'At Will' employment, what are your thoughts? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 'At Will' employment, what are your thoughts?


Pages : [1] 2

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:13
I know it has it's benefits like being able to quit. But do you think that it should be revised so that employers can't terminate without reason or warning?

With the way the economy is, I think employees should at least be given a verbal and/or written warning before being terminated and have the chance to 'fix' whatever the issue may be.

Seems there's so much talk about getting people back to work and creating job but what about keeping people at work?

gjk5
11-08-2012, 21:15
No.

An employer should be able to terminate an employee at will. And honestly I think if it is a truly privately owned company then they should be able to do so for ANY reason they want with NO notice.

CAcop
11-08-2012, 21:16
What few people realize is that "at will" has its limitations.

Annhl8rX
11-08-2012, 21:18
No.

An employer should be able to terminate an employee at will. And honestly I think if it is a truly privately owned company then they should be able to do so for ANY reason they want with NO notice.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, unions and lawsuits have made it so that employers almost need a court order to fire someone. That keeps a lot of people in jobs they shouldn't be doing.

jame
11-08-2012, 21:20
"At will" works fine here.

Employees and employers both have the right to terminate a contract of employment for any reason.

Why would it be a problem?

Dan_ntx
11-08-2012, 21:26
Texas is an "at will" state, and rarely are people fired for no real reason as many fear when discussing this topic. Most companies have policies that go beyond what the state requires, and it is largely a non-issue. It's a good example of competition in the marketplace. Nobody wants to work for a company that mistreats its employees, so to attract and retain quality workers companies have established a culture of "we treat our people great" and it has benefitted workers. Personally I can tell you that the company I work for requires incredibly stupid behavior to be fired.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:29
I agree completely. Unfortunately, unions and lawsuits have made it so that employers almost need a court order to fire someone. That keeps a lot of people in jobs they shouldn't be doing.

Maybe where you are. I was just fired recently with no reason and had no prior warnings.

Bill Keith
11-08-2012, 21:29
"AT Will" is code language for screw the employee, don't like what the boss dictates - take a hike.:whistling:

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:31
"AT Will" is code language for screw the employee, don't like what the boss dictates - take a hike.:whistling:

Pretty much. And more people just end up on welfare.

Andy123
11-08-2012, 21:31
What few people realize is that "at will" has its limitations.

In many states, those limitations are few and narrow.

Annhl8rX
11-08-2012, 21:32
Maybe where you are. I was just fired recently with no reason and had no prior warnings.

I hate to hear that happened to you. I guess I was a bit too general there. Small companies typically can truly operate on an "at will" basis. Larger companies and government entities, though, usually have policies that keep worthless employees at work.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:33
What few people realize is that "at will" has its limitations.

Pretty much zero limitations in Oregon.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 21:34
"At will" works fine here.

Employees and employers both have the right to terminate a contract of employment for any reason.

Why would it be a problem?

Because it's a fair deal and some people just want to have the deck stacked in their favor.

As if it isn't already hard enough to replace people hindering or flat out preventing the success of the business, someone comes along and tries to make companies more wary of hiring people.

If the OP got what he wanted and shafted businesses like that, you'd see an immediate decline in job openings being filled, more stringent background checks, and a very heavy burden placed on job hunters to convince a business to put them on the payroll.

Think it's hard for people to find work now?

It really isn't, honestly, but make this happen and good luck getting a new job.

jame
11-08-2012, 21:34
"At Will" is actually code language for "competition".

Good employees are in demand, so employers do not want the reputation of being a haphazard workplace that's not a stable workplace.

It creates good places to work. It also creates good employees.

ChuteTheMall
11-08-2012, 21:35
The better employees thrive under at-will conditions.:cool:

CAcop
11-08-2012, 21:36
In many states, those limitations are few and narrow.

Where there is a lawyer, there is a way.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:41
I hate to hear that happened to you. I guess I was a bit too general there. Small companies typically can truly operate on an "at will" basis. Larger companies and government entities, though, usually have policies that keep worthless employees at work.

No worries man. I understood what you meant.
But yeh thats why I said it has it's benefits. I just think at least one warning should be required.
What pisses me off most is that I worked with a couple of really useless people but they were protected by the union.
Management knew they were useless and have been trying to get rid of them.
I do everything right, not union and bam. Because one manager doesn't like me.

Ruggles
11-08-2012, 21:42
I supervise a good number of people at work. I am always and I mean always short staffed it seems. Makes no business for me to fire anyone if I did not have a just cause. It hurts my ability to perform when I fire someone, it takes minutes to lose someone and weeks to replace.

So in my case I think no regulation is needed, the free market takes care of the issue.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:46
Because it's a fair deal and some people just want to have the deck stacked in their favor.

As if it isn't already hard enough to replace people hindering or flat out preventing the success of the business, someone comes along and tries to make companies more wary of hiring people.

If the OP got what he wanted and shafted businesses like that, you'd see an immediate decline in job openings being filled, more stringent background checks, and a very heavy burden placed on job hunters to convince a business to put them on the payroll.

Think it's hard for people to find work now?

It really isn't, honestly, but make this happen and good luck getting a new job.

Wow! You don't even know me and saying I shafted the business?

I really busted my ass trying to get ahead after my divorce. I had plans to move next year and get a temp job while I get things in order to start my own business. Everything seemed to be falling in place and bam, I GOT SHAFTED.

427
11-08-2012, 21:50
Maybe where you are. I was just fired recently with no reason and had no prior warnings.
Sorry to hear about this, but welcome to the real world. BTDT.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 21:51
Welcome to the real world.

In America.

Cali-Glock
11-08-2012, 21:51
If not at will the what? Some socialist utopia where my boss keeps paying me when I no longer serve a viable positive purpose for the organization?

No thanks.

Cali-Glock
11-08-2012, 21:54
I supervise a good number of people at work. I am always and I mean always short staffed it seems. Makes no business for me to fire anyone if I did not have a just cause. It hurts my ability to perform when I fire someone, it takes minutes to lose someone and weeks to replace.

So in my case I think no regulation is needed, the free market takes care of the issue.

This!!

The problem is not firing good people, but rather the problem is keeping bad employees because you can't afford to fire anyone and despite this economy you can't find good employees.

427
11-08-2012, 21:55
In America.
My last employer was "right-sizing". I got laid off without the same notice month's notice that another employee received. I wasn't part of the click. I'm in an at will state.

Ruggles
11-08-2012, 21:55
Maybe where you are. I was just fired recently with no reason and had no prior warnings.

Fired or laid off?

No offense but why would they fire you for no reason? What did they gain?

certifiedfunds
11-08-2012, 21:56
If employers can't fire employees at will, should employees be compelled to work or pay a fine when they want to quit and leave an employer in a bind?

droidfire
11-08-2012, 22:04
Wow! You don't even know me and saying I shafted the business?

I really busted my ass trying to get ahead after my divorce. I had plans to move next year and get a temp job while I get things in order to start my own business. Everything seemed to be falling in place and bam, I GOT SHAFTED.

No doubt you got shafted, and i am sorry to hear that happened to you. I also recognize that you are upset and angry, especially working side-by-side...wait, working while union slackers watch. It's a crap situation no doubt.

I didn't say you shafted business, but should this come to pass it would.

I personally prefer at-will employment. One time when i was working in a retail store I came to the realization that i did nearly all the work on my shift while the other three employees worked harder at not doing stuff.

I walked up on a conversation they were having where they all were complaining about how far they had to walk down the hallway to the timeclock to punch in, and how much " work" that was.

Seriously, fifteen steps down a hallway was a legitimate hardship to them.

Less then 5 minutes later I had turned in my shirt and was free of that place without breaking my word or anything. Liberating.

At will allows employees to extract themselves from bad situations and minimize psychological/physical hardship in doing so. On the same note, employers can decide they no longer need you without having to expose themselves to the damage a spiteful employee can cause in their "lame duck" time after they get a warning it's coming.

Does it provide the opportunity for people in power to power trip and burn those under them? absolutely. Inherent in freedom is risk.

Take heart in the fact that the business is worse off without you then you are without it, and that finding another job won't be under the exacting conditions your proposal would create.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:12
If employers can't fire employees at will, should employees be compelled to work or pay a fine when they want to quit and leave an employer in a bind?

Im not suggesting change it completely.
Just saying/asking, is it too much to ask employers to give 1 warning so that employees that do not belong to a union have one chance to fix/change their ways?

jame
11-08-2012, 22:16
Im not suggesting change it completely.
Just saying/asking, is it too much to ask employers to give 1 warning so that employees that do not belong to a union have one chance to fix/change their ways?

I understand that things might be tougher where you are, as opposed to where I am, but why would you want to work with an employer like that?

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:21
Fired or laid off?

No offense but why would they fire you for no reason? What did they gain?

Fired.

No idea. All I know is one of the managers didn't like me for some reason.
I did Loss Prevention for a grocery store. Just after my probation/training period on my first shoplift stop, I made a small mistake and let the shoplifter pay for the items. Not supposed to do that since we can't send the civil fine by doing so.

This one manager blatantly lied and told upper management that I told her not to tell anyone that I let the shoplifter pay for the items. This is absolutely not true.
In fact I called both my supervisor and manager(LP department) and told them both immediately after.

I found out about this lie a few weeks later from the LP manager and immediately notified the upper two store managers that it was not true.
I think since then this manager obviously had something in for me.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 22:21
Im not suggesting change it completely.
Just saying/asking, is it too much to ask employers to give 1 warning so that employees that do not belong to a union have one chance to fix/change their ways?

Why not join the union? Seems like you have a notion the grass is greener on that side, why not got see for yourself why it isn't?

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:22
No doubt you got shafted, and i am sorry to hear that happened to you. I also recognize that you are upset and angry, especially working side-by-side...wait, working while union slackers watch. It's a crap situation no doubt.

I didn't say you shafted business, but should this come to pass it would.

I personally prefer at-will employment. One time when i was working in a retail store I came to the realization that i did nearly all the work on my shift while the other three employees worked harder at not doing stuff.

I walked up on a conversation they were having where they all were complaining about how far they had to walk down the hallway to the timeclock to punch in, and how much " work" that was.

Seriously, fifteen steps down a hallway was a legitimate hardship to them.

Less then 5 minutes later I had turned in my shirt and was free of that place without breaking my word or anything. Liberating.

At will allows employees to extract themselves from bad situations and minimize psychological/physical hardship in doing so. On the same note, employers can decide they no longer need you without having to expose themselves to the damage a spiteful employee can cause in their "lame duck" time after they get a warning it's coming.

Does it provide the opportunity for people in power to power trip and burn those under them? absolutely. Inherent in freedom is risk.

Take heart in the fact that the business is worse off without you then you are without it, and that finding another job won't be under the exacting conditions your proposal would create.

Totally understand what you're saying.
I worked for a grocery store as a Loss Prevention agent. Saw that a lot!

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:26
I understand that things might be tougher where you are, as opposed to where I am, but why would you want to work with an employer like that?

Oh I definitely don't. I just can't help but think about how many other people this has happened to.

Don't miss the stress and politics of this job at all. Think i'm more pissed at the fact that it's going to be difficult to move out of State now.

gjk5
11-08-2012, 22:26
Im not suggesting change it completely.
Just saying/asking, is it too much to ask employers to give 1 warning so that employees that do not belong to a union have one chance to fix/change their ways?

wait, thought you got fired for "no reason"?


there is always a reason..

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:27
Why not join the union? Seems like you have a notion the grass is greener on that side, why not got see for yourself why it isn't?

My position didn't have that option but I am definitely not for unions!
Didn't mean to sound like I am.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:29
wait, thought you got fired for "no reason"?


there is always a reason..

I wasn't given a reason.

Manager walked in and said "some things are going on and so we're letting you go today". That was it.

Louisville Glocker
11-08-2012, 22:33
I've had to fire several people. Probably my least favorite part of being a boss. I only do so for cause. That is, employee misconduct or neglect of duties. Examples are multiple no call, no shows. Or theft. I've hired spotters (PI's) to observe the theft once it is suspected, so I can document just cause. Otherwise, they can try to collect unemployment from me. (well, the state would pay it, but it would raise my future unemployment insurance rates). I've had to defend myself on just firings in multiple cases, both in KY and AZ, and I've never lost a case (all firings were found by the state to be justified)

I hate slackers. I'm lazy, but I'm a lazy workaholic. I do my job. So should others.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:34
Don't have to see stuff like this every day though! :)

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/tuzybagy.jpg

He's wearing Jordan's shoes and addidas shorts. You can see shes dressed all preppy and both had smartphones.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/4a3abeqy.jpg

$331 ending balance. That's left on their F/S card.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/yzajyqy9.jpg

Can't see it in this pic but the back was loaded with subs and amps.....

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:36
I've had to fire several people. Probably my least favorite part of being a boss. I only do so for cause. That is, employee misconduct or neglect of duties. Examples are multiple no call, no shows. Or theft. I've hired spotters (PI's) to observe the theft once it is suspected, so I can document just cause. Otherwise, they can try to collect unemployment from me. (well, the state would pay it, but it would raise my future unemployment insurance rates). I've had to defend myself on just firings in multiple cases, both in KY and AZ, and I've never lost a case (all firings were found by the state to be justified)

I hate slackers. I'm lazy, but I'm a lazy workaholic. I do my job. So should others.

Agreed.

gjk5
11-08-2012, 22:47
I wasn't given a reason.

Manager walked in and said "some things are going on and so we're letting you go today". That was it.

Just because you weren't given a reason doesn't man there WASN'T a reason.

There was a reason.

arclight610
11-08-2012, 22:47
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

gjk5
11-08-2012, 22:51
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

yep....

fgutie35
11-08-2012, 22:55
I wasn't given a reason.

Manager walked in and said "some things are going on and so we're letting you go today". That was it.

In texas, there are a combination of laws and company policies that protect both parties. On the employee side, you are covered under the "workers compensation" program if the state concludes that the employer terminated you wronfully or for no reason. In that case, you are compensated I believe is 75% of your salary a month which the employer has to pay until you find another job. On the company side, the company can set resignation or quiting policies where they require you to give two week or a month's notice before you leave work if you want to be compensated for whatever vacations or personal time you had accrued or if you plan to work again in that company in the future. Also if the company provided training or schooling within the last year which was paid for by the company, then company has the right to recover or get reinbursed whatever amount the company paid for such training from you if you quit or resign.

JW1178
11-08-2012, 22:56
In many states, like Georgia, most small businesses will "fire" you rather than lay you off because the right wing owners don't think you should be able to collect unemployment.

On one hand, "At will" or "right to work" states, it screws the employees, but at the same time, they are more likely to hire based upon they can terminate you just as easily.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 22:59
Just because you weren't given a reason doesn't man there WASN'T a reason.

There was a reason.

Yeh probably that manager running around lying again.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 23:05
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

This would be an example of 'don't hate the game, hate the player'

And another representation in the risks inherent in freedom.

Wouldn't have it any other way, you are free to choose poorly as much as wisely, and change your mind at any time for any reason or none at all.

That last sentence can apply equally to employer or employee, not much left like that so savor it while we still have it.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 23:05
yep....

And I think thats wrong. I don't think a company should be able to play with someones lively hood like that.
Besides, our government needs the taxes. Not more people on welfare.

cowboywannabe
11-08-2012, 23:10
I am an "at will" employee but they also must have "just cause" to fire me.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 23:14
I am an "at will" employee but they also must have "just cause" to fire me.

Which I would be fine with.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 23:16
And I think thats wrong. I don't think a company should be able to play with someones lively hood like that.

Why not? An employee could just up and leave taking the skilled labor needed to meet a clients demands on schedule with them when they leave, and it my not be possible to replace them in time to meet the obligations the company made.

As an employee you should find a company that won't do that, and as an employer you should find employees that would pay you the same respect/courtesy.

At will protects from being stuck if you come to realize you are in a situation you don't want to be.

If you'd rather trade liberty for security, you want a union without realizing it.

Slug71
11-08-2012, 23:36
Why not? An employee could just up and leave taking the skilled labor needed to meet a clients demands on schedule with them when they leave, and it my not be possible to replace them in time to meet the obligations the company made.

As an employee you should find a company that won't do that, and as an employer you should find employees that would pay you the same respect/courtesy.

At will protects from being stuck if you come to realize you are in a situation you don't want to be.

If you'd rather trade liberty for security, you want a union without realizing it.

Agree with your first 3 paragraphs but again, i'm not saying overhaul it.
Just saying a legitimate reason or one warning before termination would be nice. Everything else can stay the same.

stevemc
11-09-2012, 04:44
I agree completely. Unfortunately, unions and lawsuits have made it so that employers almost need a court order to fire someone. That keeps a lot of people in jobs they shouldn't be doing.

You couldn't be more wrong. As an IBEW electrician, I can be laid off at any time for any reason whatsoever. There is no seniority, no review, no federal or state law to comply with, nothing. We have less "rights" than any other working personnel in the country. We also have minimum training requirements, mandatory drug testing, and at least a two year wait for another job if layoff occurs. The negative "union" nonsense people are so willing to believe here is never lacking.

frizz
11-09-2012, 04:54
I agree completely. Unfortunately, unions and lawsuits have made it so that employers almost need a court order to fire someone. That keeps a lot of people in jobs they shouldn't be doing.

There are problems in employment law, but your assertion is beyond exaggeration and even beyond hyperbole.

Even firing a government worker is not this difficult.

dukeguy
11-09-2012, 05:12
There is an employer side to this story too. I'm an employer in a right to work state, and a couple of years back had an employee who mishandled a substantial amount of money. It threatened the financial health of the company and was a definite firing offense.

Even in a right to work state, he threatened to take us to court. We ended up giving him a severance package because it was cheaper than defending ourselves in court, even though we would have won hands down.

I know there are situations where employees get mistreated but we don't subscribe to those kinds of tactics. Most employers that I know don't. We give as much notice as we possibly can, give the employee ample time to correct the problem, give them a chance to move laterally if possible, and if all else fails we give a generous severance.

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 05:14
Im not suggesting change it completely.
Just saying/asking, is it too much to ask employers to give 1 warning so that employees that do not belong to a union have one chance to fix/change their ways?

And I'm asking what about employees?

IndyGunFreak
11-09-2012, 05:17
The better employees thrive under at-will conditions.:cool:

Exactly.

I love at will employment

Maybe where you are. I was just fired recently with no reason and had no prior warnings.

So they gave you no reason at all when you were let go? I find that hard to believe. What happened when you went and filed for unemployment? If they disputed it, then they will have to tell why they terminated you. Most employers, they invest enough time/effort in training new employees, they don't just can someone for no reason.

My guess is, you know why you were terminated..

IGF

Slug71
11-09-2012, 10:54
There is an employer side to this story too. I'm an employer in a right to work state, and a couple of years back had an employee who mishandled a substantial amount of money. It threatened the financial health of the company and was a definite firing offense.

Even in a right to work state, he threatened to take us to court. We ended up giving him a severance package because it was cheaper than defending ourselves in court, even though we would have won hands down.

I know there are situations where employees get mistreated but we don't subscribe to those kinds of tactics. Most employers that I know don't. We give as much notice as we possibly can, give the employee ample time to correct the problem, give them a chance to move laterally if possible, and if all else fails we give a generous severance.

Sounds fair. Generous even.

arclight610
11-09-2012, 11:03
This would be an example of 'don't hate the game, hate the player'

And another representation in the risks inherent in freedom.

Wouldn't have it any other way, you are free to choose poorly as much as wisely, and change your mind at any time for any reason or none at all.

That last sentence can apply equally to employer or employee, not much left like that so savor it while we still have it.

I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 11:04
Exactly.

I love at will employment



So they gave you no reason at all when you were let go? I find that hard to believe. What happened when you went and filed for unemployment? If they disputed it, then they will have to tell why they terminated you. Most employers, they invest enough time/effort in training new employees, they don't just can someone for no reason.

My guess is, you know why you were terminated..

IGF

They gave me NO reason. I already quoted what the store manager said.
All I can think of is that one of the managers was running around lying again.

My stats were good. 100% attendance. Attended every meeting. Never violated policy. Got on well with other staff. Did whatever management asked.

I know they didn't like that I got on with staff as well as I did. But all the LP agents did. That staff knew that at any point we may investigate them and would have done so.
I also know they didn't like the fact I'm dating someone that works there. But they knew that when they hired me into the position.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 11:12
No.

An employer should be able to terminate an employee at will. And honestly I think if it is a truly privately owned company then they should be able to do so for ANY reason they want with NO notice.

Absolutely.
I've never understood those who proclaim that an employer "can't terminate you without good reason".

WTH? If I own a private business I should be able to hire you to give you a try, then terminate you if I decide I just don't want you around because I don't like your attitude, or fire you because of the way your momma dresses you for work.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 11:13
They gave me NO reason.
That doesn't mean there wasn't one.


I also know they didn't like the fact I'm dating someone that works there. But they knew that when they hired me into the position.

And there it is.

(To be fair, I don't know you, but this could very well be the reason. It's easy to screw up "dating someone at work" without even noticing.)

arclight610
11-09-2012, 11:17
How about this example:

Say I am a recruiter for a company based out of California, and I attend a career fair at a university in Colorado looking for a couple of engineers. At the career fair, I get 30 interested applicants. I conduct a hasty interview and decide to "hire" them all on the spot, with a promise of a job starting a month after they graduate with a salary higher than any other employer at the career fair is offering.

Graduation comes, and the students need to start preparing for their new job. So, they all sign leases in California and pay lots of money to move their stuff out there. After Day 1 of work, my company decides to keep the 2 that they want and fire the other 28. Essentially, using the hiring process as one large screening event. So, now those 28 people are up the creek without a paddle because they were led on by the company and were able to be fired without reason.

Jon_R
11-09-2012, 11:17
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

Word would get out and the company would lose valuable employees. All decisions have a cost.

Granted we are only talking about pension positions which are becoming more rare. If I got fired the day before retirement it would not matter. Retirement is my 401K which I own.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 11:17
With the way the economy is, I think employees should at least be given a verbal and/or written warning before being terminated and have the chance to 'fix' whatever the issue may be.


Nope.

What if my issue is "I can't make payroll this month unless I fire someone"?

What if the issue is "the employee is creeping out my customers"?

Employees can quit and employers can fire them. That's an equal balance of power. No reason to mess with it.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 11:18
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?

That's why all retirements should switch to defined-contribution. No vesting, no time-in-service requirements. Would prevent this kind of problem.

But to answer the question you asked, yes, of course employers could do that. But if they did, then the retirement benefit they offer wouldn't be worth much, would it? Word would get out. People would know.

Jon_R
11-09-2012, 11:20
Sure and in the day of social media they would have a lot of problems next career fair hiring anyone. If I am looking at a company I do lot of homework on them.

Also if you are a strong enough candidate you negotiate relocation costs.

How about this example:

Say I am a recruiter for a company based out of California, and I attend a career fair at a university in Colorado looking for a couple of engineers. At the career fair, I get 30 interested applicants. I conduct a hasty interview and decide to "hire" them all on the spot, with a promise of a job starting a month after they graduate with a salary higher than any other employer at the career fair is offering.

Graduation comes, and the students need to start preparing for their new job. So, they all sign leases in California and pay lots of money to move their stuff out there. After Day 1 of work, my company decides to keep the 2 that they want and fire the other 28. Essentially, using the hiring process as one large screening event. So, now those 28 people are up the creek without a paddle because they were led on by the company and were able to be fired without reason.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 11:21
How about this example:

Say I am a recruiter for a company based out of California, and I attend a career fair at a university in Colorado looking for a couple of engineers. At the career fair, I get 30 interested applicants. I conduct a hasty interview and decide to "hire" them all on the spot, with a promise of a job starting a month after they graduate with a salary higher than any other employer at the career fair is offering.

Graduation comes, and the students need to start preparing for their new job. So, they all sign leases in California and pay lots of money to move their stuff out there. After Day 1 of work, my company decides to keep the 2 that they want and fire the other 28. Essentially, using the hiring process as one large screening event. So, now those 28 people are up the creek without a paddle because they were led on by the company and were able to be fired without reason.

Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.

You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.

Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.

Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 11:24
...
You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.

Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.

Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.



And that is the simple truth.

arclight610
11-09-2012, 11:31
Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.

You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.

Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.

Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.

To be honest, I really haven't formulated an opinion yet on at-will employment. I see where both sides are coming from.

When I worked at the Pentagon, there was this 400lb guy in a Hoveround always sleeping in the hallways. He usually had a 128 oz soda or bag of Ruffles in his lap too. I asked around to see what his deal was, and apparently he was the head guy in building maintenance. The people I asked also told me that it was almost impossible to get fired being a civilian employee of the DOD at the Pentagon; the only way is if you did something criminally. I could see where at-will employment would have be great in that situation.

I also see how at-will employment could be terrible in some situations.

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 11:32
How about this example:

Say I am a recruiter for a company based out of California, and I attend a career fair at a university in Colorado looking for a couple of engineers. At the career fair, I get 30 interested applicants. I conduct a hasty interview and decide to "hire" them all on the spot, with a promise of a job starting a month after they graduate with a salary higher than any other employer at the career fair is offering.

Graduation comes, and the students need to start preparing for their new job. So, they all sign leases in California and pay lots of money to move their stuff out there. After Day 1 of work, my company decides to keep the 2 that they want and fire the other 28. Essentially, using the hiring process as one large screening event. So, now those 28 people are up the creek without a paddle because they were led on by the company and were able to be fired without reason.

Before I go to work for a company I research them thoroughly.

In a situation like that I would be negotiating a signing bonus, guarantee or relo package.

Right now the major oil companies are offering $50,000 sign on bonus for a chemE or petroleum engineer with a 3.5 or better. That or they'll zero out your student loans. That easily covers a 12 month lease.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 11:40
...
I also see how at-will employment could be terrible in some situations.

Of course it can...
Who said life would be "fair" or always pleasant?

<not specifically directed at you here, but..>
Your best position is one of strength. Be capable and willing to create value and you won't have to worry about it.

Stuff happens sometimes even so, but if you have the ability to create value in the marketplace and are willing to exert the effort to do so then you will be rewarded for it.

It isn't always easy, but it isn't supposed to be.

Steve Martin once said "be so good that they can't ignore you".

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:02
Absolutely.
I've never understood those who proclaim that an employer "can't terminate you without good reason".

WTH? If I own a private business I should be able to hire you to give you a try, then terminate you if I decide I just don't want you around because I don't like your attitude, or fire you because of the way your momma dresses you for work.

Isn't that what the 'probabtionary' period is for?

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:04
That doesn't mean there wasn't one.



And there it is.

(To be fair, I don't know you, but this could very well be the reason. It's easy to screw up "dating someone at work" without even noticing.)

I did maintenance there before I moved over to LP. Ive been dating her since and they knew that.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 12:09
I did maintenance there before I moved over to LP. Ive been dating her since and they knew that.

Like I said, I don't know you. I'm sure you're a nice guy.

But the fact remains, just because they didn't tell you a reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. And maybe the reason doesn't have anything to do with you.

Employers and employees should be required to do whatever they agree to in writing, and nothing more. If you think an employer should be required to give a warning before firing, try and negotiate that into your contract on your next job.

If you have the scarcity power to demand that, then they'll do it for you. If you don't, well... that's how the cookie crumbles. Put up, find another opportunity, or start your own business.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:10
Nope.

What if my issue is "I can't make payroll this month unless I fire someone"?

What if the issue is "the employee is creeping out my customers"?

Employees can quit and employers can fire them. That's an equal balance of power. No reason to mess with it.

Payroll situation is fine.

As for the other. The employee should be warned and given a chance to correct his ways. Else bye bye.

Everyones opinions seem so black or white. No middle ground.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 12:11
Isn't that what the 'probabtionary' period is for?

And if I give you a probationary period but 3 months later I decide I just don't want you because I don't like having you around?

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:13
Before I go to work for a company I research them thoroughly.

In a situation like that I would be negotiating a signing bonus, guarantee or relo package.

Right now the major oil companies are offering $50,000 sign on bonus for a chemE or petroleum engineer with a 3.5 or better. That or they'll zero out your student loans. That easily covers a 12 month lease.

Damn! Im in the wrong business.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 12:14
Damn! Im in the wrong business.

And that is the point I made earlier about "creating value".
It's just the way business works. Really.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 12:14
As for the other. The employee should be warned and given a chance to correct his ways. Else bye bye.

Everyones opinions seem so black or white. No middle ground.

There isn't any middle ground.

Either people are allowed to make decisions within their own private business, or they're not. It's binary.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 12:16
There isn't any middle ground.

Either people are allowed to make decisions within their own private business, or they're not. It's binary.


Absolutely.
What is difficult to understand about this?

CAcop
11-09-2012, 12:17
I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

A lawyer would love that one. Plus it would have a ripple effect in the company. They might save one pension but then they would loose it all with training people to replace those who leave.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:21
Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.

You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.

Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.

Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.

Its not truly balanced though since we have unions.

I see all these lazy asses that is near impossible to fire and then my situation comes along.
I would rather have mandatory warnings in place giving an employee the chance to correct an issue management has and see the unions disappear.

Theft, sexual harassment, financial hard ship on the employer etc. would still be grounds to term an employee immediately.
Although, financial hardship relates more to a lay-off than being terminated.

Most employers give a 90 day evaluation period anyway.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:23
Like I said, I don't know you. I'm sure you're a nice guy.

But the fact remains, just because they didn't tell you a reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. And maybe the reason doesn't have anything to do with you.

Employers and employees should be required to do whatever they agree to in writing, and nothing more. If you think an employer should be required to give a warning before firing, try and negotiate that into your contract on your next job.

If you have the scarcity power to demand that, then they'll do it for you. If you don't, well... that's how the cookie crumbles. Put up, find another opportunity, or start your own business.

Appreciate your feedback. :)

certifiedfunds
11-09-2012, 12:24
A lawyer would love that one. Plus it would have a ripple effect in the company. They might save one pension but then they would loose it all with training people to replace those who leave.

Excellent point! So no laws or unions required. The market would discourage such behavior.

Nice catch CACOP!

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:25
And if I give you a probationary period but 3 months later I decide I just don't want you because I don't like having you around?

Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:26
Absolutely.
What is difficult to understand about this?

I understand it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it 100%.

NeverMore1701
11-09-2012, 12:32
OP, I'm guessing that you've never had hiring and firing as part of your job?

Atlas
11-09-2012, 12:36
Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.


There is no law forbidding "discrimination" as such.

There are laws which forbid [employment] discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, or religion.

Thats a personal opinion...

Of course it is.
As the owner, my opinion is all that counts here.


You miss my point.
If I hire you and you pass some "probationary period" then great.
What if you simply fail to develop in the position as well as I expected you to?

What if, in my judgment you will never develop to provide me with what I feel my business needs? Of what value then is "a warning?".

Must I warn you, then wait for an additional period to find that I was correct, that you just don't have what it takes, no matter your best intention and efforts?
What if I simply do not have the time for that?
What if my business interests dictate that I act NOW to acquire the person I need to do the job?

Why can I not be free to act in the way that is in the best interest of my business?
My business is there to make a profit for me, not to provide you with employment.


Employers having freedom to hire and fire as they see fit is what creates the possibility of a strong business which can then survive in the marketplace and grow to provide employment for the most people.


What you are looking for is "fair".
Believe me, in the real world you aren't going to find it, except occasionally. Even then, don't bet on it always being that way.


Respectfully I gotta ask, you're pretty young, aren't you?
Twenties perhaps?

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:45
OP, I'm guessing that you've never had hiring and firing as part of your job?

Firing was part of this job though i've never had to it myself. I did do an investigation on an employee which got fired and I was present in the termination of the employee.

Hawkeye16
11-09-2012, 12:50
At will employment will only be viewed as fair by those that are worth keeping around.

It's just not plausible to force an employer to keep a crap employee. I mean, look at the mess the public education system is right now.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:52
There is no law forbidding "discrimination" as such.

There are laws which forbid [employment] discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, or religion.



Of course it is.
As the owner, my opinion is all that counts here.


You miss my point.
If I hire you and you pass some "probationary period" then great.
What if you simply fail to develop in the position as well as I expected you to?

What if, in my judgment you will never develop to provide me with what I feel my business needs? Of what value then is "a warning?".

Must I warn you, then wait for an additional period to find that I was correct, that you just don't have what it takes, no matter your best intention and efforts?
What if I simply do not have the time for that?
What if my business interests dictate that I act NOW to acquire the person I need to do the job?

Why can I not be free to act in the way that is in the best interest of my business?
My business is there to make a profit for me, not to provide you with employment.


Employers having freedom to hire and fire as they see fit is what creates the possibility of a strong business which can then survive in the marketplace and grow to provide employment for the most people.


What you are looking for is "fair".
Believe me, in the real world you aren't going to find it, except occasionally. Even then, don't bet on it always being that way.


Respectfully I gotta ask, you're pretty young, aren't you?
Twenties perhaps?

32.

Yeh I think a warning is fair. The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there. While not your responsibility, those commitments could be related to the job(car, relocation...).

Slug71
11-09-2012, 12:55
At will employment will only be viewed as fair by those that are worth keeping around.

It's just not plausible to force an employer to keep a crap employee. I mean, look at the mess the public education system is right now.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Agreed.

Though, I believe I was worth keeping.
I saved and made that company a lot of money.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 12:56
Yeh I think a warning is fair.

What an employee thinks is "fair" is only relevant to the extent that the employee can get the employer to agree.

The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there.

So what?

I have a child support payment I have to make every month. How is that my boss's problem? My own personal finances are my own personal business.

If I had to relocate for a job, I'd either find a way to have the job cover it (which I could do if I had scarcity power--"I'll only come work for you if you'll guarantee my lease"), or I'd accept the risk.

That's just how life works. There's risk in everything, including having a job. You're trying to push all of the risk on the employer, and what ends up happening is that employers hire fewer people. Hiring becomes too risky for them. What happens in the end is fewer jobs for everyone.

The best answer is always freedom: in this case, freedom for both parties involved in an employment contract to do as they've agreed to do.

devildog2067
11-09-2012, 12:58
Though, I believe I was worth keeping.

I'll be blunt: whoever signs your paycheck disagrees with you.

Now, maybe you're right. Maybe he's right. But his opinion is the only one that matters.

If you're a good employee, you should be able to find another job. If the boss is an idiot who fires people for no reason, eventually his business will go under.

That's how the universe works. As soon as you start trying to put "rules" on it, you make it less efficient.

Atlas
11-09-2012, 12:59
32.

Yeh I think a warning is fair. The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there. While not your responsibility, those commitments could be related to the job(car, relocation...).

Again, you are expecting it all to be "fair".
It isn't and it isn't going to be so.

Actually, I don't have a business myself, at least not in the sense that you mean.
The business I do though, I do specifically because it doesn't require employees, which was always one of my primary criteria.

Regardless, to survive a business owner must be free to choose employee based on his/her interests.
Again, businesses exist to make a profit for the owner, not to provide employment to anyone.

Trust me, I've been "fired" if you want to think of it that way more times than you probably ever will.

What did I do about it? I went to their competitors and presented to them my ability to help them make a profit.
I demonstrated my ability and willingness to create value.
It's the only thing that ever got me paid. It's the only thing I ever expect to get me paid.

NeverMore1701
11-09-2012, 12:59
Firing was part of this job though i've never had to it myself. I did do an investigation on an employee which got fired and I was present in the termination of the employee.

So no. Believe you me, things are very different on the other side of the desk.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:01
What an employee thinks is "fair" is only relevant to the extent that the employee can get the employer to agree.



So what?

I have a child support payment I have to make every month. How is that my boss's problem? My own personal finances are my own personal business.

If I had to relocate for a job, I'd either find a way to have the job cover it (which I could do if I had scarcity power--"I'll only come work for you if you'll guarantee my lease"), or I'd accept the risk.

That's just how life works. There's risk in everything, including having a job. You're trying to push all of the risk on the employer, and what ends up happening is that employers hire fewer people. Hiring becomes too risky for them. What happens in the end is fewer jobs for everyone.

The best answer is always freedom: in this case, freedom for both parties involved in an employment contract to do as they've agreed to do.

I did state that the finances are NOT the employer's responsibility.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:02
I'll be blunt: whoever signs your paycheck disagrees with you.

Now, maybe you're right. Maybe he's right. But his opinion is the only one that matters.

If you're a good employee, you should be able to find another job. If the boss is an idiot who fires people for no reason, eventually his business will go under.

That's how the universe works. As soon as you start trying to put "rules" on it, you make it less efficient.

Agreed.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:04
So no. Believe you me, things are very different on the other side of the desk.

Oh I don't doubt it.

Carrys
11-09-2012, 13:08
"AT Will" is code language for screw the employee, don't like what the boss dictates - take a hike.:whistling:



At "will"?



I just wish someone "would".:shocked:

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:11
Really do appreciate everyones feedback and opinions in this thread.

Think i'm just more disappointed in that I was really looking forward to moving back to the East Coast next year. I hate living where I do. Jobs are scarce and little opportunity for growth/advancement.

This just feels like a HUGE set back for me. I was looking forward to seeing my family next year which I have not seen in 3 years and gone through a ugly divorce in that time......

Hawkeye16
11-09-2012, 13:16
At "will"?



I just wish someone "would".:shocked:

I believe most strip joints have "at wood" employment...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Hawkeye16
11-09-2012, 13:17
Why can't you move to the east coast and find a job out there?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:22
Why can't you move to the east coast and find a job out there?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Relocation is expensive. According to city-data one should have 6-9 months of living expenses save to do a out of state move. I defs don't have that.

Slug71
11-09-2012, 13:23
I believe most strip joints have "at wood" employment...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Lol. :D

jtull7
11-09-2012, 17:57
"and despite this economy you can't find good employees." That is total bull****. There are millions of talented, educated, motivated long-term people begging for a decent job,

"On the employee side, you are covered under the "workers compensation" program if the state concludes that the employer terminated you wrongfully or for no reason." Wrong. Worker's compensation only deals with an employee who is hurt on the job.

skeeter1959
11-09-2012, 18:19
We have "emploment at will" in Texas and it works well here. You can thank the unions if you don't like working in an "at will" state.

I was "downsized" along with 4 others that helped a guy build his company into a $million dollar a year company. Each of us had 13 years invested. We got a severance package and un-employment benefits along with COBRA.

It sucked to be us, but all 5 of us rebuilt our lives elsewhere. I even went to work for his competitor as a paid "consultant" for a while. Really chapped his ass, but employment at will cuts both ways.

Tx-SIG229
11-09-2012, 18:34
The better employees thrive under at-will conditions.:cool:
this must explain why Texas Child Protective Services (when i was there) had something like a 43% turn over rate and also explain why the average CPS investigator only had 6 months experience. yeh mr & mrs tax payer, you're getting your money's worth... no long term benefits to pay your civil servants and then also having to spend more money to constantly hire and train new workers every couple of months while you're getting terrible services from your govnt.

FLGatorFan
11-09-2012, 18:58
this must explain why Texas Child Protective Services (when i was there) had something like a 43% turn over rate and also explain why the average CPS investigator only had 6 months experience. yeh mr & mrs tax payer, you're getting your money's worth... no long term benefits to pay your civil servants and then also having to spend more money to constantly hire and train new workers every couple of months while you're getting terrible services from your govnt.

This is a management issue, and has nothing to do with at will employment.

CaptCave
11-09-2012, 19:47
If I start/buy/run a company with my money, I can certainly hire and fire anyone I want, for any reason or no reason at all. Wouldn't want to have it any other way.

Now, whether that is a smart decision is another question.

Rarely is anyone fired for "no reason at all" or even "no warning at all". You might not know the reason, or caught the warning, and again, that is mgmt and the company's fault for not have the correct evaluation/feedback polices.

vikingsoftpaw
11-09-2012, 19:51
What few people realize is that "at will" has its limitations.

'At Will' can also mean I have no work for you....

Cali-Glock
11-09-2012, 22:52
"and despite this economy you can't find good employees." That is total bull****. There are millions of talented, educated, motivated long-term people begging for a decent job,


There is no question that there are many motivated, qualified people looking for work: but there are a LOT of incompetent and unmotivated people applying for jobs also.

My experience and the experience of my friends and collegues in other companies is that we are still having a hard time finding good employees.

It is a very serious and frustrating problem.

Taphius
11-10-2012, 01:09
An employer is not going to spend the resources on hiring you to just up and fire you for no reason.

Taphius
11-10-2012, 01:11
There is no question that there are many motivated, qualified people looking for work: but there are a LOT of incompetent and unmotivated people applying for jobs also.

My experience and the experience of my friends and collegues in other companies is that we are still having a hard time finding good employees.

It is a very serious and frustrating problem.

All those crappy resumes makes it so much more important to tailor your own to match what the employer wants =\ big pita for me right now looking for work.

Officer X
11-10-2012, 06:44
At will = Kiss butt to get ahead or keep your job.

Even if you do an outstanding job but your boss doesn't care for your: politics, religion, opinions, appearance, etc..., you're gone. Yes, it may be illegal in some regards, but all that needs to be done is some bogus kind of excuse and then it's up to you to try to prove it.

Great way to live when you have standards, go along to get along. I've seen some real shady politics and backstabbing over my career and I've seen some very good people that were targets of personal vendettas saved by civil service and the union.

Nothing in life is perfect, but having some recourse because your boss woke up in a bad mood and didn't like a comment you made and wants you gone is very worthwhile.

engineer151515
11-10-2012, 07:06
Before I go to work for a company I research them thoroughly.

In a situation like that I would be negotiating a signing bonus, guarantee or relo package.

Right now the major oil companies are offering $50,000 sign on bonus for a chemE or petroleum engineer with a 3.5 or better. That or they'll zero out your student loans. That easily covers a 12 month lease.

Yupp.

When engineering is in demand, it's hot.

When not, I've seen graduating classes of 25 engineers where only three found jobs. (Two co-ops and the top GPA).

In the past three years, oil and gas has been hot. Big oil and associated petrochemical are willing to pay for talent because there is a gap where poor market performance did not produce many graduating Chemical Engineers. There is a very distinct manpower gap in available talent in the 35 to 50 year age group and it looks like large corps are trying to reload for the next couple decades. The older engineers are retiring and the numbers of experienced engineers to teach the newbies are dwindling quickly.


<<<< been "at will" my whole career. I've been cut loose with a plant closing. Not a good feeling - you start to feel like its personal. But it's not. Now I have a position much better than the one I lost, so I guess it worked out in the long haul. I hope it does for the OP too.

<<<< have relocated across country and stayed with family while hunting a new job. Took a while, but it worked.

Slug71
11-10-2012, 14:41
At will = Kiss butt to get ahead or keep your job.

Even if you do an outstanding job but your boss doesn't care for your: politics, religion, opinions, appearance, etc..., you're gone. Yes, it may be illegal in some regards, but all that needs to be done is some bogus kind of excuse and then it's up to you to try to prove it.

Great way to live when you have standards, go along to get along. I've seen some real shady politics and backstabbing over my career and I've seen some very good people that were targets of personal vendettas saved by civil service and the union.

Nothing in life is perfect, but having some recourse because your boss woke up in a bad mood and didn't like a comment you made and wants you gone is very worthwhile.

Thats pretty much how things seem to me at the moment.

Slug71
11-10-2012, 14:43
An employer is not going to spend the resources on hiring you to just up and fire you for no reason.

Happened to me. What ever reason they do have is likely not true or in twisted form.

certifiedfunds
11-10-2012, 14:55
Yupp.

When engineering is in demand, it's hot.

When not, I've seen graduating classes of 25 engineers where only three found jobs. (Two co-ops and the top GPA).

In the past three years, oil and gas has been hot. Big oil and associated petrochemical are willing to pay for talent because there is a gap where poor market performance did not produce many graduating Chemical Engineers. There is a very distinct manpower gap in available talent in the 35 to 50 year age group and it looks like large corps are trying to reload for the next couple decades. The older engineers are retiring and the numbers of experienced engineers to teach the newbies are dwindling quickly.


<<<< been "at will" my whole career. I've been cut loose with a plant closing. Not a good feeling - you start to feel like its personal. But it's not. Now I have a position much better than the one I lost, so I guess it worked out in the long haul. I hope it does for the OP too.

<<<< have relocated across country and stayed with family while hunting a new job. Took a while, but it worked.

Oil and gas has been hot for a while.

Petrobras is hiring a lot of talent away too (with Obama money).

One of the biggest risks to the oil companies is aging talent. If young smart people today aren't looking at it as a career opportunity they're foolish.

Unk
11-10-2012, 15:10
The limitations to at-will employment termination are usually found in various federal laws on discrimination on a prohibited basis such as race, gender, national origin, and disability to name a few.

Absent that you can be terminated for good reason, bad reason or no reason.

Nothing wrong with "at will"..employers want and need good employees although those needs can and do change. Just remember you own your CAREER and the company owns the JOB. Stay current on skills, save money and meet or exceed your employers performance expectations and you'll be fine.

HarlDane
11-10-2012, 15:27
but employment at will cuts both ways.That is something most employees don't understand.

I just landed a great job with a great company that goes out of their way to hire the best people they can find and then do everything they can to keep them there. I went through four interviews and based on the questions and comments they made to me during that process, one of their main concerns was that I would leave in 5-10 years with all of the very valuable experience and knowledge they invested in me. They obviously didn't come out and say it, but it was very apparent to me from the beginning and I have no doubt that I landed the job because I was able to best convince them that I was there for the long term.

CAcop
11-10-2012, 16:34
There is no question that there are many motivated, qualified people looking for work: but there are a LOT of incompetent and unmotivated people applying for jobs also.

My experience and the experience of my friends and collegues in other companies is that we are still having a hard time finding good employees.

It is a very serious and frustrating problem.

It's amazing the hiring or lack thereof we have had the last three years.

Ours is hard because of the demands we place on people you do not find in other emloyment.

Z71bill
11-10-2012, 18:11
Think like an employer - using your own cash to run a business.

Would be more or less willing to try and expand your business & hire an additional employee?

If - once you hired a person you had to keep them forever - plus provide them health care, retirement, pay them at least $XX per hour.

or

If - you could pay the salary & benefits you both agree to, terminate them any time you wanted.

If you want more jobs to be created - making it easier to get rid of people actually does it better than not allowing people to be terminated.

This will be EASY to understand if YOU ARE PAYING THE EMPLOYEE OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET.

Jbar4Ranch
11-10-2012, 19:00
Montana was, and may still be, the only state with a law against At Will Employment. An employer needs a valid reason to fire you here, HOWEVER... that doesn't stop them from firing you anyway, they just call it something else.

I was sent home, "pending an investigation", on April 4th from my job as Gun Room Manager at Wholesale Sports for saying to one of my problem employees, "Piss off, Chuck". No word the next day, so I called the store to speak to the manager and was told he was on vacation. He wouldn't answer his cell and didn't return my calls, so I called the "Senior Human Resources Consultant" at our Federal Way store and, in short, was told, "Dave told me you quit and I've already separated you."

"Job Abandonment", and just like that, I was in the soup line. He also fired my immediate superior four days ago, but that's another story.

Atlas
11-10-2012, 20:12
At will = Kiss butt to get ahead or keep your job. ....


Or, be very very good at providing needed skills, talents, or abilities.

There's a universe of opportunity out there, even in the worst of times. The variety of needs to be filled in a free market is infinite.

Slug71
11-10-2012, 20:25
Think like an employer - using your own cash to run a business.

Would be more or less willing to try and expand your business & hire an additional employee?

If - once you hired a person you had to keep them forever - plus provide them health care, retirement, pay them at least $XX per hour.

or

If - you could pay the salary & benefits you both agree to, terminate them any time you wanted.

If you want more jobs to be created - making it easier to get rid of people actually does it better than not allowing people to be terminated.

This will be EASY to understand if YOU ARE PAYING THE EMPLOYEE OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET.

Forever?? Because a warning is required before termination?

I hardly doubt businesses with employees belonging to union would object to having to give a warning and take unions out of the picture.

I will bet money my ex employer would love that. 3 lazy ass employees would no longer be working there if they weren't union and the warning thing was in place.

Atlas
11-10-2012, 20:38
http://www.justgq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/donald-trump-youre-fired.jpg

Z71bill
11-10-2012, 20:59
Forever?? Because a warning is required before termination?

I hardly doubt businesses with employees belonging to union would object to having to give a warning and take unions out of the picture.

I will bet money my ex employer would love that. 3 lazy ass employees would no longer be working there if they weren't union and the warning thing was in place.

By warning do you mean - you are losing your job in 60 days - or you have been given X warnings because of bad behavior and after this many you are terminated?


It was an example - looking at both ends of the extreme can help folks understand the concept.

The point I am making is fairly simple - the more obstacles you put in place to terminate someone - the less likely the employer will be to hire someone in the first place.

DO YOU AGREE?

It would be much better if there was a safe harbor employers could use - say - you must pay 2 weeks pay at termination - or a week per year of service - whatever - just have a known limit - that would allow an employer to fire whoever they wanted for any reason -

VS

The uncertainty of - if you fire this person you may get in legal trouble.

The result would be more people with jobs.



As a side note laws based on age or race or gender -

Hurt the very people the laws are trying to protect - more would be hired if they did not have a special legal class that makes it MUCH more difficult to fire them.


It is typical government action - they want to solve a problem and end up hurting the very thing they want to support.

BTW - I am not against some basic regs to control outright abuse - but when a company decides they no longer need / want a person working for them they should have the ability to say - Sorry - but you are no longer needed.

:wavey:

Slug71
11-10-2012, 21:24
By warning do you mean - you are losing your job in 60 days - or you have been given X warnings because of bad behavior and after this many you are terminated?


It was an example - looking at both ends of the extreme can help folks understand the concept.

The point I am making is fairly simple - the more obstacles you put in place to terminate someone - the less likely the employer will be to hire someone in the first place.

DO YOU AGREE?

It would be much better if there was a safe harbor employers could use - say - you must pay 2 weeks pay at termination - or a week per year of service - whatever - just have a known limit - that would allow an employer to fire whoever they wanted for any reason -

VS

The uncertainty of - if you fire this person you may get in legal trouble.

The result would be more people with jobs.



As a side note laws based on age or race or gender -

Hurt the very people the laws are trying to protect - more would be hired if they did not have a special legal class that makes it MUCH more difficult to fire them.


It is typical government action - they want to solve a problem and end up hurting the very thing they want to support.

BTW - I am not against some basic regs to control outright abuse - but when a company decides they no longer need / want a person working for them they should have the ability to say - Sorry - but you are no longer needed.

:wavey:

Yes I agree.

Warning as in, 'You can't do this again for what ever reason OR I'm not happy with your performance...blah blah blah.......if I don't see any improvement I have no choice but to replace you'.....

A point I think many people miss is that this also creates a paper trail PROTECTING a employer against liability.

Z71bill
11-10-2012, 21:45
Yes I agree.

Warning as in, 'You can't do this again for what ever reason OR I'm not happy with your performance...blah blah blah.......if I don't see any improvement I have no choice but to replace you'.....

A point I think many people miss is that this also creates a paper trail PROTECTING a employer against liability.

Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.

In some countries it is almost impossible to do this - the result is companies don't expand for fear that the potential business will not pan out and they will then be stuck with extra staff and no way to get rid of them.

But this is sort of the point - a company should not need a paper trail - they should be able to say - we no longer wish for you to work here -

The paper trail is only required to protect yourself from legal action - the EEOC can also be a major PITA - I am pretty sure that their efforts - as noble as they may be - tying to keep employers from firing someone unfairly - have actually reduced the number of jobs by millions of positions.

What is better - having 25,000 people per year fired for no valid - supported - legal - reason - COMPLETELY UNFAIR -

But increase the total jobs by 500,000?

Are protecting these 25K people worth the 500K lost jobs?

(I am making up numbers - but no doubt the additional new jobs created would be X times the number of people fired unfairly)

Slug71
11-11-2012, 01:12
Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.


In this case I believe the company should be able to terminate.
But that would be more of a lay-off than being fired. Laid off still = a reference.

JW1178
11-11-2012, 02:08
Here is what I HATE about "At Will".... it's yet another idea really only applies against WHITE MALES. Yeah, you might get away with it with a white female, but go fire a black female lesbian and give her no reason, and next thing you know you'll have paperwork served from her attorney with their theory on why you fired her.

On the other hand, I think part of why minorities have higher unemployment rate is because of this very issue. I've heard several of my employers over the past tell me that "once you hire them, you can't get rid of them". So, at will works, but sometimes it works against you too. Then again, that freshly "let go" of white guy comes in, you know you can give him a shot, if you don't like him, you can get rid of him. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Slug71
11-11-2012, 02:26
Here is what I HATE about "At Will".... it's yet another idea really only applies against WHITE MALES. Yeah, you might get away with it with a white female, but go fire a black female lesbian and give her no reason, and next thing you know you'll have paperwork served from her attorney with their theory on why you fired her.

On the other hand, I think part of why minorities have higher unemployment rate is because of this very issue. I've heard several of my employers over the past tell me that "once you hire them, you can't get rid of them". So, at will works, but sometimes it works against you too. Then again, that freshly "let go" of white guy comes in, you know you can give him a shot, if you don't like him, you can get rid of him. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Good point.

DanaT
11-11-2012, 04:51
Fired.

No idea. All I know is one of the managers didn't like me for some reason.
I did Loss Prevention for a grocery store. Just after my probation/training period on my first shoplift stop, I made a small mistake and let the shoplifter pay for the items. Not supposed to do that since we can't send the civil fine by doing so.

This one manager blatantly lied and told upper management that I told her not to tell anyone that I let the shoplifter pay for the items. This is absolutely not true.
In fact I called both my supervisor and manager(LP department) and told them both immediately after.

I found out about this lie a few weeks later from the LP manager and immediately notified the upper two store managers that it was not true.
I think since then this manager obviously had something in for me.

So let me explain something.

If you piss management off, you will be gone. It doesnt matter if you get a warning or not. In fact, you probably made out better. In this case they probably terminated you but agreed not to fight unemployment with firing for termination.

If you make them document why they fired you with warnings, written warnings, performance plans, etc, management then has a very string case why you shouldnt get unemployment.

No matter how good you are, if you are a PITA and management has to spend too much time dealing with you then you wont be long in the company.

Also, I suspect there is a lot more to this story and you are not telling us how this really happened. Most of the time a manager isnt going to tell upper management that you didnt want her to say anything to them. Minor crap like that upper management has managers to take care of. I suspect you tried to move something you didnt like, up the chain and forced them to deal with it and you wont win against management. You should learn this.

Roger1079
11-11-2012, 05:06
I have been an at will employee at my last two jobs. The first I was with from early 2000 ontil early 2007. I left on good terms giving my 2 weeks notice, not because I had to, but as a professional courtesy. I know for a fact this employer has let people go without cause or notice, sometimes highly justified, other times not so much.

The place I am with now I have been at since late 2006 (there was a few months of overlap where I was working both jobs full time). This comapany is much larger and although they make it clear we are at will employees, I have never seen them terminate someone without cause or notice. They always have write ups or associated paperwork, and the option in most cases is given for the employee to tender their resignation.

Unions suck. Period. I have held union jobs and the union never promoted a productive workplace. It promoted laziness and an untouchable sense of security for the most worthless employees. We had one guy who transferred down from another state who was employed with this company for 5 years. He had a drug problem and was taking oxycontin at work in dosages that could put any normal person in a coma. He would either be an incoherent drooling mess or pass out at his terminal completely. The company could not drug test him, without written consent from the local union rep. Only after witnessing this behavior did the union rep allow the test, and even then the test had to be scheduled and could not be random. Of course he failed, even with the test being scheduled for him 30 days in advance. Rather than being terminated as he should have been, the company was forced to send him to rehab and let him relapse THREE times before termination of employment was allowed. This took a timespan of almost a year to complete where we were either shortstaffed because he was virtually unconcious at his workspace or away at rehab. In my eyes, this company should have canned him and sent him to rehab as a good gesture for him to get himself together right after an on the spot drug test.

All BS aside, if you work for a good employer and are a good employee, being at will should make no difference. I know I have never given it any real thought until this post. Just my .02.

DanaT
11-11-2012, 05:11
Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.

Something you are not understanding. A large part of being a "team" is getting along. No matter how good you are, if you cant get along you are more hassle than you are worth. You can be the most skilled person at your job, but your net effect to the team may be negative.

Small businesses are run much on personal opinion. Many decisions of the future of a company are based upon personal opinion.

DanaT
11-11-2012, 05:17
for saying to one of my problem employees, "Piss off, Chuck"

Did you say this?

kenpoprofessor
11-11-2012, 05:51
AZ is an "at will" state, and I'm so happy it is.

I tell people all the time that I know I'm not indispensable, I strive to make myself less dispensable by doing a quality job for my employer, and get more jobs based on my skills and knowledge through word of mouth.

I've landed us some pretty big contracts from my skills, and was even requested to do the work personally. Had I been a union guy, I don't think I'd have the incentive to do better.

Thing is, when I first came to the company, I had a supervisor that hated me, and even he didn't know why (he told other employees this info). I didn't get hired full time after the first probationary period because of him. Two months later, I was hired full time, and a few months after that, they canned the previous supervisor. I now have what he had, truck, raise, elevated status in the company. :supergrin:

I had to prove my worth to them, and now, it's all a bad memory, but I still strive to be the best employee in the company. And no, no brown nosing for me, I don't need to with my performance. Even when I've screwed up, I told them up front what I'd done, and even offered to fix it on my own time. Never heard a word about it, just make sure it doesn't happen again. That AZ heat can sometimes fry your brain when making critical measurements :wow:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

TheJ
11-11-2012, 06:24
Couldn't at-will employers can someone right before retirement to save money?
Yes and no.

How would that save them money?

Remander
11-11-2012, 08:03
A federal law, ERISA, prohibits employers from terminating employees prior to the vesting of their retirement plans in order to avoid the payment of a pension or the issuance of other pension benefits to the employee.

Jbar4Ranch
11-11-2012, 08:38
Did you say this?
Absolutely. He is an older man, 60 IIRC, retired from another job, and has a very sour attitude coupled with a caustic demeanor. He should have been fired several years ago, but for some reason the company won't allow the managers to take any disciplinary action against hourly employees. I had talked to him about his attitude, the hunting managers had talked to him about his attitude, and the store manager & assistant manager had talked to him about his attitude.

On the morning in question, I had tended to some business in the cash office, then walked back to the gun counter toward my office. When I passed the gun counter, "Chuck" looked at his watch and, loudly enough so that half the damn store could hear, "HA, late again, as usual". I said, "Piss off, Chuck" and continued to my office. The store manager had been looking for some time for a reason to terminate me, and this was his opportunity. The store manager is a younger man, I think he was only 25 when he took the store over, and he's done some things that don't sit well with me, not the least of which was several hundred dollars vandalism to my place that he and a couple of his friends did. I told them none of them needed to ever come back and that was the beginning of the end for me. He lost his private several hundred acre hunting, fishing, shooting, recreation area and got even.
I've seen this man actually punch one of the department managers, laying him out on the floor where he laid for at least a full minute holding his stomach before he attempted to get up. I've seen this man let one of his buddies, the archery lead, keep his job after being caught red handed on camera stealing an item from the store. He made him bring it back and that was the end of it. Nothing in his record, let alone not fired for it. Same with "Chuck" - he took a holster one day and was allowed to bring it back with no consequence.

I now work for the state of Montana as a "Delivery Services Driver" - good pay, weekends off, flexible hours, paid sick days, eleven paid holidays a year, but I don't enjoy it like I did that job.

TheJ
11-11-2012, 08:44
A federal law, ERISA, prohibits employers from terminating employees prior to the vesting of their retirement plans in order to avoid the payment of a pension or the issuance of other pension benefits to the employee.

Correct. It's also illegal to term somebody based on their being old... Which is why I ask how it would save money.

The whole no-reason is practically never used by employers because it opens them up for expensive legal battles.

Z71bill
11-11-2012, 08:46
In this case I believe the company should be able to terminate.
But that would be more of a lay-off than being fired. Laid off still = a reference.

I think most larger companies stopped giving out references on past employees years ago. It does not matter why the person no longer works for the company - you still only give out the basic -

Start date, end date, maybe job held, if employee signed the release form you will agree to provide salary history.

Laid off is just a reason you were terminated -

I guess if you say - I was laid off it sounds better than - I was fired for being drunk & fighting on the job.

DanaT
11-11-2012, 08:46
I now work for the state of Montana as a "Delivery Services Driver" - good pay, weekends off, flexible hours, paid sick days, eleven paid holidays a year, but I don't enjoy it like I did that job.

You should sell your story as a movie....

But reading your post, you were gone long before you told chuck to piss off; you just didnt know it.

When you have a personal grudge/vendetta/fight with your manager, you should be looking for a new job. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is how it is.

Jbar4Ranch
11-11-2012, 08:47
Yeah, it was just a matter of time.

droidfire
11-11-2012, 08:54
I think most larger companies stopped giving out references on past employees years ago. It does not matter why the person no longer works for the company - you still only give out the basic -

Start date, end date, maybe job held, if employee signed the release form you will agree to provide salary history.

Laid off is just a reason you were terminated -

I guess if you say - I was laid off it sounds better than - I was fired for being drunk & fighting on the job.

Yea, character references are dead in big business. Small business will still provide glowing reviews for good workers.

Mostly anymore it's simply a verification of employment within a specified time period from HR at large companies.

Z71bill
11-11-2012, 12:08
Yea, character references are dead in big business. Small business will still provide glowing reviews for good workers.

Mostly anymore it's simply a verification of employment within a specified time period from HR at large companies.

Can't recall exactly when maybe 1990 something - but there were a few court cases that changed companies view on giving references.

The obvious - not telling prospective employers that the X employee was a child molesting drunk that stole company assets to pay for his coke habit - had been in use for a long time.

Never say anything bad seemed reasonable -

Many companies were using the - if it is a good reference then go ahead and tell the person asking that the person was a good employee - hard worker - smart - whatever - how can telling them good things hurt you - just don't say anything bad.

Then a few companies - relying on the good reference from the prior employer - ended up hiring someone that actually was a child molesting drunk with a drug problem.

BAM - they get sued for big bucks for only telling the good.

The next round - what really killed references was when a company got sued because they gave out good references for good employees - but if the former employee had some problems then they would say - sorry we don't give out references.

So then the company ended up losing a law suit - and paying some loser former employee a pile of cash - because the fact that they would not give out a reference on a bad person - but would give them out for a good former employee - told everyone that - no reference must mean something REALLY BAD.


At this point the only reasonable thing you can do is just say - we don't give references...

:dunno:

Hef
11-11-2012, 12:53
I know it has it's benefits like being able to quit. But do you think that it should be revised so that employers can't terminate without reason or warning?

With the way the economy is, I think employees should at least be given a verbal and/or written warning before being terminated and have the chance to 'fix' whatever the issue may be.

Seems there's so much talk about getting people back to work and creating job but what about keeping people at work?

The only reason I have employees is to increase profits for myself. They are employed solely to increase the amount of work the business completes in a week, so I can invoice for more money (and thus more profit). If they aren't productive enough, and/or they make mistakes that cut into the profit, they get fired. If business slows down, I cut jobs as needed to stay profitable. I don't owe anybody a job.

That may sound harsh, but that is the reality of operating a small business in 2012. I do my best to land jobs to keep everyone working 40+hrs/wk but that doesn't always happen.

As for those who need to be fired, I am glad to operate in a state that doesn't interfere with my right to fire people as I see fit.

CaptCave
11-11-2012, 13:05
The only reason I have employees is to increase profits for myself. They are employed solely to increase the amount of work the business completes in a week, so I can invoice for more money (and thus more profit). If they aren't productive enough, and/or they make mistakes that cut into the profit, they get fired. If business slows down, I cut jobs as needed to stay profitable. I don't owe anybody a job.

That may sound harsh, but that is the reality of operating a small business in 2012. I do my best to land jobs to keep everyone working 40+hrs/wk but that doesn't always happen.

As for those who need to be fired, I am glad to operate in a state that doesn't interfere with my right to fire people as I see fit.

Most people that have never had to make a payroll, won't understand that.

Hef
11-11-2012, 13:14
Most people that have never had to make a payroll, won't understand that.

Sometimes I feel like employees think we just shake the magic money tree and payroll falls out of it. They don't understand that failing to meet deadlines has consequences, some if which are financial.

RustyL
11-11-2012, 13:24
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement




"AT Will" is code language for screw the employee, don't like what the boss dictates - take a hike.:whistling:

Hef
11-11-2012, 13:27
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

Start your own business and do it your way.

certifiedfunds
11-11-2012, 13:37
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

How do you get trapped?

Arquebus12
11-11-2012, 13:49
Pretty much. And more people just end up on welfare.

Good Lord... http://imageshack.us/a/img690/276/ugh.gif

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

Halojumper
11-11-2012, 13:53
Sometimes you need to get rid of a few people because business is down - it has nothing to do with performance.

In some countries it is almost impossible to do this - the result is companies don't expand for fear that the potential business will not pan out and they will then be stuck with extra staff and no way to get rid of them.

But this is sort of the point - a company should not need a paper trail - they should be able to say - we no longer wish for you to work here -

The paper trail is only required to protect yourself from legal action - the EEOC can also be a major PITA - I am pretty sure that their efforts - as noble as they may be - tying to keep employers from firing someone unfairly - have actually reduced the number of jobs by millions of positions.

What is better - having 25,000 people per year fired for no valid - supported - legal - reason - COMPLETELY UNFAIR -

But increase the total jobs by 500,000?

Are protecting these 25K people worth the 500K lost jobs?

(I am making up numbers - but no doubt the additional new jobs created would be X times the number of people fired unfairly)

You're really locked onto this thing, aren't you? I bet you'd be a lot happier in the long run if you'd just learn to let things go.

CaptCave
11-11-2012, 14:03
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

No owes you a job or a living.

If you do not like your employment, make other arrangements. Go back to school, learn new skills, better yourself.

You aren't trapped unless you are unwilling to make the changes necessary to better your situation.

Z71bill
11-11-2012, 14:17
You're really locked onto this thing, aren't you? I bet you'd be a lot happier in the long run if you'd just learn to let things go.

I don't understand your comment. My posts have not been nasty or even harsh - I am not unhappy about anything -

I did have my share of issues with people that needed to be fired. It sure would have been easier to just drop the hammer on the losers without the fear of a large legal bill.


Maybe if you don't like / agree with my posts you should put up some of your own experience - or put me on ignore - then you would be happier.:cool:

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:17
So let me explain something.

If you piss management off, you will be gone. It doesnt matter if you get a warning or not. In fact, you probably made out better. In this case they probably terminated you but agreed not to fight unemployment with firing for termination.

If you make them document why they fired you with warnings, written warnings, performance plans, etc, management then has a very string case why you shouldnt get unemployment.

No matter how good you are, if you are a PITA and management has to spend too much time dealing with you then you wont be long in the company.

Also, I suspect there is a lot more to this story and you are not telling us how this really happened. Most of the time a manager isnt going to tell upper management that you didnt want her to say anything to them. Minor crap like that upper management has managers to take care of. I suspect you tried to move something you didnt like, up the chain and forced them to deal with it and you wont win against management. You should learn this.

There really isn't more to it.

On the 21st of Oct., a female courtesy clerk(under age) reported to a manager that a male(20 something) in dairy department had pressured her into having sex with him in his truck in the parking lot. The manager called down to our office and asked if she could come see us. She then changed her mind and asked for my partner to go up and see her. I was a little peeved by that and my partner also disagreed with that. He called our LP boss and told her what was happening. Next day I was fired.

In the 19th, one of the courtesy clerks knocked on our door three times and ran away. This happened during an investigation with a shoplifter. I know the manager that was present as a witness was peeved and reported it to upper management. Because I got along with staff, I suspect that it was my fault that the courtesy clerk did that.

A week before that, the store manager asked us to park where everyone else parks. We used to park behind the store and enter through the back where vendors usually come and go. We've always done this. I did ask my LP boss why this changed but we did start parking in the front of the store as requested.

Thats all thats happened in the recent couple of months that I know of.

But yes they didn't fight unemployment

NeverMore1701
11-11-2012, 14:25
There really isn't more to it.

On the 21st of Oct., a female courtesy clerk(under age) reported to a manager that a male(20 something) in dairy department had pressured her into having sex with him in his truck in the parking lot. The manager called down to our office and asked if she could come see us. She then changed her mind and asked for my partner to go up and see her. I was a little peeved by that and my partner also disagreed with that. He called our LP boss and told her what was happening. Next day I was fired.

In the 19th, one of the courtesy clerks knocked on our door three times and ran away. This happened during an investigation with a shoplifter. I know the manager that was present as a witness was peeved and reported it to upper management. Because I got along with staff, I suspect that it was my fault that the courtesy clerk did that.

A week before that, the store manager asked us to park where everyone else parks. We used to park behind the store and enter through the back where vendors usually come and go. We've always done this. I did ask my LP boss why this changed but we did start parking in the front of the store as requested.

Thats all thats happened in the recent couple of months that I know of.

But yes they didn't fight unemployment

Do you have another job yet?

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:25
Absolutely. He is an older man, 60 IIRC, retired from another job, and has a very sour attitude coupled with a caustic demeanor. He should have been fired several years ago, but for some reason the company won't allow the managers to take any disciplinary action against hourly employees. I had talked to him about his attitude, the hunting managers had talked to him about his attitude, and the store manager & assistant manager had talked to him about his attitude.

On the morning in question, I had tended to some business in the cash office, then walked back to the gun counter toward my office. When I passed the gun counter, "Chuck" looked at his watch and, loudly enough so that half the damn store could hear, "HA, late again, as usual". I said, "Piss off, Chuck" and continued to my office. The store manager had been looking for some time for a reason to terminate me, and this was his opportunity. The store manager is a younger man, I think he was only 25 when he took the store over, and he's done some things that don't sit well with me, not the least of which was several hundred dollars vandalism to my place that he and a couple of his friends did. I told them none of them needed to ever come back and that was the beginning of the end for me. He lost his private several hundred acre hunting, fishing, shooting, recreation area and got even.
I've seen this man actually punch one of the department managers, laying him out on the floor where he laid for at least a full minute holding his stomach before he attempted to get up. I've seen this man let one of his buddies, the archery lead, keep his job after being caught red handed on camera stealing an item from the store. He made him bring it back and that was the end of it. Nothing in his record, let alone not fired for it. Same with "Chuck" - he took a holster one day and was allowed to bring it back with no consequence.

I now work for the state of Montana as a "Delivery Services Driver" - good pay, weekends off, flexible hours, paid sick days, eleven paid holidays a year, but I don't enjoy it like I did that job.

Wow. You defs are better off away from there!

kenpoprofessor
11-11-2012, 14:27
The only reason I have employees is to increase profits for myself. They are employed solely to increase the amount of work the business completes in a week, so I can invoice for more money (and thus more profit). If they aren't productive enough, and/or they make mistakes that cut into the profit, they get fired. If business slows down, I cut jobs as needed to stay profitable. I don't owe anybody a job.

That may sound harsh, but that is the reality of operating a small business in 2012. I do my best to land jobs to keep everyone working 40+hrs/wk but that doesn't always happen.

As for those who need to be fired, I am glad to operate in a state that doesn't interfere with my right to fire people as I see fit.

This, and as an employee, it's my job to continue to make the company money for my own benefit. I like getting paid, and if the employees don't perform, I want them gone as much as the bosses.

We had a couple of slackers in the company for 5-6 years, and only a few months ago did the boss finally put the hammer to them and get rid of them. They'd been talked to and talked to and continued the same performance, but they let it go on. When it finally started costing the company some serious $$ out of pocket to fix their mistakes, they let them go, no warning whatsoever. They came in on a Monday and got their last check; they thought they were going to work that day :faint:.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:27
I think most larger companies stopped giving out references on past employees years ago. It does not matter why the person no longer works for the company - you still only give out the basic -

Start date, end date, maybe job held, if employee signed the release form you will agree to provide salary history.

Laid off is just a reason you were terminated -

I guess if you say - I was laid off it sounds better than - I was fired for being drunk & fighting on the job.

Did not know that about references.

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:31
Good Lord... http://imageshack.us/a/img690/276/ugh.gif

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

Sure didn't

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:33
Do you have another job yet?

No still looking but think I might just bite the bullet and use the opportunity to move.

Hef
11-11-2012, 14:34
This, and as an employee, it's my job to continue to make the company money for my own benefit. I like getting paid, and if the employees don't perform, I want them gone as much as the bosses.

We had a couple of slackers in the company for 5-6 years, and only a few months ago did the boss finally put the hammer to them and get rid of them. They'd been talked to and talked to and continued the same performance, but they let it go on. When it finally started costing the company some serious $$ out of pocket to fix their mistakes, they let them go, no warning whatsoever. They came in on a Monday and got their last check; they thought they were going to work that day :faint:.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

So true. When the employer has to waste money paying slackers, or pay to correct their mistakes/failures, it uses up money that could go to buying better tools and equipment for others to use, giving raises to the productive employees, bonuses, etc.

I truly want to give people raises. I want more money and I know they want the same. Who doesn't? But I can't do that when the slackers screw up and cut into the profits.

Not only that, but I know how miserable it is to go to work and have to tolerate working with lazy/stupid co-workers that you know are the reason why you haven't had a raise in a long time. I've fired a few of them as well.

Slug71
11-11-2012, 14:37
This, and as an employee, it's my job to continue to make the company money for my own benefit. I like getting paid, and if the employees don't perform, I want them gone as much as the bosses.

We had a couple of slackers in the company for 5-6 years, and only a few months ago did the boss finally put the hammer to them and get rid of them. They'd been talked to and talked to and continued the same performance, but they let it go on. When it finally started costing the company some serious $$ out of pocket to fix their mistakes, they let them go, no warning whatsoever. They came in on a Monday and got their last check; they thought they were going to work that day :faint:.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

"Talked to and talked to" = warnings.
I would have canned them too. Probably a lot sooner.

Atlas
11-11-2012, 17:11
Sometimes I feel like employees think we just shake the magic money tree and payroll falls out of it....

In the same way that most who receive welfare, etc assume that the government just opens the magic money box to provide them with "benefits".

It's so damn pathetic that we have devolved to the point that many people cannot understand that business exists to make a profit for the owner(s), NOT to provide anyone with employment.

How have we fallen so far? How did we become so dumbed-down?

professorpinki
11-11-2012, 17:35
I know it has it's benefits like being able to quit. But do you think that it should be revised so that employers can't terminate without reason or warning?

With the way the economy is, I think employees should at least be given a verbal and/or written warning before being terminated and have the chance to 'fix' whatever the issue may be.

Seems there's so much talk about getting people back to work and creating job but what about keeping people at work?
I think that if the employer goes on firing people without reason they go out of business, because people hear of their unsavory practices and/or they can't handle their clients/consumers properly.

I think artificial regulation to the effects which you propose only murks the waters and interferes with the ability to choose the best candidate for the job, and to fire incompetents.

doktarZues
11-11-2012, 18:30
I work for a moderately sized company in Florida, which is a right to work state. In my neck of the woods and part of the company there are no unions. The HR policies that are in place make extremely hard to fire someone. In the 6 years I've been here, I've seen maybe a handful of people fired, all for grossly obvious reasons.

Earlier this year, and for the first time in my tenure, we experienced layoffs due to reduced revenue/profit. Having taken a stroll through all of this, I learned that when profitability is threatened, any and all bets are off regarding your employment status.

Long story short:
When business is good, you've got to really, really, really screw up bad/often to get fired. I suspect the company policies protect employees as good or better than most unions.

When business is bad, the company has provisions to reduce headcount and side step HR policies.

Does this unfairly target certain groups of people (older, higher payed employees?) Maybe, at least the potential is certainly there. There's something to be said for giving your heart and soul to a company and then have the rug pulled out from underneath you, and it's something entirely else for someone to think they deserve their big salary because of seniority, opposed to how much value they actually deliver to the company.

I think Florida and my company has it right.

Brucev
11-11-2012, 18:54
Re: OP. All the whining of the usual suspects and their supposed rationals for at will employment is all the reason any rational thinking man needs to oppose and vote against employers have the right to fire at will an employe. Simply do not care what if anything these usual suspects might want to say to justify their positions. Let them whine. Perhaps if they all get together, they can whine in harmony. Maybe. Regardless, let them whine till their vocal cords are frayed. Could not care less. Working men and women have every right not to be at the mercy of the whims of employers.

Atlas
11-11-2012, 19:08
Re: OP. All the whining of the usual suspects and their supposed rationals for at will employment is all the reason any rational thinking man needs to oppose and vote against employers have the right to fire at will an employe. Simply do not care what if anything these usual suspects might want to say to justify their positions. Let them whine. Perhaps if they all get together, they can whine in harmony. Maybe. Regardless, let them whine till their vocal cords are frayed. Could not care less. Working men and women have every right not to be at the mercy of the whims of employers.

Yeah?
How many people do YOU employ?

davsco
11-11-2012, 19:15
OP sorry you lost your job. in this economy most employers are not paying for relocation, but some are, so definitely use this opportunity to hopefully get a future employer to pay for your relocation. that would be a great silver lining.

i agree with the employment at will concept. employees can always leave whenever they want so seems fair the employer can similarly terminate employment when and why they want. that said, employers who do this a lot will get a bad reputation and find it difficult to attract good employees.

doktarZues
11-11-2012, 19:16
Working men and women have every right not to be at the mercy of the whims of employers.

I would like to nominate this as one of the most ridiculous statements ever made on GT. I could spend hours pouring over how ignorant and ridiculous this sounds. Seriously.

(If I somehow missed a heavy dose of sarcasm, I apologize.)

Hef
11-11-2012, 19:18
Re: OP. All the whining of the usual suspects and their supposed rationals for at will employment is all the reason any rational thinking man needs to oppose and vote against employers have the right to fire at will an employe. Simply do not care what if anything these usual suspects might want to say to justify their positions. Let them whine. Perhaps if they all get together, they can whine in harmony. Maybe. Regardless, let them whine till their vocal cords are frayed. Could not care less. Working men and women have every right not to be at the mercy of the whims of employers.

Wrong, as usual.

Your job exists only because your employer has a need and you fill it. Should that need cease to exist, or you fail to fill it adequately, or it can be filled by someone else better and/or cheaper, your employment will end, as it should. This may come as a shock to you, but businesses don't hire employees just because they feel some humanitarian need to put people to work.

Do you own a business that has a payroll? Have you ever? How many people do/did you have on your weekly payroll, just as an annual average?

CaptCave
11-11-2012, 19:19
Re: OP. All the whining of the usual suspects and their supposed rationals for at will employment is all the reason any rational thinking man needs to oppose and vote against employers have the right to fire at will an employe. Simply do not care what if anything these usual suspects might want to say to justify their positions. Let them whine. Perhaps if they all get together, they can whine in harmony. Maybe. Regardless, let them whine till their vocal cords are frayed. Could not care less. Working men and women have every right not to be at the mercy of the whims of employers.

aye comrade, hail Obama

You're socialist ideas haven't worked out good for Europe, and they won't work here either.

Hef
11-11-2012, 19:20
I would like to nominate this as one of the most ridiculous statements ever made on GT. I could spend hours pouring over how ignorant and ridiculous this sounds. Seriously.

(If I somehow missed a heavy dose of sarcasm, I apologize.)

If you believe the BS Bruce spews, you'd think the Pinkerton boys with Henry rifles are just around every corner.

Atlas
11-11-2012, 19:22
If you believe the BS Bruce spews, you'd think the Pinkerton boys with Henry rifles are just around every corner.

:rofl: Classic!

certifiedfunds
11-11-2012, 19:25
Wrong, as usual.

Your job exists only because your employer has a need and you fill it. Should that need cease to exist, or you fail to fill it adequately, or it can be filled by someone else better and/or cheaper, your employment will end, as it should. This may come as a shock to you, but businesses don't hire employees just because they feel some humanitarian need to put people to work.

Do you own a business that has a payroll? Have you ever? How many people do/did you have on your weekly payroll, just as an annual average?

Brucev has claimed a lot of things. Once he claimed to run a non-profit. He used to speak in "preacher tongue". He even occasionally claims to be a conservative.

What you have here is a Marxist revolutionary in sheeps clothing. Taunt him enough and the mask comes off from time to time.

Z71bill
11-11-2012, 19:31
Take your pick -

Would you rather have the US economy create -

7.5 million new private sector jobs that pay an average wage of $40,000

or

1 million private sector jobs that pay an average wage of $75,000 and also have 1 million new public sector jobs that pay $100,000?

If you can get one of the public sector jobs that pay $100K / or a $75K job - you want this option - no way you are not better off - unless your wage gets hit with a 50% tax (:tongueout:)

If you are one of the folks that ends up unemployed -you would be happy to take one of the $40K jobs.

Which is better for the country?

Pretty easy if you just think a little.

Hef
11-11-2012, 19:41
And that's it for Bruce******. He'll come back some time this week, after he's reviewed his previous posts in similar discussions so he can make sure his lies in this thread jive with previous lies. Pretty pathetic.

Halojumper
11-11-2012, 19:54
I don't understand your comment. My posts have not been nasty or even harsh - I am not unhappy about anything

Okay, perhaps I misread what you were saying. It can be hard to determine actual emotions from the typed word, and it seemed to me that you were somewhat embittered over this whole thing and trying to make life fair.

ETA: LOL Just realized I mistook you for the OP. Ignore what I said :)

Arquebus12
11-11-2012, 20:07
Wow! You don't even know me and saying I shafted the business?

I really busted my ass trying to get ahead after my divorce. I had plans to move next year and get a temp job while I get things in order to start my own business. Everything seemed to be falling in place and bam, I GOT SHAFTED.

And there you go. It happens. So what? What are you going to do about it? What CAN you do about? Sue for your job back? Pffft. What kind of happy work environment would that lead to?

You can take the philosophical approach, and believe that fate/the Gods have deemed that they want you elsewhere, doing something else. Or, you can take the practical approach, which is "Well, damn. On to something else, then...", and take what you've learned to some other place.

Bottom line, you're part of a larger problem, which is when you run into trouble, you've turned to other sources to remedy them, when in fact the best solution is to first land suitable employment, then get damned good at not getting fired. When I say you've turned to other sources, you questioned the fairness of laws governing employment, implying that changes are needed. I disagree. If you've been wronged legally, by all means seek reproach. But if you've been fired under the rights of employers as they exist, then you move on to other things. You have no reason to believe that you are under any protections from getting screwed.

It's the right thing to do, and you'll be proud of yourself for doing it.

gjk5
11-11-2012, 20:09
There is a reason that the phrase "employee mentality" is an insult.

This thread demonstrates it quite well.

Bunch of entitled drones with inflated self worth here spouting off.

certifiedfunds
11-11-2012, 20:18
There is a reason that the phrase "employee mentality" is an insult.

This thread demonstrates it quite well.



You bring up a very good point and one that is often overlooked when career advice comes up in life.

If someone isn't going the self-employed route, perhaps the best piece of career advice a person can be given is to think like the owner. Treat the business as though it is yours. I've never really thought of it until now but its something I've always done....even as a youngster doing scutwork. It is very difficult at times but it will take you far.

gjk5
11-11-2012, 20:26
You bring up a very good point and one that is often overlooked when career advice comes up in life.

If someone isn't going the self-employed route, perhaps the best piece of career advice a person can be given is to think like the owner. Treat the business as though it is yours. I've never really thought of it until now but its something I've always done....even as a youngster doing scutwork. It is very difficult at times but it will take you far.

Very good advice.

I had this outlook from a young age and owned my own business for over a decade after years of management jobs. I will NEVER be one of those turds with an employee POV. That is why I am a highly valued employee.

AWoods
11-11-2012, 20:26
We definitely should not have to pay employees to provide a service we don't want them to provide.

It's 100% pure violent aggression through and through. Even the mafia doesn't make you employ people you don't want.

Haldor
11-12-2012, 04:55
I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

Most people are vested in their pensions after 10 years (assuming they get one at all). That last day of work doesn't make a bit of difference in their pension eligibility unless they haven't reached 10 years yet.

Police/Fire/Military? They have a specific must reach date, but they also get their pensions as soon as they retire. I won't get mine until I'm 65.

AtlantaR6
11-12-2012, 05:21
I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

You must be referring to a pension which many company's are going away from. It's all about the portable 401k now, and if they fire me a week before retirement it has 0 impact on my financial well being.

CAcop
11-12-2012, 07:02
We definitely should not have to pay employees to provide a service we don't want them to provide.

It's 100% pure violent aggression through and through. Even the mafia doesn't make you employ people you don't want.

Yes, they do. It is one of their scams.

CAcop
11-12-2012, 07:06
Most people are vested in their pensions after 10 years (assuming they get one at all). That last day of work doesn't make a bit of difference in their pension eligibility unless they haven't reached 10 years yet.

Police/Fire/Military? They have a specific must reach date, but they also get their pensions as soon as they retire. I won't get mine until I'm 65.

Good point. I know a few people in the laborer's union and they have a pension that requires a certain mumber of years to get vested that is lower much lower than the number of years/age to retire with full benefits. If they got fired they would just have to wait it out, a long time but they just need to wait it out. Of course one I know gets fired all the time but she still finds work because she is good at what she does.

Clutch Cargo
11-12-2012, 07:08
Move to Texas, son. That's what we have here. If you part your hair on the wrong side, you get fired. Like life, it's not fair, but you suck it up and deal with it.

Slug71
11-12-2012, 11:53
Move to Texas, son. That's what we have here. If you part your hair on the wrong side, you get fired. Like life, it's not fair, but you suck it up and deal with it.

Thats how it is here in Oregon.

Clutch Cargo
11-12-2012, 12:09
An employer is not going to spend the resources on hiring you to just up and fire you for no reason.

You're no longer an asset is a common reason.

DanaT
11-12-2012, 13:56
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

I don't understand.

Are you a prisoner, slave, or indentured servant? If not, what is preventing you from leaving a bad situation?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DanaT
11-12-2012, 14:03
There really isn't more to it.

On the 21st of Oct., a female courtesy clerk(under age) reported to a manager that a male(20 something) in dairy department had pressured her into having sex with him in his truck in the parking lot. The manager called down to our office and asked if she could come see us. She then changed her mind and asked for my partner to go up and see her. I was a little peeved by that and my partner also disagreed with that. He called our LP boss and told her what was happening. Next day I was fired.

In the 19th, one of the courtesy clerks knocked on our door three times and ran away. This happened during an investigation with a shoplifter. I know the manager that was present as a witness was peeved and reported it to upper management. Because I got along with staff, I suspect that it was my fault that the courtesy clerk did that.

A week before that, the store manager asked us to park where everyone else parks. We used to park behind the store and enter through the back where vendors usually come and go. We've always done this. I did ask my LP boss why this changed but we did start parking in the front of the store as requested.

Thats all thats happened in the recent couple of months that I know of.

But yes they didn't fight unemployment

After reading this is it clear why they got rid of you. Drama.

If they tell you to park where all employees are supposed to park. Why make a big deal about it?

So what if you are peeved that some girl wants you to come to her instead of vice versa. You don't agree and escalate it.

You leave out the shopping lifting thing now.

People knocking on door and running. Seems like a silly game.

But these types of episodes would tell me "how much management time (ergo money) on this person. For them it was easy. You were using more management resources than you were worth to them.

Sorry to be so blunt.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

guns54
11-12-2012, 14:12
No.

An employer should be able to terminate an employee at will. And honestly I think if it is a truly privately owned company then they should be able to do so for ANY reason they want with NO notice. There doing back here, and with out any reason, Most have 20 years or more. And its not that they did some thing wrong, Just Telling them there done.I think they want all part time,Saves them money, Iam talking about steubenville, ohio.

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 14:13
Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

What's not to "agree" with? Employers have the right to fire and employees have the right to quit.

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 14:19
I think they want all part time,Saves them money

And what's wrong with that?

Employers pay employees to work. Employees get paid in such a way to maximize value for the company. Jobs are not charity. If it's cheaper for an employer to pay two part-time employees than to have a full-time employee with benefits, then that's what the employer will do.

If one of those employees wants to have a full-time job rather than a part-time job, then they need to demonstrate to the employer that they generate more value by being full-time than the additional cost of providing benefits. It's harder to do with some kinds of jobs than with others, but that's how the world works.

When jobs are more plentiful than employees, potential employees can use their scarcity power to negotiate a better deal. When potential employees are more plentiful than jobs, the power balance goes the other way.

DanaT
11-12-2012, 14:30
For those of you who have never had a European employment contract you would be shocked at them.

In general the labor unions are strong enough that they passed worker protection laws. The flip side is that there are also employer protection laws.

In Germany your notice period is generally between 3 months and 2 years (company financial problems void this). But it is a two way notice. As an employer, if I want to fire you I must give you three months notice. Note that I do not have to give you any time off to look for another job, etc, and if I can show any malice on your part during the 3months I can immediately terminate. I can also pay you out if you agree. Now, what I get from this is if you decide to leave, you must give me 3 months notice. If you do not give this notice I can hire a temporary employee to replace you (most likely a consultant which is expensive since getting an employee immediately is hard). You are then responsible, and the courts enforce, that you must pay the difference between your previous salary and any costs I have to replace you for the notice period.

So how many of you against employment at will want to have a system like this?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

guns54
11-12-2012, 14:34
And what's wrong with that?

Employers pay employees to work. Employees get paid in such a way to maximize value for the company. Jobs are not charity. If it's cheaper for an employer to pay two part-time employees than to have a full-time employee with benefits, then that's what the employer will do.

If one of those employees wants to have a full-time job rather than a part-time job, then they need to demonstrate to the employer that they generate more value by being full-time than the additional cost of providing benefits. It's harder to do with some kinds of jobs than with others, but that's how the world works.

When jobs are more plentiful than employees, potential employees can use their scarcity power to negotiate a better deal. When potential employees are more plentiful than jobs, the power balance goes the other way.Your right, But they should give them a warning that there job is gone.

DanaT
11-12-2012, 14:36
When jobs are more plentiful than employees, potential employees can use their scarcity power to negotiate a better deal. When potential employees are more plentiful than jobs, the power balance goes the other way.

And the next thing you will try to get me to believe is that gold costs more than wood because gold is a scarcer commodity than wood.

You silly capitalists.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DanaT
11-12-2012, 14:40
Your right, But they should give them a warning that there job is gone.

Well then.

You should write me a check (with sufficient funds) for $250,000.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

minkis18
11-12-2012, 15:12
I'd prefer there not be a law for everything. Sure, my company can fire me for anything but I work for Starwood so under their rules it pretty much takes theft or sexual harassment to be fired on first offense.

At will employment makes things easier on the employer too. Fewer hoops and possible lawsuits, and the ability to clean house as needed without extra steps. I do understand that it may hurt employees but if you want, unions can help fill that void. At least then it's your choice and not forced upon us all (I also happen to live in a right-to-work state)

Slug71
11-12-2012, 15:41
After reading this is it clear why they got rid of you. Drama.

If they tell you to park where all employees are supposed to park. Why make a big deal about it?

So what if you are peeved that some girl wants you to come to her instead of vice versa. You don't agree and escalate it.

You leave out the shopping lifting thing now.

People knocking on door and running. Seems like a silly game.

But these types of episodes would tell me "how much management time (ergo money) on this person. For them it was easy. You were using more management resources than you were worth to them.

Sorry to be so blunt.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Because we've always parked back there. Pissed off shoplifters can't wait for us outside/see what we drive. Employees don't know when we come or go.
Management has failed to tell us security issues in the past and we often have transients/bums trying to steal cans from the back and then return them for $$.
Thats why I asked.

She wanted my left out of the investigation and my partner to go up. Never happened before and he was off the next day. Since we are a team, I would have liked to be briefed too.

I left out the other incident since that happened back in March and I alread mentioned it. And it was a lie. Shouldn't be held against me.

Jbar4Ranch
11-12-2012, 16:14
It is difficult to dedicate yourself to a company who doesn't dedicate itself to you. I think there should be some safeguards in place to protect a worker from retaliation for off-the-job/off-the-premises pissing matches that have nothing to do with the worker's job performance. I did a very, very good job for my employer, but got canned by a small man with no ethics and no honor who felt he had to get even with me. The Canadian masters hired him to run that store and this old man's career is nothing to them, as long as the $$$ keep rolling in... except it isn't... this particular store has NEVER shown a profit.

The store hasn't been open quite five years yet between when it was Sportsman's Warehouse and its current incarnation as Wholesale Sports and he has fired six managers now, driven off several more, had a couple of 'em go back to hourly to get out from under his thumb, and one retired. The Hunting department is on its fourth manager, Front End is on its fourth manager, Fishing is on its third, Receiving/Shipping on its third, Camping on its second, Clothing on its second, Gift Bar on its second, and Footwear on its second... in LESS THAN FIVE YEARS!

I don't know how on God's Green Earth this could be true, but the store manager once told me it costs an average of $200,000 to train a manager... and he's fired six of us in less than five years... that would be $1.2 million down the drain, according to his figures. Add in the ones that have voluntarily left, combined with the ones currently in the positions and that figure can be boosted to ~$4.5 million.
I was fired in April, and the last Hunting Manager was just fired on November 6.

The store has never made a profit, and out of 15 stores, our store was tied for last place with the Bismarck store... and WS closed that store almost immediately upon acquisition, leaving the Helena store in last place. Internal corruption is rampant, as per my previous post, and I think there should be some checks in place to protect the workers from the day to day whims of a complete lunatic. Combined with Obama's reelection, I can't really see that store being open a year from now.

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 16:18
I think there should be some safeguards in place to protect a worker from retaliation for off-the-job/off-the-premises pissing matches that have nothing to do with the worker's job performance.

There are "safeguards" in place.

If you're a good employee and were terminated unfairly, you can go get another job.

If a company keeps behaving that way, they won't be able to get good employees and eventually will go out of business.

The free market is the safeguard.

edporch
11-12-2012, 16:21
As someone who was once laid off with a 1hour notice, I TOTALLY support the right of an employer to hire and fire at will.
They also have the right to set the pay and hours.

if the worker doesn't like it, they're free to find another place to work where their "genius" is "appreciated".

Averageman
11-12-2012, 17:41
I have a question for the folks here that might know if this is true.
I work in a "Right to Work State" but signed my employment documents on a Military Base.
Now, not very often but once in a blue moon someone from management will say, "It's a right to work state" I always wondered if because some paperwork and all of the work is conducted on post doesn't Federal Law trump State Law in these cases?
Thanks.

Hef
11-12-2012, 17:47
I have a question for the folks here that might know if this is true.
I work in a "Right to Work State" but signed my employment documents on a Military Base.
Now, not very often but once in a blue moon someone from management will say, "It's a right to work state" I always wondered if because some paperwork and all of the work is conducted on post doesn't Federal Law trump State Law in these cases?
Thanks.

State employment laws still apply.

Halojumper
11-12-2012, 17:59
I have a question for the folks here that might know if this is true.
I work in a "Right to Work State" but signed my employment documents on a Military Base.
Now, not very often but once in a blue moon someone from management will say, "It's a right to work state" I always wondered if because some paperwork and all of the work is conducted on post doesn't Federal Law trump State Law in these cases?
Thanks.

While Federal law would trump, I don't see how it applies in this case. If right to work was against Federal law, there would be no right to work states.

NEOH212
11-12-2012, 18:08
'At Will' employment, what are your thoughts?


I have no problem with it. Anything else makes it far too hard to get rid of the slackers and the people that don't perform.

It's not fair to expect those that work hard already to carry the people that don't. (One of the many reasons that I despise unions.)

Z71bill
11-12-2012, 18:29
A "Right to Work State" only means that - even if your company has a union - you can not be forced to join the union / pay dues.

There may be a state or two that considers itself right to work - but they can still make you pay dues - or still make you join but don't have to pay dues. I can't recall - which - all I know is unions suck.

At will employment really has little / nothing to do with right to work. :dunno:

I got a job while in college with a company that had a union.

I was 20 years old - had no real opinion about unions - good or bad.

After my interview as I was leaving - several employees were outside on break. One ask me "how did the interview go" I said pretty good - but you never know.

Then I was told - if you get the job and know what's good for you - you better join the union - if you don't your car will get keyed.

I never liked it when someone told me what I had to do under threat-

I told the guy to F off and he made a move at me - his friends stopped him - good thing I would have beat the everliving snot out of him.

I got the job - never joined the union - my car did get keyed - I eventually did end up beating the everliving snot out of MR Union organizer.

Strange - if they would have just left me alone I may have joined -

So in a way they did me a favor.

Hard for me to understand how any law could be passed that requires you to join an organization and give them part of your paycheck - it is just wrong.

BTW - in case you have not figured it out I am anti-union - in the same way the Pope is anti-abortion.

gjk5
11-12-2012, 18:40
whole lotta timecards in a twist up in here......

Arquebus12
11-12-2012, 18:48
... One of the many reasons that I despise unions...

Touché. Unions served their initial purpose, re: Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", et. al. I don't necessarily believe in their dismantling, but the cost and deliberate divisiveness that I've witnessed is contrary to everyone's best interests.

kat1950
11-12-2012, 18:50
Another completely stupid thread, but this is by far the worst site for this kind of BS.

My employees from day 1 are told what they have to do, No Deviation at all, if they have a problem they can come to me and talk, if I feel there is some merit in what they say I would take that into consideration, if not they are Fired.

What employees have to realize is that their job is a privilege, not a right, There are thousands to replace them, especially in this economy.

Oh by the way we have NO communist unions here.

Arquebus12
11-12-2012, 18:57
You missed your calling... you should be a gods damned diplomat.

certifiedfunds
11-12-2012, 19:45
whole lotta timecards in a twist up in here......

:rofl:

NEOH212
11-12-2012, 19:49
What employees have to realize is that their job is a privilege, not a right, There are thousands to replace them, especially in this economy.


Amen!

:thumbsup::agree:

HarlDane
11-12-2012, 20:30
My employees from day 1 are told what they have to do, No Deviation at all, if they have a problem they can come to me and talk, if I feel there is some merit in what they say I would take that into consideration, if not they are Fired.
Are you saying that you fire employees for making suggestions you don't agree with?

Slug71
11-12-2012, 21:15
Another completely stupid thread, but this is by far the worst site for this kind of BS.

My employees from day 1 are told what they have to do, No Deviation at all, if they have a problem they can come to me and talk, if I feel there is some merit in what they say I would take that into consideration, if not they are Fired.

What employees have to realize is that their job is a privilege, not a right, There are thousands to replace them, especially in this economy.

Oh by the way we have NO communist unions here.

How is it stupid? I raised a legit issue. I was wronged and looking for opinion.
Yes it is a privilege and not a right. That doesn't mean employers should treat there employees that way. The working class spend more time at work than at home. The economy is also driven by us.

Would you rather have to deal with a union than have give a warning before terminating someone? I would rather have that and do away with unions.

Slug71
11-12-2012, 21:16
You missed your calling... you should be a gods damned diplomat.

Me?..

Slug71
11-12-2012, 21:21
I have no problem with it. Anything else makes it far too hard to get rid of the slackers and the people that don't perform.


How do you get that having to give a warning is the same as having to deal with a union?

People start slacking over time. Catch it when the problem starts and give a warning before it gets to the point where you've had enough.

Spiffums
11-12-2012, 21:31
Some HR departments wanna give people 5 and 6 more chances. Sis is manager at a chain store and pretty much fired a girl for being lazy and not working. She called her manager told him what was what and he said ohh call HR. They wanted her to call her back in and unfire her and all this crap.......she told em if they wanted her to work there then they could come in and put up with her crap.

She never did come back.

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 21:39
Yes it is a privilege and not a right. That doesn't mean employers should treat there employees that way.

Since when is "should" the same as "let's make a law requiring people to behave a certain way"?

The working class spend more time at work than at home.

I guarantee that your manager works more hours than you do. The idea of a "working class" is nothing but classist crap.

I worked from 6am Friday to 1am Saturday last week. Yes, I work behind a desk primarily. But I still average 70 hours. I don't even get overtime. When's the last time you worked a 70 hour week?

The economy is also driven by us.

The economy is driven by both capital and labor. To say it's driven by "us" is stupid. Neither can exist without the other.

Would you rather have to deal with a union than have give a warning before terminating someone? I would rather have that and do away with unions.

And when you run a business, you can make that choice. You don't get to try and legislate that choice onto others.

Slug71
11-12-2012, 22:13
I guarantee that your manager works more hours than you do. The idea of a "working class" is nothing but classist crap.


Absolutely positively did not!

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 22:19
Absolutely positively did not!

Articulate, mature response.

I don't necessarily mean the manager that you directly reported to. A loss-prevention officer's manager isn't very high up the chain. I don't know how your company's org chart looks, but I'd bet that not much higher up than you is a district manager or a regional manager who works his ass off.

gjk5
11-12-2012, 22:26
Articulate, mature response.

I don't necessarily mean the manager that you directly reported to. A loss-prevention officer's manager isn't very high up the chain. I don't know how your company's org chart looks, but I'd bet that not much higher up than you is a district manager or a regional manager who works his ass off.

Yes, works his ass off at being the man, at keeping the working man down, at sacrificing people for profits!!!!!!!! Effin management d-bags, the whole place would run better without them. This whole damn place is all about ME, not some stupid shareholder or owner!
















:supergrin:

DanaT
11-12-2012, 23:26
Because we've always parked back there. Pissed off shoplifters can't wait for us outside/see what we drive. Employees don't know when we come or go.
Management has failed to tell us security issues in the past and we often have transients/bums trying to steal cans from the back and then return them for $$.
Thats why I asked.

She wanted my left out of the investigation and my partner to go up. Never happened before and he was off the next day. Since we are a team, I would have liked to be briefed too.

I left out the other incident since that happened back in March and I alread mentioned it. And it was a lie. Shouldn't be held against me.

Go back and read what I said about drama and using too much management time. Think about it. Then read this your reply and see how it fits into what i said.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Devans0
11-13-2012, 03:00
I worked at a company that required ten years to get a partial vesting for retirement. It wasn't an at will state but it was remarkable how many employees were great employees until 9 1/2 years passed, then suddenly became "problem employees" that were fired.
I was looking for other employment at 9 1/2 years and asked the bosses for glowing recommendations, to help me find a new job. A new job didn't come, but the documentation helped when the hatchet was aimed in my direction.

Arquebus12
11-13-2012, 04:01
Me?..

Kat1950

Bren
11-13-2012, 04:53
Slug71, reading just a small part of what you've posted - you must be the only person in the world who is surprised you got fired. Getting rid of employees like you is exactly why employers need at will employment. If you are coming to the table with no unique or valuable skills and expecting a pay check, don't be surprised when people expect you to, at least, do your job right. If not, you are easily replaced.

Guess what, it's also to the advantage of good employees - now your space is open for somebody who won't cause problems and break rules, so the employer can get his money's worth.

Roger1079
11-13-2012, 04:55
How is it stupid? I raised a legit issue. I was wronged and looking for opinion.
Yes it is a privilege and not a right. That doesn't mean employers should treat there employees that way. The working class spend more time at work than at home. The economy is also driven by us.

Would you rather have to deal with a union than have give a warning before terminating someone? I would rather have that and do away with unions.You FEEL you were wronged. I bet your management will beg to differ with your opinion. Managers normally do not take kindly to employees circumventing the chain of command. If you had a legitimate reason for going above your managers head you would likely still have your job. And before you say anything, I AM speaking from personal experience.

The parking thing can also be seen as insubordination and was possibly just the icing on the cake.

Hef
11-13-2012, 05:30
Since when is "should" the same as "let's make a law requiring people to behave a certain way"?



I guarantee that your manager works more hours than you do. The idea of a "working class" is nothing but classist crap.

I worked from 6am Friday to 1am Saturday last week. Yes, I work behind a desk primarily. But I still average 70 hours. I don't even get overtime. When's the last time you worked a 70 hour week?



The economy is driven by both capital and labor. To say it's driven by "us" is stupid. Neither can exist without the other.



And when you run a business, you can make that choice. You don't get to try and legislate that choice onto others.

I work 12 hours a day, Monday through Friday, Saturday mornings, Sunday afternoons, and some nights too. No employee even comes close to putting in my hours.

DanaT
11-13-2012, 05:56
She wanted my left out of the investigation and my partner to go up. Never happened before and he was off the next day. Since we are a team, I would have liked to be briefed too.

Let me ask a simple question. Since you were in LP you probably had access to security video of the parking lot. Did you take a pro-active approach and help management out by retrieving video of the suspected sex incident in the parking lot to see if it even happened? Were you proactive in helping management?

certifiedfunds
11-13-2012, 06:00
The working class spend more time at work than at home. The economy is also driven by us.



Who is this "working class"?

The economy is driven by small businessmen and women taking a risk by pledging their assets to start a business. Folks like you just show up after the house is built.

Brucev
11-13-2012, 06:21
I work 12 hours a day, Monday through Friday, Saturday mornings, Sunday afternoons, and some nights too. No employee even comes close to putting in my hours.

You work for yourself. You don't like the hours, etc., tell yourself your quitting. Go to work somewhere else. You can even tell yourself what you demand in order for you to keep working for yourself. Why... you can ultimately cave in and give yourself a raise, better working conditions, etc. It's all up to you.

Those who are employed by a company have every right to act in their own best interest and to do so even if it gets up the nose of the employer. Those who are employed by a company have every right to use the legislative process to force employers to swallow work place rules and regulations that advantage the employee... even if it gives the employer a sore throat. Because employers do exactly the same thing. They do their best to buy legislators who will give them what they want... unrestrained power to do as they please in dealing with employees.

Brucev
11-13-2012, 06:24
I worked at a company that required ten years to get a partial vesting for retirement. It wasn't an at will state but it was remarkable how many employees were great employees until 9 1/2 years passed, then suddenly became "problem employees" that were fired.
I was looking for other employment at 9 1/2 years and asked the bosses for glowing recommendations, to help me find a new job. A new job didn't come, but the documentation helped when the hatchet was aimed in my direction.

You must not say such things. It upsets people who want to pretend that employers are only looking for quality employees. You must not say such things. Allow those folks to cling to their illusions. The truth is to inconvenient.

certifiedfunds
11-13-2012, 06:47
You work for yourself. You don't like the hours, etc., tell yourself your quitting. Go to work somewhere else. You can even tell yourself what you demand in order for you to keep working for yourself. Why... you can ultimately cave in and give yourself a raise, better working conditions, etc. It's all up to you.

Those who are employed by a company have every right to act in their own best interest and to do so even if it gets up the nose of the employer. Those who are employed by a company have every right to use the legislative process to force employers to swallow work place rules and regulations that advantage the employee... even if it gives the employer a sore throat. Because employers do exactly the same thing. They do their best to buy legislators who will give them what they want... unrestrained power to do as they please in dealing with employees.

And the company should have every right to fire them at any time for any reason.

engineer151515
11-13-2012, 06:58
You must not say such things. It upsets people who want to pretend that employers are only looking for quality employees. You must not say such things. Allow those folks to cling to their illusions. The truth is to inconvenient.

Here's a truth.

Without a contract, you are not entitled to a job.

There ya go.

tehan2
11-13-2012, 07:25
the only thing your employer "owes" you is payment for the work you've done

Jon_R
11-13-2012, 07:36
I worked at a company that required ten years to get a partial vesting for retirement. It wasn't an at will state but it was remarkable how many employees were great employees until 9 1/2 years passed, then suddenly became "problem employees" that were fired.
I was looking for other employment at 9 1/2 years and asked the bosses for glowing recommendations, to help me find a new job. A new job didn't come, but the documentation helped when the hatchet was aimed in my direction.

If this is known as a common business practice of this company why do any good employees stay? If the employee has enough value take it to somewhere else.

I always keep my eye's open for a better opportunity for me and my family. My loyalty is to my family. My employer pays me for the work I perform and value I bring to them. They need something done and I do it because they pay me to do it. When they no longer need it or think they would be better off with someone else they will stop paying me and I will stop doing it. :cool:

Roger1079
11-13-2012, 07:41
You work for yourself. You don't like the hours, etc., tell yourself your quitting. Go to work somewhere else. You can even tell yourself what you demand in order for you to keep working for yourself. Why... you can ultimately cave in and give yourself a raise, better working conditions, etc. It's all up to you.

Those who are employed by a company have every right to act in their own best interest and to do so even if it gets up the nose of the employer. Those who are employed by a company have every right to use the legislative process to force employers to swallow work place rules and regulations that advantage the employee... even if it gives the employer a sore throat. Because employers do exactly the same thing. They do their best to buy legislators who will give them what they want... unrestrained power to do as they please in dealing with employees.Where the heck does this entitlement mindset so many people seem to have come from?

Do you know what my employer owes me? A paycheck for doing my job weekly to the best of my ability, vacation and sick time as per company guidlines, and the subsidized insurance package that was a condition of my employment that I pay for weekly out of my check. Beyond that, my employer OWES ME NOTHING. My employment is a PRIVELEDGE and certainly not a RIGHT, and I can tell you this with certainty: If I ever fail to accomplish my job to their satisfaction and I fail to continue to be an asset to my employer, they can and will let me go maybe with notice, most likely without. They are a business, not a charity. Only the government is in the business of giving lazy and useless people money they didn't earn.

Atlas
11-13-2012, 08:01
Here's a truth.

Without a contract, you are not entitled to a job.

There ya go.

And therein lies a point to be made...


Those who believe that an employer has some obligation to them beyond paying for work performed, plus any vacation time, medical insurance, or other benefits agreed upon at time of hire:

You always have the option of negotiating a formal contract with the employer up front stating exactly what is expected by both parties.

My employment is done this way for each project I work.
Has been for almost 30 years now. Works well for me.
Usually, the contract states that the arrangement can be ended at any time by either party for any reason.

In this way, I know up front the terms and conditions of my employment. I know up front that if I am rendering the value my employer needs then I have "a job" (for the duration at least) and I will be paid for the work I've performed.

If at any time my employer feels that I am not providing them with the value they expected, they will end the agreement and find someone who can give them what they want.
And yes, it has happened that way, more than once.


This has worked well for me my entire working life, with no angst over whether we really, truly love each other or whether they will respect me in the morning.

Hef
11-13-2012, 08:14
You work for yourself. You don't like the hours, etc., tell yourself your quitting. Go to work somewhere else. You can even tell yourself what you demand in order for you to keep working for yourself. Why... you can ultimately cave in and give yourself a raise, better working conditions, etc. It's all up to you.

Those who are employed by a company have every right to act in their own best interest and to do so even if it gets up the nose of the employer. Those who are employed by a company have every right to use the legislative process to force employers to swallow work place rules and regulations that advantage the employee... even if it gives the employer a sore throat. Because employers do exactly the same thing. They do their best to buy legislators who will give them what they want... unrestrained power to do as they please in dealing with employees.

Did you even read what I was responding to before you posted your ridiculous and irrelevant "demand a raise from yourself" nonsense? My post was to add to a response to the statement, "the working class spend more time at work than at home".

Brucev
11-13-2012, 08:57
And the company should have every right to fire them at any time for any reason.

"Should..." is you opinion only. Very happily, what what a company is permitted to do, and what it is prohibited from doing is entirely determined law. And... if 11/6 is any indicator, employers are in for a bumpy ride. Tough. They earned it. They have every right to it. And nobody is going to take it away from them. Fasten your seatbelts.

Brucev
11-13-2012, 09:01
Where the heck does this entitlement mindset so many people seem to have come from?

Do you know what my employer owes me? A paycheck for doing my job weekly to the best of my ability, vacation and sick time as per company guidlines, and the subsidized insurance package that was a condition of my employment that I pay for weekly out of my check. Beyond that, my employer OWES ME NOTHING. My employment is a PRIVELEDGE and certainly not a RIGHT, and I can tell you this with certainty: If I ever fail to accomplish my job to their satisfaction and I fail to continue to be an asset to my employer, they can and will let me go maybe with notice, most likely without. They are a business, not a charity. Only the government is in the business of giving lazy and useless people money they didn't earn.

The above is of course the rambling of one who is not looking at a pink slip... who has not been lied to by his employer. Or, it reflects the blind rote repetition of a mythology to which one clings in the face of reality.

As to the govt., it routinely employes all sorts of people, some who earn their pay and some of them who are just simply lazy people sucking on the fed. tit. You find them in all sorts of places... administration, regulation, military, law enforcement, etc. They're everywhere! They're everywhere!

Atlas
11-13-2012, 09:02
"Should..." is you opinion only. Very happily, what what a company is permitted to do, and what it is prohibited from doing is entirely determined law. And... if 11/6 is any indicator, employers are in for a bumpy ride. Tough. They earned it. They have every right to it. And nobody is going to take it away from them. Fasten your seatbelts.


And how would you expect "employers in for a bumpy ride" to benefit present or potential employees?

Roger1079
11-13-2012, 09:05
"Should..." is you opinion only. Very happily, what what a company is permitted to do, and what it is prohibited from doing is entirely determined law. And... if 11/6 is any indicator, employers are in for a bumpy ride. Tough. They earned it. They have every right to it. And nobody is going to take it away from them. Fasten your seatbelts.So say you own a business, which judging by the demeanor of your posts, I am sure you don't. You sound more like a disgruntled ex-employee than anything else.

That aside, Mr. Employer, say you have a useless employee that is lazy and causes problems. You honestly feel that you should not have the right to fire this employee outright with no notice or reason given? You should be forced to keep the useless rather than freeing up the space for someone worthy of the opportunity you have to offer?

Roger1079
11-13-2012, 09:08
And how would you expect "employers in for a bumpy ride" to benefit present or potential employees?I have a feeling this post will either get no response from Brucev or something completely illogical and ridiculous that supports his skewed perception of employee entitlement.

kat1950
11-13-2012, 09:10
Are you saying that you fire employees for making suggestions you don't agree with?

Like I said from day 1 they know me, including my attitude towards their responsibilities for their job and the policies of MY company, so we do not have people making suggestions that they know is against my policy, we have a very tight team all on the same wave length and working together.

Oh by the way it took many years for me to achieve this goal, and only possible after firing all the whiners, dissidents, including all the people with inferiority complexes against authority and the wealth that accompanies it.