenses, of which payroll is often the vast majority. This may result in reduction in headcount not specifically triggered by employee performance. For you or anyone to claim they shouldn't be allowed to fire in these cases, is destructive.

    You should not however, that those being fired typically had some control over the situation to begin with. When a company has to reduce headcount by say, 5%, it's not the top 5% that they usually let go. Being a "bare minimum" employee, always leaves you at greater risk, and that's typically within ones control.

  4. #84
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    One's employer, that has it's own standards, and one's boss, that has his own standards are different entities. Do you agree? It is easy to get fired for an invalid reason that your employer doesn't support. (I have fired someone that reported to me. Have you ever been in that position?)
    If your "Boss" is tasked with the hiring and firing of employees, he is acting on behalf of the employer. If the "boss" is not acting in the best interest of the company (or the whim of the employer, owner, etc) he should be fired. FOR THIS REASON!
    From the ashes.

  5. #85
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    "At will". See freedom is a bitch, if you do you job but are an asshole, you gots to go. Protection by the state keeps Europe in mediocrity.
    I've always thought of Freedom as more akin to virginity. Hard to maintain and once it's gone it's damn hard to get it back!
    From the ashes.

  6. #86
    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?

    The challenge in deciding liberty and justice for both parties requires that we also examine the aftermath.

    A company, by virtue of being what it is, can survive, even thrive, after it fires an employee.
    Wouldn't it also be true, however, that the employee can survive, even thrive, after being fired? Further, wouldn't it stand to reason that a company "by virtue of what it is" might not survive, or might struggle to thrive if the employee voluntarily resigned their position? Is it any less difficult for a company to find a candidate for the open position than it would be for the terminated employee to find other work?

    But after being fired, it's much harder for the former employee to find new work compared to having been laid off, and, especially in today's lingering damaging effects from the recession that's "supposedly" over, it can soon be a question of having a roof over one's head or even eating or not for the truly laid-off employee who was wrongfully fired and without given reason, and thus can't receive unemployment insurance and is without life-supporting income until new work is found.
    This is factually inaccurate. As a general rule, a company who terminates an employee without showing cause will not offer any positive or negative reference to potential employers for that former worker. They will simply state that company policy prevents them from providing anything other than position and dates of employment. This is neither a positive nor a negative mark toward the worker gaining employment in the future. Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that a person would not receive unemployment benefits if the company refused to provide a reason for terminating the worker. In reality, refusing to provide a reason GUARANTEES that the worker will receive the benefits. The burden is on the employer to show what that worker did, through fault of their own, to lose their job. If the company can't prove that, the worker gets the benefits. In Georgia, the employer must pay 100% of the money received by approved UI recipients.

  7. #87
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The challenge in deciding liberty and justice for both parties requires that we also examine the aftermath.

    A company, by virtue of being what it is, can survive, even thrive, after it fires an employee.

    But after being fired, it's much harder for the former employee to find new work compared to having been laid off, and, especially in today's lingering damaging effects from the recession that's "supposedly" over, it can soon be a question of having a roof over one's head or even eating or not for the truly laid-off employee who was wrongfully fired and without given reason, and thus can't receive unemployment insurance and is without life-supporting income until new work is found.

    And, because of the stigma of being fired, it makes it all that much harder on the employee to find work and survive afterward.

    Losing one's job can really be life-threatening soon thereafter to the employee. But firing an employee is just about always not life-threatening to the company/employer.

    These factors need to be rightly weighed in deciding the topical matter, which I contend is most fairly to be judged on a liberty and justice basis for both parties, so that neither has either infringed.

    Wihout a truthful reason being provided the employee for the firing, the employee does not know which recourse of contesting to the proper authorities to pursue.

    This greatly harms the former employee, reducing the employee's justice while increasing the employer's freedom beyond equal measure.
    But you speak of justice and freedom only from the employee's point of view. An employee can leave an employer at the drop of a hat with no repercussions. This can cause loss of revenue and possibly cause a company to have to close it's door. I don't see either party's freedom as being infringed upon since it an equal exchange between the two parties.
    From the ashes.

  8. #88
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    Wouldn't it also be true, however, that the employee can survive, even thrive, after being fired? Further, wouldn't it stand to reason that a company "by virtue of what it is" might not survive, or might struggle to thrive if the employee voluntarily resigned their position? Is it any less difficult for a company to find a candidate for the open position than it would be for the terminated employee to find other work?
    Your implied exceptions are light years from the rule.

    The relevant question is which entity, the employee or the company, is more greatly negatively impacted as a whole by the firing.

    Just about always that's the employee, and significantly greatly more so.


    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    This is factually inaccurate. As a general rule, a company who terminates an employee without showing cause will not offer any positive or negative reference to potential employers for that former worker. They will simply state that company policy prevents them from providing anything other than position and dates of employment. This is neither a positive nor a negative mark toward the worker gaining employment in the future. Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that a person would not receive unemployment benefits if the company refused to provide a reason for terminating the worker. In reality, refusing to provide a reason GUARANTEES that the worker will receive the benefits. The burden is on the employer to show what that worker did, through fault of their own, to lose their job. If the company can't prove that, the worker gets the benefits. In Georgia, the employer must pay 100% of the money received by approved UI recipients.
    If what you are saying is true, indeed as another poster I just read above has also so stated/implied, then providing no reason for dismissal is the same thing as laying someone off.

    If that's the case, then providing no reason for the dismissal is not firing someone.

    That would affect a lot of people's answers to the poll, I would imagine.

    Thus the OP question would then need to be rephrased.

    But, let's say that the employer said "You're fired!", and when the employee asked "Why?", the employer gave no reason. Is that a layoff? If so, the employee would likely not know that. The employer would be guilty of misconstruence. The employee might understandably not pursue unemployment benefits and the employer would thus not have their unemployment insurance premiums increased.

    Accurately, though, once an employer says "You're fired!", it's a firing, not a layoff. Otherwise the employer is simply lying to protect their bottom line. If the employer says "You're fired!" then it is right in regard to liberty and justice for both that the employer tell the employee accurately why so that the employee knows not only what may need to be corrected in the future, but if there's a reconciliation or compensation recourse the employee can rightly then pursue the employee will be propely informed to consider pursuance.

    It thus still seems the right thing from a liberty and justice for all perspective for the employer to tell the truth to the employee as to why the employee is being let go.

    Your "lean" in the left margin of your post says "Libertarian-Right". The response you gave does indeed match my understanding of those with this particular political ideology. So thanks for validating my recently-learned understanding.
    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?

  9. #89
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    But you speak of justice and freedom only from the employee's point of view. An employee can leave an employer at the drop of a hat with no repercussions. This can cause loss of revenue and possibly cause a company to have to close it's door. I don't see either party's freedom as being infringed upon since it an equal exchange between the two parties.
    I actually agree with you about an employee's sudden voluntary leave.

    Without providing adequate notice, the company's security can be infringed at the expense of, arguably, excessive freedom on the part of the employee.

    I believe that in the interest of liberty and justice for both, that there needs to be some definite ground-rules stated that both need to play by.

    If an employee has taken free time to pursue and land another job, then suddenly leaves without warning, leaving the company in a spot, well, that's just wrong, don't you think?

    Regardless, the potential for that to happen does not excuse any other unfairness.

    The company should still provide an accurate reason to the employee on all dismissals.

    Since dismissals are very frequently "at the drop of a hat" from the employee's perspective, though that's not justification for the employee to do likewise, it does add to the justice factor for the employee that an accurate reason needs to be given for the employee's dismissal.
    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?

  10. #90
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    If your "Boss" is tasked with the hiring and firing of employees, he is acting on behalf of the employer. If the "boss" is not acting in the best interest of the company (or the whim of the employer, owner, etc) he should be fired. FOR THIS REASON!
    Yes. How? By going around him? Sure.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •