Right-to-Work=Master and Servant

[OutofDate1980]

"According to various legal scholars, the doctrine of at-will employment first appeared as a statement in a legal treatise by Horace C. Wood, Master and Servant

 

[BiggestManEver]

"Several law review articles have noted that the USA is alone among the industrialized nations of the world in providing no protection against wrongful termination of employment."

Uh... but we do. Unemployment pay.

 

[Vehtemas]

Uh... but we do. Unemployment pay.

I think he means that if you are fired for no reason you cannot get your job back, which in the UK you can.

 

[BiggestManEver]

I think he means that if you are fired for no reason you cannot get your job back, which in the UK you can.

Not to sound like a jerk, but why the hell would you want to work somewhere that you just got fired? Obviously, people don't like you there. Go find a job somewhere that you'll be liked an appreciated.

 

[nlsme]

Uh... but we do. Unemployment pay.

Tell that to the guy fired a few months before retirement that was relying on his pension to help.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... Go find a job somewhere that you'll be liked an appreciated.

Labor participation Rate = 63.9% and falling.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[tony787]

Not to sound like a jerk, but why the hell would you want to work somewhere that you just got fired? Obviously, people don't like you there. Go find a job somewhere that you'll be liked an appreciated.

So you have time to find another job, but still be able to pay your bills in the mean time. Or maybe when you do go back, they will see the error of their ways and there won't be any need to go elsewhere.

 

[OutofDate1980]

So you have time to find another job, but still be able to pay your bills in the mean time. Or maybe when you do go back, they will see the error of their ways and there won't be any need to go elsewhere.

Much likelier the former, rather than the latter.

 

[mike114]

Tell that to the guy fired a few months before retirement that was relying on his pension to help.

What if we never relied on someone else to take of our retirement income?? How's that for freedom and liberty? I know, it's a foreign and ridiculous concept.

Now, if I own a business, it's mine. If I don't have a need for an employee anymore, it is my right to terminate them. People are under the impression that the job they hold is somehow "theirs". It's not, that job belongs to the employer.

 

[noah way]

What if we never relied on someone else to take of our retirement income?? How's that for freedom and liberty? I know, it's a foreign and ridiculous concept.

It's not like people spend their whole lives paying into the retirement system.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... Now, if I own a business, it's mine. If I don't have a need for an employee anymore, it is my right to terminate them. People are under the impression that the job they hold is somehow "theirs". It's not, that job belongs to the employer.

I believe you are missing the authors point, i.e. At-Will laws have no legal basis, contract law should be used for disputes regarding employment.

Doesn't mean that if one's services are no longer needed one cannot be terminated.

 

[nlsme]

What if we never relied on someone else to take of our retirement income?? How's that for freedom and liberty? I know, it's a foreign and ridiculous concept.

Now, if I own a business, it's mine. If I don't have a need for an employee anymore, it is my right to terminate them. People are under the impression that the job they hold is somehow "theirs". It's not, that job belongs to the employer.

The point is, if someone is promised something for 20 years, and then is dismissed only to deprive that person of what they were promised, an injustice was performed to said person.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Now, if I own a business, it's mine.

How would you feel if you put 40 years into "your business" and after all that time someone said they would like to buy it for 20 million dollars, but before you sign the papers, the state you live in, claims eminent domain on "you business". Would you still feel that way?


But we are not talking about a negative factors here, but positive factors.

If you need to down size the company, then you have a right to downsize the company, a negative factor.

But if you are firing the person for a positive factor, ie you have to pay pension, you want to get even with him for sleeping with your daughter, or anything else that like that, it should be illegal.


At-will workers have no contract and therefor no legal basis to fall back on. By forcing both parties to sign a contract, you can make the working environment fair. It does not mean you can not legally position them into a at will state, but it means they have to openly agree to it. If you state that you would give them pension, fire them only to protect the company, and give them a christmas bonus, then they have a contract to legal back up.


Laws against at-will employment does nothing to harm your business, but requires you to set the ground rules in writing before you hire anyone. And if you refused to have something in writing, the law will give you a default set of rules. If you don't like those rules, then make sure you get them to sign the your contract.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... Laws against at-will employment does nothing to harm your business, ...

The abolishment of at-will employment would help honest business.

"Judicial reluctance to alter the absolute nature of at-will employment has restricted the availability of judicial remedies for wrongful discharge in the USA, with the consequence that prudent employees will follow the three monkey rule (i.e., hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil) in order to avoid termination of their employment. The lack of protection for whistleblowers has resulted in damage to American society, in which wrongs — and even illegal conduct — are concealed. Just as bad, unjust or unethical decisions by management are legally protected."

Under section, proper role of common law; History of At-Will Employment Law in the USA

 

[JnEricsonx]

I got fired by a jackass DM, who, sadly, was my DM at my previous job, so, when he's gone, I'd like to get my former job back, because I honestly enjoyed it, so, there you go.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I got fired by a jackass DM, who, sadly, was my DM at my previous job, so, when he's gone, I'd like to get my former job back, because I honestly enjoyed it, so, there you go.

Sounds like your DM has a "thing" for you, sure DM won't follow you to new job ?

 

[tony787]

What if we never relied on someone else to take of our retirement income?? How's that for freedom and liberty? I know, it's a foreign and ridiculous concept.

Now, if I own a business, it's mine. If I don't have a need for an employee anymore, it is my right to terminate them. People are under the impression that the job they hold is somehow "theirs". It's not, that job belongs to the employer.

What I read: "Give me my liberty to hurt other people. It's my right."

We don't have the right to ruin someone's life because it's "our business" and we "feel like it".

Sometimes I think conservatives don't actually know what the whole point of having a government is.

Edit: Thanks for editing me, moderator. I guess you were really bored or something. Nothing I said was offensive to any reasonable person. There was no need to change "you" to "we". I was specifically speaking to that one person.

 

[mike114]

What I read: "Give me my liberty to hurt other people. It's my right."

We don't have the right to ruin someone's life because it's "our business" and we "feel like it".

Sometimes I think conservatives don't actually know what the whole point of having a government is.

Edit: Thanks for editing me, moderator. I guess you were really bored or something. Nothing I said was offensive to any reasonable person. There was no need to change "you" to "we". I was specifically speaking to that one person.

Tony, the gov't is there to enforce contracts. If there is a contract between you and an employer and it's broken, there are ways to remedy that. The gov't shouldn't be mandating rules and regulations. That's what true conservatism is.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The point is, if someone is promised something for 20 years, and then is dismissed only to deprive that person of what they were promised, an injustice was performed to said person.

What about a contract that binds you to your employer for X number of years? Suppose you have such a contract and you make 12.50/hr with no benefits and you find a job that will pay 35.00/hr and full benefits.

Should you be prevented from taking the better job because you have a year left on your contract?

And yes, I know they exist and in some industries, leaving can be very costly for the worker.

We want to be guaranteed some measure of job security, but what about the employer?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Tony, the gov't is there to enforce contracts. If there is a contract between you and an employer and it's broken, there are ways to remedy that. The gov't shouldn't be mandating rules and regulations. That's what true conservatism is.

The point being that at-will employment violated long standing common law regarding contracts between employee & employer, thus negating the enforcement of contract by the courts.

"In 1989, the Utah Supreme Court declared:The genesis of the at-will rule in its present form in America, however, can be traced to Horace G. Wood's 1877 treatise on the master-servant relationship. H. Wood, Master and Servant

 

[lordofthereef]

Not to sound like a jerk, but why the hell would you want to work somewhere that you just got fired? Obviously, people don't like you there. Go find a job somewhere that you'll be liked an appreciated.

People? What people? If only it were this easy. People get fired every day and it has nothing to do with being liked or disliked. If they are fired because they are disliked, it may not even be because they are disliked by the majority, but rather the minority that has the ability to make it happen.

 

[lordofthereef]

What about a contract that binds you to your employer for X number of years? Suppose you have such a contract and you make 12.50/hr with no benefits and you find a job that will pay 35.00/hr and full benefits.

Should you be prevented from taking the better job because you have a year left on your contract?

And yes, I know they exist and in some industries, leaving can be very costly for the worker.

We want to be guaranteed some measure of job security, but what about the employer?

In short, yes, to all of your questions. Give and take. I think it's fair, no?

To add to this, the salary would likely have to allow for increase over time, depending on the length of said contract. $12.50 might look ok today, but if the contract is over in 20 years, that might not even be minimum wage.

 

[OutofDate1980]

What about a contract that binds you to your employer for X number of years? Suppose you have such a contract and you make 12.50/hr with no benefits and you find a job that will pay 35.00/hr and full benefits.

Should you be prevented from taking the better job because you have a year left on your contract?

And yes, I know they exist and in some industries, leaving can be very costly for the worker.

We want to be guaranteed some measure of job security, but what about the employer?

Happens all the time in the entertainment industry, but these arrangements are contracts that that are subject to court review. Your example would not survive judicial review.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... People get fired every day and it has nothing to do with being liked or disliked. ...

A lot of the recent financial crimes might have been nipped-at-the bud if folks were protected from retaliation for reporting them.

"A court in Missouri in 1985 reviewed wrongful discharge cases that were reported between 1977 and 1984 and concluded: As many of the decided cases illustrate, the burden of the at-will employment doctrine seems to be falling most heavily and harshly upon professional and upper and middle level employees. [footnote that cites 15 cases] They have the least protection. Most are at-will employees and few have job security through union or individually negotiated contracts. They have the most to lose, frequently being the long-term employees who have the greatest responsibility and substantial investment in and the highest expectations from their careers. Often they are at an age when replacement of their life and medical insurance programs and their retirement plans are difficult or impossible. They are the most vulnerable to the improper demands of employers who find it profitable to take chances with anti-trust and consumer fraud violations, environmental pollution, health-related misconduct, defense procurement fraud, and the like. The at-will employment doctrine does not include, contemplate or require a privilege in the employer to subject its employees to the risks of civil and criminal liability that participation in such activities entails. Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859, 877-878 (Mo.App. 1985)."

 

[OutofDate1980]

Hope all is keeping political views private, as you can be fired for expressing such.