Why does usa complain about the economy, but preserve the right of an employer to...

[AlienBelle]

...fire people for no reason? If people could only be fired for doing something wrong, then they'd be more comfortable spending money.

Besides that: Companies in usa are financially pushed to fire employees and replace them every few years, and have little reason to take long term consideration onto their hiring processes.

I'm just wondering why the rights of employees are the first things to go, rather than the right to abuse employees, considering how many examples inside and outside of usa have shown that making employees comfortable, healthy, and happy leads to higher profits, and stronger businesses.
Michael H: It's only cheaper for a few years. Then you fire the old employees, pay a few fees, and hire someone new for much lower salaries, and fewer fringe benefits. You write in contracts that allow for better advantages for the company at the expence of the employee, and while this sounds great for strengthening employees, it fails compared to companies that honor their workers.
Creed: I have a college education,a nd a budiness that says you don't know what you are talking about.


laughter, we both know there is a difference between getting layed off, and getting fired. The system works here in the states, and also over seas, and I think the completely uneducated answers I've received show the real answer. Americans have no idea what's going on around them. They hear someone say something, and accept it, and repeat it, and even argue that it's a realistic idea, no matter how long that system has failed. I think americans are scared, and because you don't know what to do, you'll just do what your told. You're too afraid to change.
charles C: You contradicted yourself by dehumanizing the "broom pushers" and indicating that you had no problem firing them. Why did you hire them so carelessly, only to fire them so easily? Because the law says you can. If you were forced to consider who you hired carefully, then you would know before you hired them that they were janitors and not "broom pushers". Then your employees would have a better sense of financial security, because they would know they would most likely still have their job tomorrow. That would lead to spending, and that would lead to a better economy.

 

[laughter_every_day]

You must be thinking that there is a specific statute that enables employers to fire people at will. No statute is needed. It is a basic principle of contract law that if parties enter into a contract and it is not for a specific time, then BOTH retain the right to cancel at any time. In order to have a contrary obligation imposed on the employer, while leaving the employee free to quit any time (since Lincoln freed the slaves) would require passage of a specific statute. If you wish to propose such a law, please let me know how long you think the contact should be for. A month? A lifetime? If the job is no longer needed or the employer changes his business, does the employer still need to keep that typewriter repairman on the payroll for the rest of his life?

 

[Khris]

cares who?

 

[Khris]

cares who?

 

[MichaelH]

Actually, it is the other way around, employers want to hang on to employees for longer periods, it is cheaper to pay for their longevity, then it is to train a new employee.

Having a job is not an entitlement, rather it is earned.

Do your job, keep your job. Assume that you cannot be fired, and be the first one terminated

 

[CharlesC]

My experience both as employer and employee is that employers have a great incentive to keep people. Even in what are considered "unskilled" jobs having somebody who knows the requirements of the job is a valuable asset. I owned a janitorial service for many years. There were broom pushers and there were professional janitors. Broom pushers had a higher turn over rate. Many were just getting into the job market. Some I had to let go because they were not conscientious. If someone is willing to pay for a job, it is a valuable job.
I never had incentive to fire a professional janitor. Just the opposite. I invested time and money teaching them various health codes, sanitation requirements of our customers. You might not think about it the floor wax used in a medical office is different than what is used for a clothing store. So I disagree with your premise. Employers want to keep employees. If somebody gets fired there is a reason. Might not be the employees fault but no employer wants to lose employees. If nothing else more workers means that you have the business to require more workers. That usually means more profit. So basic greed motivates employers to keep people.

 

[RayHere]

Nonsense the only reason you would fire someone just to fire them would unskilled worker you don't like
"'O K i have a new one teach her/him how to say Do you want to up size this order''

 

[Jeremy]

You don't have a right to a job. If someone owns a business, it's up to them who works there.

 

[worldpeace]

what?

 

[RichieB1]

Here is the Department of labors web site: http://www.dol.gov/ it list all of the federal laws for workers rights. There is no need for state workers to be in Unions they are already protected by federal and state laws. If a teacher shows up late everyday, has a crappy unorganized lesson plan, does not interact with the children, i want them to be fired wouldn't you.