• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Should employers be legally required to provide a reason for firing?


  • Total voters
    40

Phoenix

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
622
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
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.

There should be only a reason if there is a contract between the two parties.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
 
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...
 
Last edited:
yes, there should have to be a reason, and that reason should be explained to the fired employee, even if that reason is "we think we can increase our bottom line if we eliminate your position."
 
There are certain methods of recourse if the employee has good reason to believe that they have been fired for certain reasons. I'm not sure how I feel about having some restrictions on firing, but I most certainly do not think that it should be terribly difficult to do if no discrimination is involved and the burden of proof lies with the employee. Europe's labor markets have been heavily screwed up for years, and one of the main reasons is that it is incredibly difficult to fire people. This leads to lower productivity, labor that is less flexible, and higher unemployment since employers are less likely to gamble on a new employee if they figure they might have trouble firing them if the newbie isn't up to snuff. The restrictions might be designed to help working people and the economically vulnerable, but in practice the people hurt the most are the most economically vulnerable, the people without jobs. This is because these restrictions make it much harder for people to enter the market.
 
I don't think that it should be terribly hard to fire someone, but I do believe the reason for the firing should be given, in writing, so the person knows what they are getting fired for and can put that info out, if nothing else. Now, I also think that people should have legal recourse if they were fired for something that is just plain stupid. Basically, if it would be something that is prevented from being taken into consideration for hiring someone, then it should also not be a valid reason to fire someone for either.
 
the constitution does not give certain people ABSOLUTE rights over others
Debatable, but certainly not with regards to employment. Private employment in the U.S. is nearly 100% voluntary both on the part of the employer, and the employee. There are certain labor laws, but none give absolute anything...so why are you bringing that up?

and doesnt allow for the creating of private Kingdoms...
Generally if the "kingdom" is abiding by the law, it certainly does.

.this new generation of rich folks have lost their minds...they think they now ENTITLED to it all...instead of just MOST...
You are making an insulting generalization, it's no different than blatant racism. You, based on your behavior, should be ashamed.
 
Racism against the rich? How bizarre.

All employees should have elementary protection from being fired on a whim. Contrary to popular American rightwing dogma, it's not impossible to fire anyone in Europe, they just have to have done something to deserve it.
 
Should employees be legally required to provide a reason for quitting?
 
Absolutely not as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of that person (say race, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc.)

Other then that..there should be no government involvement.
 
Debatable, but certainly not with regards to employment. Private employment in the U.S. is nearly 100% voluntary both on the part of the employer, and the employee. There are certain labor laws, but none give absolute anything...so why are you bringing that up?


Generally if the "kingdom" is abiding by the law, it certainly does.


You are making an insulting generalization, it's no different than blatant racism. You, based on your behavior, should be ashamed.


The first topic is not debateable as I see it.....the second let me clear up..i meant private employment Kingdoms where the are king and their word cannot be questioned....and the third is perception and my perception based on years of experience are the Rich were far more moderate and caring for their employeed and they shared some of their Profits with those that DO THE LABOR TO ENABLE THEM TO BE RICH...today the teaparty attitude is were rich its ALL ours and we want more and we want to take it from you...that is my personal perception and that is why I am a newly registered independent and not a republican any longer
 
Racism against the rich? How bizarre.

All employees should have elementary protection from being fired on a whim. Contrary to popular American rightwing dogma, it's not impossible to fire anyone in Europe, they just have to have done something to deserve it.

And who determines what constitutes "deserving it"? No one said that it was impossible, but there are far more regulations on it than in the USA in many countries.
 
In any ongoing trading relationship, either participant should be free to discontinue the relationship at any time for any reason.

A buyer should be able to stop buying whenever they wish, and a seller should be able to stop selling whenever they wish.
 
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?
 
I have fired employees for these following reasons:

Theft.
Disrespecting my customers.
Destruction of my property.
Sexual (or any other form of) Harassment.
Being drunk/drinking on duty
Doing drugs while on duty.
Coming to work "wasted".
Insubordination
Constant lateness
Constant absenteeism
Assault
Safety violations
Health code violations
Having three "write ups" in a 3 month period
The economy tanked and I have to cut labor to keep the place open (though with this one I have rehired those laid off when things got better)

My employees know exactly what I expect from my employees,and if they can't do what the job demands,it's out the door with them.
I have never fired someone due to race,creed,color,gender,sexual orientaition,political beliefssmoker/non-smoker,height or weight.

Depending on the severety of their infractions,I can give a verbal warning,a "write up",suspension for a certion time limit,or immediate termination (and in some cases I call the cops and have the offender arrested).

My "kingdom",my rules.I don't force my employees to seek employment from me in the first place,and I don't prevent them from quitting if they don't like the way I run my "kingdom".
Technically I am not required by law to explain why I fire them,becuase they already know why.
 
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.

No - but if someone feels they were wrongfully fired by all means: they should be able to prove they were worthy of the job.

But all too often when someone complains that it was unjust firing - once you learn about the situation you see why they were let go of and sometimes you wonder why it didn't happen sooner.

Of course - if you fire someone and you don't have a solid defense then you're facing a possibility of being ruled against in some fashion.

But I don't think anything should reinstate said employee back into that work environment - that's just creating more issues.
 
Last edited:
I feel an employer should have the right to fire whomever they chose for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. Besides if your employer has no good reason other then not liking you personally the chances are you would be happier somewhere else anyway.
 
As long as former employees who feel targeted or wronged have a recourse to challenge termination, I see no reason why company should have the obligation to present a reason to the terminated employee. Texas is at-will, and I can terminate any of my techs for any reason unrelated to discrimination, without justification provided to that employee. To protect us from lengthy and expensive labor suits we often document and provide thorough explanations for our decisions, however.
 
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?

Every job is different and requires different standards. Trying to impose blanket regulations covers up a lot of gray area.
 
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.
 
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.
 
If there is no reason to fire and employee why would and employer want to do it?
 
...
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? :shock:
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom