What the heck does this question mean?

Question

Here are some possible answers:

Which of the following is not a factor that can give rise to an implied obligation to discharge an employee only for good cause?

A. long term employment
B. salary level
C. no formal criticism of job performance
D. raises, bonuses and promotion

Answer 1

Very awkwardly worded question.

I would have to say B because salary level does not necessarily imply anything about work history or job performance.

If an employee has been with a company for a long time, it can be inferred they have been a good employee.

If an employee has had no formal criticism of job performance then it can be assumed they are doing a good job.

If an employee has received raises, bonuses, and/or promotions, it implies their job performance has been good enough for the company to consider them a more valuable employee.

Answer 2

Take it one phrase at at time:
1. What is NOT a factor for the following
2. to give rise to - get you thinking
3. Implied obligation - make you think you should
4. to discharge an employee - fire
5. for a good cause

Which of the following would not make you start thinking you needed to fire someone for a good reason?

Possibly D.

You wouldn't start thinking about fireing someone who has been getting raises, bonuses and promotions. They must be doing a good job.

Answer 3

The answer is "A". All the others can be misunderstood by management and be contributing factors for cause of dismissal.

What they are referring to is if you discuss your salary, or complain about job performance or raises, bonuses etc. with other employees once you are hired - this would be cause for employee termination.

But the bigger question is this. Where did you get such a poorly written question anyway. It's an enigma, answered by a riddle and wrapped by a question. If you got this question from an employer's test, I would quickly look for another employer. These people have their head planted in the wrong place.

Answer 4

By giving an employee A, C, and D, you are implying that employee is a good and valued employee and you should only discharge (fire) that employee for good cause (such as stealing from the company).

General Salary Level has nothing to do with Implied obligation.

Answer 5

I would say B. Basically, the question asks, if you fired someone, which of the following could NOT be used to force you to have a good reason for firing that person.

If the person was an employee for 20 years, you would need a good reason for firing them.
If the employee has a spotless employment record with you and has never been disciplined on the job, you would need a good reason to fire them.
If you had just given the person a raise, bonus or promotion, then you would need a good reason to fire them.

Answer 6

B

Most employment is considered 'at will'. It means that an employee can quit at any time for any reason, and that the employer can fire them at any time for any reason (other than legally protected status). Everything besides B in your answer choices, could be taken by the employee as implying that their status changed and that they were entitled to further job security.

Answer 7

Which of the following is not a reason that can give an idea of a not said but understood dubty to fire an employee only for good cause?

which of the following is not a reason for someone to feel they have to fire someone for a better cause?

Answer 8

A ,why should anything be implied for the reasons given.Only the long term employment could be a safety refuge.

Answer 9

it means which one of these wouldnt give an employee reason to think his/her job is safe from termination (except an infraction of rules or company policy)

i think its B its not C because if someone gets a raise or promotion they would assume that their job is safe

by the way if you want to say "do your own homework" or "ask your dad" just keep it to yourself.

Answer 10

This question is impossible to understand.