• 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
I mean real reasons like that must be valid for firing one

Those are "real reasons". I own a business, I hire you, I don't like your attitude or the way you do the job or even the way you dress for work. I fire you and hire somebody else. It's MY business, lol, and I'll fire if I want to! :)
 
Those are "real reasons". I own a business, I hire you, I don't like your attitude or the way you do the job or even the way you dress for work. I fire you and hire somebody else. It's MY business, lol, and I'll fire if I want to! :)

I think this is the first time we are in agreement ever. You may want to rethink, LOL
 
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.

theoretically I oppose Title VII as a violation of the property rights of an individual
 
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.

Many employers can hire people and realize later that the worker does not meet the standards of the company. Every employer-employee relationship is different. At the very least, giving a set number of acceptable reasons for dismissal puts the burden of proof on the employer. This inherently makes all dismissals more difficult and more of a hassle. Because of this, employers will be less likely to hire new people just entering the market.
 
Many employers can hire people and realize later that the worker does not meet the standards of the company. Every employer-employee relationship is different. At the very least, giving a set number of acceptable reasons for dismissal puts the burden of proof on the employer. This inherently makes all dismissals more difficult and more of a hassle. Because of this, employers will be less likely to hire new people just entering the market.

No - I'm more than happy to tell someone why it didn't work out: maybe they can work on issues and improve things? But I usually did that first - gave chances to change, first. . . I never fired willy nilly because I've been fired unexpectedly and it sucks.
 
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.

I think that an employer should be required to give exact reason and proof of that reason for firing someone. But beyond that I think that an employer should be able to fire a person for any reason that does not include gender, sexuality, race, religion, political party, or the employee saying something bad outside of company property/time.
 
Should employees be legally required to provide a reason for quitting?

The relationship is not one of equal power, in most cases, so this question is irrelevant.
 
Absent a contract with delineated rights and liabilities regarding both parties, I am very comfortable with the standard that termination can be for any reason or no reason as long as it is not an illegal reason. Generally, a person is given the amount of time where in between paychecks before termination becomes effective. To have any other system would be to erode the free enterprise system and have a chilling effect on small business ownership. Should an employee feel they were wrongfully terminated they are left to their remedies.
 
I would agree that employers should be required to give a reason. Problem is, they are scared of lawsuits and will not give the correct reason.

To force employers to give a reason under current law is pointless. I do think most employers, will at least tell the reason indirectly.
 
Those are "real reasons". I own a business, I hire you, I don't like your attitude or the way you do the job or even the way you dress for work. I fire you and hire somebody else. It's MY business, lol, and I'll fire if I want to! :)

yes diana ,i agree with you and mean that that is a real reason in fact :)))
 
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.



"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.
 
It's the employers job. It's his money.

Fire at will, and quit at will - both should be decent enough to give two weeks notice / give a severance etc; but both must be left free actors.
 
Y'all can be as incensed as you want about the "unfairness" of being fired "for no reason", but the bottom line is that unless termination procedures are documented in a contract or personnel manual, most businesses have the right to fire any employee for any reason... or even for no reason at all. :shrug:

If I'm the owner of a small business, I hire a kitchen worker who has a surly attitude, I'll fire his ass for the surly attitude. If he doesn't have a surly attitude, but talks non-stop and screws up kitchen communication, I'll fire his ass. If he just smirks and makes faces at people, I'll fire his ass. If I find out that I just don't like the guy, you bet your bongos I'll fire his ass for that, too.

My company, my business, I can hire whomever I please for whatever reason I please, and I also fire whomever I please. I don't have a duty to employ you if I've decided you're not the person I want in that job. Employees don't run the company; the owner runs the company. Kick and scream and hold your breath until you turn blue at the "unfairness" of it all, it is still my company and my right to decide who does or doesn't work for me.

(A pattern of long-term illegal descriminatory practices excepted, of course.)

It's funny how other people try to tell you, how to run your business.
Maybe they should be required to put their money on the line, before making decisions for you.
 
"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.

How do you do your job, if you're an asshole? America aspires to mediocrity. (see what I did then?)
 
Last edited:
It's the employers job. It's his money.

Fire at will, and quit at will - both should be decent enough to give two weeks notice / give a severance etc; but both must be left free actors.

That's a good point, I have had men quit with no notice and it really left me in a bind, this works both ways.
 
they should not have to have a reason beyond any agreement qith the employee.

looking at France, it appears that being too restrictive about firing depresses hiring.
 
Unless there is a contract with stipulations in the private sector, then no. (public sector is different) However.... the terminated employee has a right to petition for a reason and if none is still given, then that cannot be used against them in any way with future employment. The employers who terminated without just cause must issue a statement that there was no just cause for termination. Empoyers must also be truthful about any causes. If an employee is terminated and not given a reason, the employer then cannot later give one.
 
Last edited:
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.
You set up the poll like the question is a clear absolute, one way or the other. The issue is not that way. There are some valid and enforceable reasons to prevent firing. I volunteered for a RIF, later I found that I was already on the RIF list. People were chosen for several reasons some were valid but a major one one was religion, in my opinion, invalid.
 
If we look at the question through the present legal filter, yes, in most cases the employer should not have to give the employee a (truthful) reason for firing the employee.

But law is often tilted in the direction of the ideology in power at the time of enactment, and once enacted, takes more than just a pendulum-swing in power to reverse. And even if reversal occurs, does either/or simply because of who's in power make any liberty or justice sense as far as doing the right thing in the situation, especially if there might be a more complex right answer than the simple either-or from who's in power?

For those of you who fully support the employer not having to give a truthful reason to the fired employee in most cases, according to law, would you still be citing the law as good if the law said the reverse?

To me, the question isn't asking what the law states at present or even should state at present, from a political persuasion perspective.

To me, the question is what is really the right thing to do in this situation by the parties involved?

That's why I believe that the liberty and justice of neither party, the employer or the employee, should be infringed in the matter.

At first glance, therefore, it appeared to me that the employee's justice was needlessly being infringed by not receiving a truthful reason, and that neither the employer's liberty or justice was being infringed by providing one.

Thus I say the employer should be required to provide the employee a truthful reason for the firing, and that the law should be changed to reflect that.

But maybe if I analyzed this more deeply, using the same liberty and justice for all criteria, my analysis might reveal a different, more complex answer to the question to insure the best possible outcome of maintaining an optimal balance of freedom and security for both parties.

I guess what I'm saying is that the method we employ and the depth we pursue the analysis to decide the matter is really huge.

It's less a question, perhaps, of which of the two poll-answers you would choose.

And more a question of what method would you use to decide.

I think that typically people use their particular political persuasion as an off-the-cuff response, as that's pretty easy to do.

But I don't believe that really arrives at the right-thing-to-do answer as often as people might want to think.
 
Last edited:
You set up the poll like the question is a clear absolute, one way or the other. The issue is not that way. There are some valid and enforceable reasons to prevent firing. I volunteered for a RIF, later I found that I was already on the RIF list. People were chosen for several reasons some were valid but a major one one was religion, in my opinion, invalid.

What's a RIF?
 
reduction in force.
 
If we look at the question through the present legal filter, yes, in most cases the employer should not have to give the employee a (truthful) reason for firing the employee.

But law is often tilted in the direction of the ideology in power at the time of enactment, and once enacted, takes more than just a pendulum-swing in power to reverse. And even if reversal occurs, does either/or simply because of who's in power make any liberty or justice sense as far as doing the right thing in the situation, especially if there might be a more complex right answer than the simple either-or from who's in power?

For those of you who fully support the employer not having to give a truthful reason to the fired employee in most cases, according to law, would you still be citing the law as good if the law said the reverse?

To me, the question isn't asking what the law states at present or even should state at present, from a political persuasion perspective.

To me, the question is what is really the right thing to do in this situation by the parties involved?

That's why I believe that the liberty and justice of neither party, the employer or the employee, should be infringed in the matter.

At first glance, therefore, it appeared to me that the employee's justice was needlessly being infringed by not receiving a truthful reason, and that neither the employer's liberty or justice was being infringed by providing one.

Thus I say the employer should be required to provide the employee a truthful reason for the firing, and that the law should be changed to reflect that.

But maybe if I analyzed this more deeply, using the same liberty and justice for all criteria, my analysis might reveal a different, more complex answer to the question to insure the best possible outcome of maintaining an optimal balance of freedom and security for both parties.

I guess what I'm saying is that the method we employ and the depth we pursue the analysis to decide the matter is really huge.

It's less a question, perhaps, of which of the two poll-answers you would choose.

And more a question of what method would you use to decide.

I think that typically people use their particular political persuasion as an off-the-cuff response, as that's pretty easy to do.

But I don't believe that really arrives at the right-thing-to-do answer as often as people might want to think.

For me it comes down to a matter of Contract Law. Employment is an equal exchange between two parties. The employee exchanges hours of their life for monetary compensation from the employer. Except in cases that have an actual contract with a specified time period the employment is an hour by hour contract and can be terminated by either party at will. I think it completely jerk move for an employers to walk in and say "You are fired, leave the building" but I believe the employer is (or should be) well within their rights to do it.
 
I think it's absolutely rotten and morally bankrupt to fire a person without any freaking reason.

You're not dealing with material trinkets, but living, breathing humans that may have families they're trying to support.

The business has many living breathing humans with families they are supporting. The business owner is human also. maybe with a family. The morality of dismissing an employee is not really the issue. It the legality I am asking about. It's one person's money and another person's labor. I contend neither should a right to the other unless both agree to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom