Should "AT WILL" LAWS, that an employer can fire us "at will", be STRICKEN from the books?

Question

Doesn't this destroy years of civil rights work to protect people
on jobs who don't have Unions?
Isn't it just a cop-out because government is back-logged on
cases?
We need people on thier jobs, to relieve the tax burden, and cut
down on welfare and crime.

Anthony Silva
Great Legislator

Answer 1

I don't think employers "fire at will". There must be a reason like downsizing, employee has bad attitude or does not work well, When you get a job what makes you think you have rights? It is the employer's company and money, he or she can do what he wants in that respect. He can't fire a woman because she is pregnant, If the employee doesn't like it, one word LEAVE. Hey wake up and smell the coffee.

Answer 2

You are not going to like this but NO... on all accounts.

1) Civil rights and Unions have almost nothing to do with AT WILL laws. And for the record, Unions have and are destroying entire industries. See airlines, autos, etc.... Civil Rights laws sill take precedent over AT WILL laws in states.

2) Government is back logged on cases? Maybe the government can hire all of the fired AT WILL workers to solve your 2nd and 3rd question. :)

3) Supply and Demand coupled with economics dictate job rates. There are many ways to cut down on the tax burden including getting rid of some of the welfare programs and reducing the size of government to start. An expanding economy (which we are in now believe it or not) doesn't hurt either.

Now, your cutting down on crime question....that could be a whole question in itself. One thing to keep in mind is that crime across the country IS down over the last decade. However, it can and should come down more. I agree that jobs can help, but so can lowered divorce rates (studies show people from single families commit more crimes) and improved education.

Lastly, to tackle your original question.... Though AT WILL laws sometimes claim good people, for the most part, they are designed so that poor performing employees can not continue to waste employer resources and have reduced ability to sue just because they were inadequate at their job. As a very simple example, if you hire someone to mow your lawn and they mow half of it, cut cables and sometimes don’t show up...., should you be able to fire them without 3 stages of paperwork, 6 months of counseling and warnings, and not have an immediate law suit hanging over your head?

Good employees will rarely get fired because all companies NEED good employees. Bad employees will need to improve, find a more suitable profession, or continue to get a new job every 6 months.

But hey...that is JMHO.

Answer 3

no, a company can go out of business costing many good employees their job if they are forced to keep a bad employee that is not suitable for the job they were hired to do. How would you like to get your welfare check late all the time because the mailman had a hangover and didn't feel like delivering your street that day but his job was protected. How would you like to have your oil changed and the employee put the wrong oil in and burned up your engine, again. Or the bad employee at the electric company who hooked up the wrong wires and you lost power again but his job was protected so the next month he was on your electric pole again shorting out the wires. It's always good to get someone else fired when they don't do a job for you correctly but when it is your job on the line the attitude changes. Communism collapsed because of that thinking that everyone would get a guaranteed job regardless of capabilities. It does not work.

Answer 4

No, I believe these laws give the employer the right to decide what kind of people they want on their payroll. Only an employer knows what type of individuals it will take to make a successful team in their workplace.

Answer 5

It's just another way for employers to treat their employees poorly. But by the same token, since we are "at will" employees, we don't owe them anything, either. Not even a two-week notice.
The relationship can be terminated by either party at any time.

Answer 6

A law to end alaw that ended a law that was an offensive law that made me money law to made you money law back to made more taxes that made more tariffs thatcreated more laws to end all law.




Stand By,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Re-Boo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the first law will suprecede tha next law that might be passed to count the law that was in effect after the actuation of the first account of law binding





Stand By
Re-Boot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
in the event of the first law



Stand By
Re-Boot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,