Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE, today »

At-will employment needs to be amended.

For those who don't know, "At-will employment" is the concept that an employer or employee can terminate employment for any reason, even no reason at all. It is common in 49 of 50 states.

Well, I think that needs to change.

Specifically, the part where employers have that liberty needs to be amended.

Here's what I have in mind:

Employees should still have the liberty to quit for any reason, including no reason at all.

Employers, however, should not have that liberty.

If an employer wants to terminate an employee, there needs to be a good reason and it has to be well-documented.

If you want to fire someone because "it's not working out," document how it's hindering business. Firing someone because you don't like their face should not be an acceptable reason.

If you want to lay someone off, provide financial statements and projections that show that if you take the jobs away from x amount of people, your financial situation will improve.

If you want to fire someone because they broke a rule, document the rule in the handbook and show sufficient evidence that said employee violated said rule, and document progressive discipline up to and including termination. In other words, barring egregious/illegal violations, one violation should not be grounds for termination. Verbal and written warnings need to be documented.

Here's what I propose:

1. All terminations are reviewed by the same state bureau that handles unemployment

2. When an employer terminates an employee, they need to fill out a form saying that employee was terminated, the reason, and supporting documentation.

3. The state bureau will review this paperwork. If they deem the termination and its documentation acceptable, the employee will collect unemployment, starting at full wages, and reduced by 1% each week.

Ex. an employee made $1,000/week
Week 1: 1000
Week 2: 990
Week 3: 980

HOWEVER, if the bureau does NOT deem the termination reason/documentation acceptable, then the employee will be reinstated and paid back wages.

You may be asking, "Why do you want it this way? The employer doesn't owe an employee a job."

You're right. However, the economic ramifications are miles apart for if an employer terminates an employee compared to if an employee quits.

If an employer terminates an employee, the employee's finances are very likely to take a hit, resulting in damaged credit, bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.
Whereas if an employee quits, the employer posts a want ad on Indeed and the role is filled in a few weeks at no material loss to the employer.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Employees and employers should have equal freedom. Your idea has everyone working for the state. What some call Plantation Democrat.
TexChik · F
And, Mr socialist that is why you are not a business owner. You have no clue .
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
Do people not understand contracts anymore? If you want some security in your job just don't work for someone like that. No we have to bring in more bureaucracy ugh. What would everyone do if the employer just never decided to found the business in the first place or they were never born, would you demand they pop into existence
DearAmbellina2113 · 41-45, F
If every job was unionized, this would not be a problem.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
So what you are really saying is your lazy butt got fired and you are mad about it.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ChristipherPaul The point is the employer can document all he wants. Will the arbiter agree with the employee or the employer?
ChristipherPaul · 31-35, MNew
@hippyjoe1955 It all depends on how relevant to the cause for termination the documentation is.

Example: I fired someone back in 2015 because in the four months he was employed, he was late 12 times and called out sick 6 times. We had the time cards to show it.

Under my system, if I were the reviewer of the termination, I would deem the documentation sufficient.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ChristipherPaul You would. Not everyone else would agree with you. If the employee came up with a really good sob story as to why he was late and sick he may well still have a job. It is up to an arbiter to determine who was more justified. Look at any court case and see if you can find the bias in the judge.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
That statement assumes there was such a contract in the first place. If a employer doesn't want such a contract it simply won't go over in any state. 99% of such employment contracts are not "At will employment contracts".

The owness has always been on the employer!

Legal contract's are agreements between both employee and employer.

So if you want to set it that way and both agree to it, there's nothing to say otherwise other than state laws prohibiting certain things. Like child labor laws as an example.

But again, as in the last case, the employer must want to hire a child to begin with. Therefore a contract is written up. Not necessarily a "At will employment contract".
revenant · F
Nah it should go both ways. No employer will be interested in flighty employees.
ChristipherPaul · 31-35, MNew
@revenant You're right. I'm in management myself. and when we see a lot of movement on a resume, we simply don't hire them. That's our prerogative.

HOWEVER, if an employee quits, the company won't go out of business. If an employee is terminated, the economic ramifications are much worse.
revenant · F
@ChristipherPaul Employees can sue for unfair dismissal.
Disgustedman · 61-69, M
However. If the employee would have saved like everyone has been encouraged to do so. Then said employee wouldn't have any problems quitting or being terminated from a job. But you are putting too much bureaucratic issues to make this feasible.
Doctrble · 46-50, M
Simple. Hire as needed. Obviously you have never had an employee or a business. If you did youd see employees have more rights than the owner does.
I thought an employer had to have a reason to fire someone.
ChristipherPaul · 31-35, MNew
@Spoiledbrat normally a respectable employer does
@ChristipherPaul An employee can get unemployment if the employer doesn't have a reason to let them go and that raises their rates.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
There is always a reason to let one go.
ChristipherPaul · 31-35, MNew
@MarineBob You're right, and the reason should be a good reason.
Human1000 · M
@ChristipherPaul Employees never agree there is a good reason.
Human1000 · M
In public sector, at will is rare.

Post Comment
4,774 people following
Need to Vent
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Forum Members