Thread: Employer Concerns vs. Employee or Prosective Employee Rights

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

That's another thing I find odd about the US. In the UK after a certain time (usually 1 year but sometimes sooner) workers can't just be sacked for no reason and can take employers to a tribunal (they don't always win and the awards are set by an independent body so it's not a jackpot and this situation is still rare) if they feel they have been dismissed unfairly but am I right in saying in the US if I work for lets say a electronics shop for 10 years I could still be fired on the spot just because the boss was in a mood?

I realise some states are better than others but taken as an average over the whole US.

Here's a question for you to ponder:

If you were offered another job which suited your needs better (more money, closer to home, whatever) would you want to be legally prevented from taking it due to some obligation to remain with your current employer unless and until you go through an exhaustive process to get permission to leave?

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Here's a question for you to ponder:

If you were offered another job which suited your needs better (more money, closer to home, whatever) would you want to be legally prevented from taking it due to some obligation to remain with your current employer unless and until you go through an exhaustive process to get permission to leave?

Not an exhaustive process, no, but some sort of process which would try to ensure some sort of equity to both sides would be ok. You'll note the guy says the regulation rarely results in any great gain for the employee, who doesn't always win.

Why is ANY regulation regarded by conservatives as intolerably onerous to everyone, especially if it's mainly trying to achieve fairness for the guy with the least money and the most to lose?

Originally Posted by John Drake

Not an exhaustive process, no, but some sort of process which would try to ensure some sort of equity to both sides would be ok. You'll note the guy says the regulation rarely results in any great gain for the employee, who doesn't always win.

Why is ANY regulation regarded by conservatives as intolerably onerous to everyone, especially if it's mainly trying to achieve fairness for the guy with the least money and the most to lose?

So then you'd approve of being physically chained to the desk then. Just to prevent you from doing something detrimental to the economy, after all, it's for your own good.

When it comes to employees I expect the following.

1: Bright and cheerful in front of the customer always.
2: polite and HONEST with the customers
3: Able to do the things you claim you can do when I hire you
4: Honest with me.

If I need employees and you fit the above 4 criteria I don't care if you are red with purple polka dots and have sex with farm animals on your off work hours.

I should not be forced to hire less than those standards in the name of equal rights or whatever bullshit the government dreams up.

After all who do you want working on you as a Doctor, the guy who just barely got passed because of Affirmative Action or the one who worked hard for his/her grades and truly was capable.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

have sex with farm animals on your off work hours.

I can start tomorrow.

I'm not trying to say the government should tell an employer who he can and can't fire I'm simply saying that an employee should have the ability to get free advice about whether or not he has been treated unfairly and can seek some sort of mediation or legal redress. It seems that a few of you are looking at this from purely an employers point of view and the rights of an employee to a fair hearing if he gets sacked is seen as somehow detrimental to business.