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

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

It's a tough place to be. Like others have said, the employer needs someone to do the job and if the person isn't there (for like a pregnancy) how can the job get done? And the employee can quit immediately as well, which also screws the employer. On the other hand, people live out their daily life with the knowledge a pay check will be coming and the decisions they make based on that paycheck are crucial.

I think the best middle ground is a firing process. When companies hire someone, there is usually a (sometimes lengthy) hiring process, so a firing process can help bridge the gap. The employer gives the soon to be fired a notice (let's say two weeks ahead of time), letting them know their employment will soon be terminated. During this process, if the employee demonstrates a malice towards the business and willfully attempts to damage the business as an employee, then they can be let go immediately, but the employer has to pay a prorated fine (of how much or to whom, I have no idea yet). If the employee stays on and continues to work as before, then they now have a chance to look for a new job while still receiving a paycheck. And, of course, they can file the necessary paperwork for unemployment.

This idea is just off the top of my head, have never really put much thought into it. There's undoubtedly tweaks to be made and loopholes to be closed, but it provides protection to the employee, while still not burdening the employer too much more.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

You know hiring and firing employees isn't some kind of entertainment for employers. It's a ****ing hassle, and I have friends that own businesses. Not once have they conveyed to me any thrill in firing someone, it's a hassle and emotional draining because it's usually been months in the making. Then they have to find a new suitable employee, which isn't always easy. So anyone that's all about over-protecting the deadbeats need to get the idea out of their heads that getting rid of employees is some kind of easy process, enjoyed by employers. Do you have jerks out there that fire people for no reason at all, sure just like you have exceptions for everything in the world.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

point1percent said:

For all that said no, what if you put yourself in the capitalist's shoes. Wouldn't you want the freedom to invest your capital as you see fit? Would you like to continue to have to pay dead weight to be unproductive, even counterproductive? Why do you think it is the capitalist's duty to provide well being for everybody? Isn't that the responsibility of the individual?

Let's get this straight once and for all: capitalism is not a social program, It's only function is to create as much return on capital as possible in the most efficient way possible, nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

If an employee is truly "dead weight", "unproductive", or "counterproductive", then you should be able to justify that by showing their work performance or behavior at work or something that shows that in their history prior to them being hired. But if you are assuming these things are true from simple characteristics they have, race, gender, sexuality, who they are in a relationship with, their hair/eye color, or some other arbitrary quality that truly has no bearing on how well they do their job, then you are allowing your bias to show in how much you truly don't care for your business but rather prefer your personal judgements of others.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

American said:

You know hiring and firing employees isn't some kind of entertainment for employers. It's a ****ing hassle, and I have friends that own businesses. Not once have they conveyed to me any thrill in firing someone, it's a hassle and emotional draining because it's usually been months in the making. Then they have to find a new suitable employee, which isn't always easy. So anyone that's all about over-protecting the deadbeats need to get the idea out of their heads that getting rid of employees is some kind of easy process, enjoyed by employers. Do you have jerks out there that fire people for no reason at all, sure just like you have exceptions for everything in the world.

Click to expand...

Personal opinion. Some have no issue firing employees. Some employers in fact like to do it.

No one has said to protect "the deadbeats". If you can show how anyone is not pulling their weight/doing their job, that is absolute justification for firing them. The problem is firing them because of your (as in employers') personal bias against a characteristic of that person or a stereotype the employer has about certain "types" of people, not their job performance.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

roguenuke said:

Personal opinion. Some have no issue firing employees. Some employers in fact like to do it.

No one has said to protect "the deadbeats". If you can show how anyone is not pulling their weight/doing their job, that is absolute justification for firing them. The problem is firing them because of your (as in employers') personal bias against a characteristic of that person or a stereotype the employer has about certain "types" of people, not their job performance.

Click to expand...

Then could have just not hired them from the start. This isn't all cut and dried, and btw most everything posted around here is opinion.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

No. An employer, if they REALY want to fire someone, can anyway. Your employee dead weight? Document it. Easy. Assign tasks, give a reasonable time frame, and then issue a write up should they not succeed. Is that somehow an impossible task for the poor overburdened employer? Got an employee with a bad attitude? Again, document it. Making trouble at work? Document it. In short, be present and proactive at you business.

Got someone you just don't like and want to fire? Schedule them for 6 hours a week, at the worst times, the worst jobs, etc. They'll quit in no time.


I really don't see what employers' problem is.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

roguenuke said:

Personal opinion. Some have no issue firing employees. Some employers in fact like to do it.

No one has said to protect "the deadbeats". If you can show how anyone is not pulling their weight/doing their job, that is absolute justification for firing them. The problem is firing them because of your (as in employers') personal bias against a characteristic of that person or a stereotype the employer has about certain "types" of people, not their job performance.

Click to expand...

You are grossly oversimplifying current reality. The employer has to essentially put together a legal case before firing someone. And the bigger the company the greater the concern/fear of litigation initiated by the person fired.

Regardless of how frivolous the case maybe, the company has to deal with the legal expenses along with possible impact on "public image" of the brand.

Just the way it is.....

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I've noticed quite a few people have mentioned that employees have the right to quit whenever they choose but an employer cannot end it the same way. Creating a double standard. Why should that double standard exist? Equality should not be about double standards. By the same logic if I am working somewhere and get a gay boss, a black boss, a christian boss or whatever and refuse to work for that person should I not be held to that same standard?

Honestly I think contracts would solve almost all of this. Employee and employer should enter into a contract that they both agree upon allowing for certain instances where the employer or employee can terminate and other than that they have to work/employ for the duration of the contract. End of the contract either party can just say no.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

KevinKohler said:

No. An employer, if they REALY want to fire someone, can anyway. Your employee dead weight? Document it. Easy. Assign tasks, give a reasonable time frame, and then issue a write up should they not succeed. Is that somehow an impossible task for the poor overburdened employer? Got an employee with a bad attitude? Again, document it. Making trouble at work? Document it. In short, be present and proactive at you business.

Got someone you just don't like and want to fire? Schedule them for 6 hours a week, at the worst times, the worst jobs, etc. They'll quit in no time.


I really don't see what employers' problem is.

Click to expand...

Employers absolutely find ways around it. No doubt.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Kreton said:

Employers absolutely find ways around it. No doubt.

Click to expand...

That is because the law prices lying into the market.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Kreton said:

I've noticed quite a few people have mentioned that employees have the right to quit whenever they choose but an employer cannot end it the same way. Creating a double standard. Why should that double standard exist? Equality should not be about double standards. By the same logic if I am working somewhere and get a gay boss, a black boss, a christian boss or whatever and refuse to work for that person should I not be held to that same standard?

Honestly I think contracts would solve almost all of this. Employee and employer should enter into a contract that they both agree upon allowing for certain instances where the employer or employee can terminate and other than that they have to work/employ for the duration of the contract. End of the contract either party can just say no.

Click to expand...

An employee forced to work against their will?

Yeah, that'll prolly fly.....

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Juanita said:

Isn't that what these "Right to Work" states are all about...that they can fire for any or no reason whatsoever?

Click to expand...

No. Right to work states are about not having to join a club to get hired in the first place.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cole said:

An employee forced to work against their will?

Yeah, that'll prolly fly.....

Click to expand...

How is them entering into a contract against their will? It is simply them fulfilling their obligation.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cole said:

You are grossly oversimplifying current reality. The employer has to essentially put together a legal case before firing someone. And the bigger the company the greater the concern/fear of litigation initiated by the person fired.

Regardless of how frivolous the case maybe, the company has to deal with the legal expenses along with possible impact on "public image" of the brand.

Just the way it is.....

Click to expand...

Then do it. You take that risk of having more paperwork if you are a bigger business. Deal with it. But you still can fire people for being unproductive, lazy, or a work disruption, with proof/evidence.

The real problem is (and I read a report about this), too many employers are unwilling to admit they are wrong about hiring a person to begin with or are too lazy themselves to actually take the time to pay attention to their employees and document relevant aspects of what their employees do or don't do. That is the problem.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Kreton said:

I've noticed quite a few people have mentioned that employees have the right to quit whenever they choose but an employer cannot end it the same way. Creating a double standard. Why should that double standard exist? Equality should not be about double standards. By the same logic if I am working somewhere and get a gay boss, a black boss, a christian boss or whatever and refuse to work for that person should I not be held to that same standard?

Honestly I think contracts would solve almost all of this. Employee and employer should enter into a contract that they both agree upon allowing for certain instances where the employer or employee can terminate and other than that they have to work/employ for the duration of the contract. End of the contract either party can just say no.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the whole "they can quit anytime they want" thing is not really true. First of all, most people have a job to make money to pay for needs, like housing, food, utilities, and other bills. They aren't working simply to work so they have to take those things into account whenever they even think about quitting a job. Second, quitting without notice can cause a person to get bad recommendations from former employers, reducing their chances of being hired by someone else. Plus, it makes it highly unlikely that, in the off chance the employee might want to get a different job with that company they simply left, that they will be able to do so in the future, unlike if a person were to leave with notification.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

If reasons of discrimination (race, gender etc) the answer is no. Otherwise, yes.

Employers are liable for employees actions, so the employer gets to decide whether or not the take the risk of hiring and then of keeping someone.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Most of the employment problems I've encountered and "fixed" over the years, which are numerous, for both large and small businesses, have been caused by the employer/management.

That old say, no bad employees, just bad management? In my experience, it's about 90% true.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are anti-freedom.

First, my position: employers should be able to fire an employee for whatever cockamamie excuse they come up with. Whether the employee smells funny, has the wrong color skin, walks with a limp, talks with a drawl, or is just plain annoying.

Why? Because I believe in freedom.

An individual is not forced to work in any particular industry or business. They have complete control over who they work for or whether or not they even work for another person. Employers must offer a satisfactory compensation package in order to attract competent employees. The choices that employer makes in compensation has a direct effect on its public image. Highly compensated employees are happier and encourage customers to return in the future. It is a mutually beneficial situation. If a company determines to refrain from hiring or fire all employees who are white males, this will send a message to potential customers and the company will pay a very real price for this decision. The discriminatory acts of the employer directly affect the success of the business itself. Consumers choose to shop at those businesses which provide the goods they desire in a manner which they support when given the opportunity.

This is the only way for a free society to advance its morals and remain free. Every single person on the face of the earth is discriminatory. It is a fundamental factor of human nature. To deny this capacity in an employer for the sake of “fairness” creates, by its very act, a situation of tyranny.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

TNAR said:

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are anti-freedom.

Click to expand...

If you listen hard enough, you can probably hear me roll my eyes.

First, my position: employers should be able to fire an employee for whatever cockamamie excuse they come up with. Whether the employee smells funny, has the wrong color skin, walks with a limp, talks with a drawl, or is just plain annoying.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your position, but it's not the problem I have with your post.

Why? Because I believe in freedom.

Click to expand...

Not really, you just believe in power resting with the employer.

An individual is not forced to work in any particular industry or business.

Click to expand...

But they ARE forced to work in SOME industry or business. At least, if they want to eat and provide for their family.

They have complete control over who they work for or whether or not they even work for another person.

Click to expand...

Sounds great in theory, but completely false in reality. Not everyone has the money to start a business. Not everyone can qualify for a loan. Not everyone has a home situation which allows them to pick their ideal job. There are not unlimited jobs in every field. The cost of entry to start a business is not affordable to everyone.

Employers must offer a satisfactory compensation package in order to attract competent employees.

Click to expand...

Or they can send those jobs overseas to China where they can pay employees $.15 an hour with no bathroom break.

Again, what you say sounds great in theory, but not in reality.

Highly compensated employees are happier and encourage customers to return in the future.

Click to expand...

Explain Wal-Mart then. Poorly compensated, unhelpful workers and it's easily the largest supermarket chain in America.

If a company determines to refrain from hiring or fire all employees who are white males, this will send a message to potential customers and the company will pay a very real price for this decision.

Click to expand...

And in many places, refusing to hire black people will boost their business with those who are racist.

This is the only way for a free society to advance its morals and remain free.

Click to expand...

But that has nothing to do with freedom. Granting all power in a job relationship to the employer is not freedom, it's oppression of the employee. If there were unlimited jobs and/or capital to create a business, then your theory might hold water. But there's not, and your theory has nothing to do with freedom, only shifting all the power to the employer.

To deny this capacity in an employer for the sake of “fairness” creates, by its very act, a situation of tyranny.

Click to expand...

So...making sure people are treated equally is tyrannical?

I'm not sure you completely understand the meaning of the word "freedom".

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

roguenuke said:

The problem is that the whole "they can quit anytime they want" thing is not really true. First of all, most people have a job to make money to pay for needs, like housing, food, utilities, and other bills. They aren't working simply to work so they have to take those things into account whenever they even think about quitting a job. Second, quitting without notice can cause a person to get bad recommendations from former employers, reducing their chances of being hired by someone else. Plus, it makes it highly unlikely that, in the off chance the employee might want to get a different job with that company they simply left, that they will be able to do so in the future, unlike if a person were to leave with notification.

Click to expand...

So based on this and your previous post....you acknowledge there are issues relating to a business firing people, but they just need to "deal with it". However issues with people just quitting are reason why we should ignore the fact that people absolutely CAN quit anytime they want, they just have to deal with potential consequences.

Employers ALSO have consequences when firing people. First, most employers own a business to make money to pay for their needs like housing, food, utilities, and other bills and to do that generally need employees. They aren’t running a business simply to run a business so they have to take those things into account whenever they even think of firing someone from a job. Second, firing people for frivolous reasons can cause a company to get a bad reputation with its other employees, reducing their chance of retaining their other workers in such a environment. Plus, firing people without air tight reasons can cause a business to get engrossed in costly and time consuming legal battles.

Yes, are there legitimate reasons and hindrances that may cause a person to choose NOT to quit at any point? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability to do so. Just like there are legitimate reasons and hindrances that may cause a business to choose NOT to fire people at any point for most any reason. That doesn’t mean they have the ability to do so (in some states).

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I am in no way discriminatory to any group of people, but I believe it is stupid to call the United States a free country than force upon the business owners regulations such as these. In todays connected world we need not worry about work place discrimination. We already see it now: when a big company does something dumb to their employees it gets posted on the internet and goes viral. They are forced by the market to make a change. Changes that are market driven are ALWAYS more effective than government mandated changes.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:

Sounds great in theory, but completely false in reality. Not everyone has the money to start a business. Not everyone can qualify for a loan. Not everyone has a home situation which allows them to pick their ideal job. There are not unlimited jobs in every field. The cost of entry to start a business is not affordable to everyone.

Click to expand...

And all of those things can largely be attributed to some fashion to decisions and choices that individual has made throughout the life. I don't think he misunderstands the word "freedom", even if I disagree with some of his points, but rather I think YOU misunderstand what he means by it.

You seem to be in the group that thinks "Freedom" is a notion of everyone has an equal ability to do what they want at any given tiem. He seems to be talking about freedom of oppertunity in a generalized sense. Having freedom doesn't guarantee you that you have a good family life, or that you've taken action to keep your credit well enough to get a loan, or anything else. It simply guarantees that you can try and do everything that's within your own power.

Freedom doesn't guarantee you someone else giving you money. Freedom doesn't guarantee you no kids you have to feed or family members you have to care for. Freedom doesn't give you a job or save you money.

In some ways, looking at what you're saying, I do agree with him. You're notion of "freedom" seems to be forcing others to do something for people. Sorry, that's not "freedom" and I think in that case using your logic you're the one misunderstanding it. Though I'd prefer to suggest that freedom is not quite as clear cut of a word as many try to act like it is, and many people have very different views on what it means to be "free".

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Absolutely NOT.

In Ohio our Public Policy exception evolved from a man getting fired because the employer had to take child support out of his check and whined about it, so they fired him. How is a man supposed to support his kids when he gets fired for it? The LAW mandated it be done.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Zyphlin said:

So based on this and your previous post....you acknowledge there are issues relating to a business firing people, but they just need to "deal with it". However issues with people just quitting are reason why we should ignore the fact that people absolutely CAN quit anytime they want, they just have to deal with potential consequences.

Employers ALSO have consequences when firing people. First, most employers own a business to make money to pay for their needs like housing, food, utilities, and other bills and to do that generally need employees. They aren’t running a business simply to run a business so they have to take those things into account whenever they even think of firing someone from a job. Second, firing people for frivolous reasons can cause a company to get a bad reputation with its other employees, reducing their chance of retaining their other workers in such a environment. Plus, firing people without air tight reasons can cause a business to get engrossed in costly and time consuming legal battles.

Yes, are there legitimate reasons and hindrances that may cause a person to choose NOT to quit at any point? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability to do so. Just like there are legitimate reasons and hindrances that may cause a business to choose NOT to fire people at any point for most any reason. That doesn’t mean they have the ability to do so (in some states).

Click to expand...

People who are employed though have less power than the people that do the employing. Not recognizing this simple fact is the issue. Only a limited amount of people/organizations can be employers. The majority are going to be employees. This gives employers a starting level of more power. So, as a balance for that power, employers have certain restrictions on what they can legally fire a person for or deny them a job for. And heck, the employers still retain more power than the employees even with anti-discrimination laws in hiring and firing.

Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish?

Don't most of us work in 'At Will' states? This means that employees can be fired for any reason or no reason,unless there's a claim of some sort of discrimination, but it also means that the employee can quit with no notice either, so it's a 2 way street.

Yeah, I think it should be this way because employer and employee shouldn't be forced to work together if it's not in both's interest to do so.