• 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 employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish[W:126]

should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason

  • yes

    Votes: 59 48.0%

  • no

    Votes: 64 52.0%
  • Total voters
    123
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
For cause criteria is not at-will employment.
Click to expand...
A requirement to show cause is not at will employment. But one can still be fired tor cause in a state with at will employment.
If one is fired for cause in an at-will state, one is not eligible for UI benefits.
But someone fired without cause is eligible for benefits. They're not eligible for severance pay, but as far as UI benefits go, I'm not aware of any difference between at-will and other states.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
Who could have any problem with employment at will if labor can also quit and still apply for unemployment compensation?
Click to expand...
Since, with few exceptions, no one who quits is eligible for UI benefits, why are you making a distinction between at-will a nd other states?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
A requirement to show cause is not at will employment. But one can still be fired tor cause in a state with at will employment.
If one is fired for cause in an at-will state, one is not eligible for UI benefits.
But someone fired without cause is eligible for benefits. They're not eligible for severance pay, but as far as UI benefits go, I'm not aware of any difference between at-will and other states.
Click to expand...

It is about the employment relationship.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
For cause criteria is not at-will employment.
Click to expand...
Virginia is an at-will State. Requirements for eligibility: Benefits Eligibility | Virginia Employment Commission
If you are separated for any reason other than lack of work, it will be necessary to gather facts from you and your employer concerning your separation. Your employer will be sent a questionnaire requesting information concerning your employment and separation. You will be called by a VEC deputy and be given an opportunity to present your information and review that of your employer. The deputy will make a determination regarding your qualification based on the separation information presented. You will be disqualified if the deputy determines that you quit your job without good cause, or you were fired from your job for misconduct in connection with your work.
Click to expand...
The employer does not need cause to fire someone, but must show cause, specifically misconduct, to deny benefits.
And an employee who quits for good cause is also eligible.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
Since, with few exceptions, no one who quits is eligible for UI benefits, why are you making a distinction between at-will a nd other states?
Click to expand...

It is about equality before the law under our republican form of Government with our form of Capitalism.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
It is about the employment relationship.
Click to expand...

danielpalos said:
It is about equality before the law under our republican form of Government with our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...
But you keep refusing to articulate the exact problem you believe exists. What do you think there's a lack of equality and what do you think is the issue. Spell it out, man.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
A requirement to show cause is not at will employment. But one can still be fired tor cause in a state with at will employment.
If one is fired for cause in an at-will state, one is not eligible for UI benefits.
But someone fired without cause is eligible for benefits. They're not eligible for severance pay, but as far as UI benefits go, I'm not aware of any difference between at-will and other states.
Click to expand...

The point is that labor should be able to collect unemployment simply for being unemployed, to correct that ineffiency of Capitalism, and using Socialism to bail it out as a result.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
The point is that labor should be able to collect unemployment simply for being unemployed, to correct that ineffiency of Capitalism, and using Socialism to bail it out as a result.
Click to expand...
So to correct one perceived inefficiency you want to introduce an even greater inefficiency? How does that work?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
So to correct one perceived inefficiency you want to introduce an even greater inefficiency? How does that work?
Click to expand...

It works by understanding the concepts involved. Full employment of resources is one concept. Employment at will is another concept.

Why do you believe labor would be worse off by having recourse to our own laws regarding unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
It works by understanding the concepts involved.
Click to expand...
You're so vague in your posts, it's almost impossible to tell what you think the concepts are or what you mean by your broad labels.
Full employment of resources is one concept.
Click to expand...
Which could mean many things. Until you actually explain, it cannot be known what you mean by full employment of resources. Especially since you're linking it with unemployment insurance, which is certainly not employment of resources. If you mean government supported zero or near zero unemployment where the government provides jobs, regardless of actual demand, then that is staggeringly inefficient.

Employment at will is another concept.
Click to expand...
Which is more effecient.

Why do you believe labor would be worse off by having recourse to our own laws regarding unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?
Click to expand...
Why are you saying they don't have recourse to our own laws in at will states? I posted Virginia's requirements....what about them do you see as different from a non at-will state?

I didn't say labor would be worse off, because your premise is faulty..you haven't shown how your think employees in at-will states are at any disadvantage or have any difficulties receiving UI benefits.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
So to correct one perceived inefficiency you want to introduce an even greater inefficiency? How does that work?
Click to expand...

Unemployment isn't an inefficiency, if it's drawn from accumulated stores of wealth. Right now, this is only partially true, but it still funnels wealth into the economy.
 
I still think the issue of unemployment insurance is a different issue. And each state should decide for itself who will and will not qualify for unemployment insurance. What part, inappropriate or not, that the state and federal government plays in that should also be a separate issue.

I took the intent of this thread to be whether an employer should have the right to fire an employee at will regardless of what benefits are out there for that employee. Does a person have the right to use his/her own legally and ethically acquired money, property, and other resources in his/her own interest? Does the employee have any right to that other than what is agreed between the employer and employee? And if the employer does not have the right to hire and fire at will, so long as no agreements between employer and employee are violated, then do any of us control what we have legally and ethically acquired?

And from a more practical standpoint, how much harder will it be for borderline people to get hired at all if the employer is not going to be allowed to fire them if they don't work out or their employment turns out not to be a benefit to the employer?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I still think the issue of unemployment insurance is a different issue. And each state should decide for itself who will and will not qualify for unemployment insurance. What part, inappropriate or not, that the state and federal government plays in that should also be a separate issue.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you pay for unemployment insurance out of every single paycheck you receive. Anyone who is unemployed and has paid for it ought to receive that money, it's theirs. However, you should receive no more than you paid into the system, plus whatever part your employer paid in on your behalf. When you run out, there should be no more.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Org said:
Unemployment isn't an inefficiency, if it's drawn from accumulated stores of wealth. Right now, this is only partially true, but it still funnels wealth into the economy.
Click to expand...
Unemployment benefits are less efficient than wages from employment.
Expanding UI benefits to those who quit, which is what I was responding to, would give less incentive to work, and increase the inefficiency or UI benefits.

Look at it like this:
Job: Employee recieves wages from employer.
UI benefits: Recipient receives payment from the State, which recieves the funds from a tax on Employers.

Which one has less steps and fewer layers and fewer people involved? That is the more efficient method.

UI benefits are more efficient than attempting to handle unemployed through the general state fund or welfare, as the funds are dedicated, and the criteria are set.
 
Cephus said:
The thing is, you pay for unemployment insurance out of every single paycheck you receive. .
Click to expand...

No, you don't, at least not directly. UI tax comes only from employers, and is not a deduction on employee wages. Workers don't pay in to UI taxes.
 
Cephus said:
The thing is, you pay for unemployment insurance out of every single paycheck you receive. Anyone who is unemployed and has paid for it ought to receive that money, it's theirs. However, you should receive no more than you paid into the system, plus whatever part your employer paid in on your behalf. When you run out, there should be no more.
Click to expand...

No you don't. The employer pays all the SUTA and FUTA taxes. The employee pays none. At least as a deduction. Of course all taxes and other regulation mandated for the employer to comply with reduces the amount of wages and benefits he/she can extend to the employees, but there is no deduction from the employee's wages for unemployment insurance.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
You're so vague in your posts, it's almost impossible to tell what you think the concepts are or what you mean by your broad labels. Which could mean many things. Until you actually explain, it cannot be known what you mean by full employment of resources. Especially since you're linking it with unemployment insurance, which is certainly not employment of resources. If you mean government supported zero or near zero unemployment where the government provides jobs, regardless of actual demand, then that is staggeringly inefficient.

Which is more effecient.

Why are you saying they don't have recourse to our own laws in at will states? I posted Virginia's requirements....what about them do you see as different from a non at-will state?

I didn't say labor would be worse off, because your premise is faulty..you haven't shown how your think employees in at-will states are at any disadvantage or have any difficulties receiving UI benefits.
Click to expand...

It may simply have to do with mustering with a dictionary and thesaurus "militia" to become more well regulated in your word knowledge and comphrension.

The simple version is that recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State could solve simple poverty in our republic when due to a lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market for labor; it would merely need to clear our poverty guidelines.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
Unemployment benefits are less efficient than wages from employment.
Expanding UI benefits to those who quit, which is what I was responding to, would give less incentive to work, and increase the inefficiency or UI benefits.

Look at it like this:
Job: Employee recieves wages from employer.
UI benefits: Recipient receives payment from the State, which recieves the funds from a tax on Employers.

Which one has less steps and fewer layers and fewer people involved? That is the more efficient method.

UI benefits are more efficient than attempting to handle unemployed through the general state fund or welfare, as the funds are dedicated, and the criteria are set.
Click to expand...

But you also need to bring a human element into this. If unemployment benefits were to dissappear - hypothetically -, then the recipients would do one of three things:
a. Not be able to find an alternate source of income
b. Continue working their current jobs, but face a severe decrease in quality of life
c. Be forced to find a (potentially additional) job

We've seen the use of unemployment benefits fluctuate according to the country's economic conditions, so it's very likely that c would not be the case. Given our current economy, it's certainly not now.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
It may simply have to do with mustering with a dictionary and thesaurus "militia" to become more well regulated in your word knowledge and comphrension.
Click to expand...
My word knowledge and comprehension are quite good, and my degree in Economics is from a decent school. So what's more likely is that you are using overly-broad terms in a non-standard manner applied to situations where they are not normally applied and refuse to explain your reasoning.

The simple version is that recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State could solve simple poverty in our republic when due to a lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market for labor; it would merely need to clear our poverty guidelines.
Click to expand...
But why only in at-will employment states? Why not all states? Why do you think recourse to unemployment compensation is inadequate in at-will states?

In other words you would give unemployment compensation for being fired for misconduct or for simple quitting in at will states but not others. Why???
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Org said:
But you also need to bring a human element into this. .
Click to expand...

But then we're no longer talking about efficiency. Don't misinterpret my posts to thinking I'm saying unemployment insurance is "bad" or should be gotten rid of.
 
pinqy said:
No, you don't, at least not directly. UI tax comes only from employers, and is not a deduction on employee wages. Workers don't pay in to UI taxes.
Click to expand...

There are several states where that's not the case, the employee does directly contribute to unemployment insurance.
 
An employee can not quit for ANY reason, despite the wording, there are limitations, therefore the employer should not be able to fire for ANY reason.
 
Cephus said:
There are several states where that's not the case, the employee does directly contribute to unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...

Really? Could you name one of them?

There are a very few limited instances in which some states do require an out-of-state employee who is eligible for unemployment insurance in a state, but whose employer is not contributing to that state's unemployment fund, will be required to kick in his/her portion of that. But that is a really rare anomaly and is mostly in effect as a safeguard against people unethically accessing a state unemployment fund.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
There are several states where that's not the case, the employee does directly contribute to unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...

Three. There are only three where employees give a minimal contribution.
 
lawboy said:
An employee can not quit for ANY reason, despite the wording, there are limitations, therefore the employer should not be able to fire for ANY reason.
Click to expand...

Really? We have returned to a slave state in which people are forced into servitude against their will? Certainly if a person has agreed to certain terms of employment and expectations, he/she can forfeit bonuses, sick pay, and other benefits if he/she quits without fulfilling those terms; i.e. give proper notice etc. But I am unaware of any business that can force a person to stay on the job if that person chooses not to be there. So educate me on that please.

But the fact remains, whatever the employee brings to the job, he/she can leave with including tools and other personal property. The employer has no right to any personal property furnished by the employee. And likewise the employee should be entitled to no part of the employer's money, property, and other resources other than what has been agreed between employer and employee.

If the employee can demand unearned money, property, or other resources from the employer, other than what has been agreed between them, then the employer really owns nothing does he/she? The government can demand that the employer hire people whether he/she needs them or not or whether they are suitable or not and can dictate who will be let go or whether somebody can be let go. And that is just wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom