Why do American workers tolerate 'At-Will' employment?

[Underseer]

It is ridiculous that employees can quit whenever they want for whatever reason.

Yes. Anyone can at any time choose to quit and then choose to work for another employer under the same rules, therefore there is nothing wrong with the rules. *eyeroll*

 

[Trausti]

It is ridiculous that employees can quit whenever they want for whatever reason.

Yes. Anyone can at any time choose to quit and then choose to work for another employer under the same rules, therefore there is nothing wrong with the rules. *eyeroll*

So you responded without reading the whole thread. *eyeroll*

 

[bilby]

At-will employment is a necessary evil in a capitalist economy. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the profit motive to a pretty good degree.

Companies generally don't fire someone for the simple reason of being mean. They do it because it's necessary for the overall health of the company. And it's naive to not think that some employees simply don't work out for whatever reason; and it's worth considering that in an economic downturn, that a company shouldn't have to either keep employees on or risk a lawsuit from every single one in order to explain cause. The legal fees alone, even if the suits were successfully defended in arbitration, let alone a court room, would kill off most businesses.

...and yet, outside the USA - in Canada, the EU, Australia, the UK, etc., companies do perfectly well despite not having 'At-will' employment.

Further, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Most people know they can be let go at any time; not because of some arbitrary abuse, but because that's the way things are.

According to the study in the OP, no, they don't.

And even if they don't know that, it doesn't mean their firing or dismissal was improper. A reasonable person of reasonable age and experience, is considered to have notice of at-will employment, if not explicitly from their employer than from simply being alive long enough.

There will always be occurrences of unfairness, but to saddle every business with having to have cause to fire someone would be disastrous.

It observably is not - look at ANY developed nation other than the USA.

Businesses don't want to fire people, believe it or not. Turnover costs money generally speaking. Having to train a new person and get them up to speed means lost production time. It's also bad for morale and stressful for management.

Sure. But while businesses don't want to fire people, managers - who have their own set of human failings - sometimes do; and sometimes do unjustly. In the developed world, employees believe that they have some protection against being fired for certain unjust reasons - see the OP for some examples - and in every case apart from in the USA, they are correct in that belief.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you got fired ("at will") it was probably best for the economy.

It is ridiculous that employees can quit whenever they want for whatever reason.

Yes. Anyone can at any time choose to quit and then choose to work for another employer under the same rules, therefore there is nothing wrong with the rules. *eyeroll*

There's really only ONE rule that matters: whatever best serves the consumers is what's right.

It's best for the economy if both the employer and the employee are free to "quit" the other one at any time, for any reason.

The company doesn't suddenly fire the worker unless it's best for the company = best for its profit = best for consumers. Companies don't terminate an employee just to be sadistic or to inflict pain because they like to see people suffer. They're doing what's best for the company's function of serving the customers better.

Whatever works best for consumers is what matters, i.e., the end goal. While the employer and the employee are only a tool, or only a means to an end -- i.e., the end of serving the consumers.

And of course employers and employees and all other producers do their job best if they are left free (individually) to "quit" (or "fire" anyone they deal with) at any time they arbitrarily choose (except that they must fulfill contracts they signed).

 

[bilby]

Yes. Anyone can at any time choose to quit and then choose to work for another employer under the same rules, therefore there is nothing wrong with the rules. *eyeroll*

There's really only ONE rule that matters: whatever best serves the consumers is what's right.

It's best for the economy if both the employer and the employee are free to "quit" the other one at any time, for any reason.

The company doesn't suddenly fire the worker unless it's best for the company = best for its profit = best for consumers. Companies don't terminate an employee just to be sadistic or to inflict pain because they like to see people suffer. They're doing what's best for the company's function of serving the customers better.

Whatever works best for consumers is what matters, i.e., the end goal. While the employer and the employee are only a tool, or only a means to an end -- i.e., the end of serving the consumers.

And of course employers and employees and all other producers do their job best if they are left free (individually) to "quit" (or "fire" anyone they deal with) at any time they arbitrarily choose (except that they must fulfill contracts they signed).

That's nice.

There is fuck-all evidence that any of it is true, but as long as you are clinging to this as an article of faith, I am sure that's making you happy.

Having set a completely arbitrary end goal, sorry, end goal, you can now turn off your reasoning skills (if you had any to begin with) and pursue that end goal without regard for what the effects might be on anything else. But just in case that's not simplistic enough, you can simply declare without evidence that the end goal is best served by total freedom for employers and employees to walk away at any time for any reason. No need to back that with reason, logic or evidence; that just makes things too complicated.

Much better just to believe, deep in our hearts (if we have them) that the rule we arbitrarily chose is the ONE rule that matters.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's really only ONE rule that matters: whatever best serves the consumers is what's right.

It's best for the economy if both the employer and the employee are free to "quit" the other one at any time, for any reason.

The company doesn't suddenly fire the worker unless it's best for the company = best for its profit = best for consumers. Companies don't terminate an employee just to be sadistic or to inflict pain because they like to see people suffer. They're doing what's best for the company's function of serving the customers better.

Whatever works best for consumers is what matters, i.e., the end goal. While the employer and the employee are only a tool, or only a means to an end -- i.e., the end of serving the consumers.

And of course employers and employees and all other producers do their job best if they are left free (individually) to "quit" (or "fire" anyone they deal with) at any time they arbitrarily choose (except that they must fulfill contracts they signed).

That's nice.

There is fuck-all evidence that any of it is true, but as long as you are clinging to this as an article of faith, I am sure that's making you happy.

Having set a completely arbitrary end goal, sorry, end goal, you can now turn off your reasoning skills (if you had any to begin with) and pursue that end goal without regard for what the effects might be on anything else. But just in case that's not simplistic enough, you can simply declare without evidence that the end goal is best served by total freedom for employers and employees to walk away at any time for any reason. No need to back that with reason, logic or evidence; that just makes things too complicated.

Much better just to believe, deep in our hearts (if we have them) that the rule we arbitrarily chose is the ONE rule that matters.

What's the goal of the economy/business if not to serve consumers? What is the point of having employers or workers other than for them to serve consumers?

 

[bilby]

That's nice.

There is fuck-all evidence that any of it is true, but as long as you are clinging to this as an article of faith, I am sure that's making you happy.

Having set a completely arbitrary end goal, sorry, end goal, you can now turn off your reasoning skills (if you had any to begin with) and pursue that end goal without regard for what the effects might be on anything else. But just in case that's not simplistic enough, you can simply declare without evidence that the end goal is best served by total freedom for employers and employees to walk away at any time for any reason. No need to back that with reason, logic or evidence; that just makes things too complicated.

Much better just to believe, deep in our hearts (if we have them) that the rule we arbitrarily chose is the ONE rule that matters.

What's the goal of the economy/business if not to serve consumers? What is the point of having employers or workers other than for them to serve consumers?

The economy is an emergent property of the sum of human economic activity. It neither has nor needs a goal. People have goals. Economies arise from the pursuit of those goals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the unemployment rates, especially of the young, in areas with strong worker protections.

- - - Updated - - -

The smaller the employee turnover and the longer workers work.

the harder it is to find a job and the higher the unemployment rate.

If there is money to be made, employers will employ and will do so regardless of worker protection.

No. The more worker protections the more expensive workers become and thus the higher profits companies will have to see in order to hire.

So?

Look at the unemployment rates of the young in Europe!

OK! I AM LOOKING!

Me too.

In the US, (according to BLS), the youth unemployment rate was 12.2 percent in July 2015

In the UK, (according to the UK Government's briefing paper 'Youth unemployment statistics'), the unemployment rate (the proportion of the economically active population who are unemployed) for 16-24 year olds was 16.0% in the quarter April-June 2015

In Australia, (according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare), the unemployment rate for 15-24 year olds was 13% in 2014.

Given that there are differences in the way these stats are measured, those numbers don't seem to be wildly different. Certainly there is no big difference between the US and Australian figures; despite Australia having very strong worker protections.

It seems that the only way to get the numbers to match your narrative is to cherry pick them. It also seems likely that there are other factors than just worker protections that influence the differing rates of youth unemployment between these three nations.

A bit misleading as teens in temporary jobs aren't really relevant but close enough but you're proving my point. (And the spread is usually wider than this, we haven't finished climbing out of 2008 yet.)

 

[Playball40]

Yes. Anyone can at any time choose to quit and then choose to work for another employer under the same rules, therefore there is nothing wrong with the rules. *eyeroll*

There's really only ONE rule that matters: whatever best serves the consumers is what's right.

It's best for the economy if both the employer and the employee are free to "quit" the other one at any time, for any reason.

The company doesn't suddenly fire the worker unless it's best for the company = best for its profit = best for consumers. Companies don't terminate an employee just to be sadistic or to inflict pain because they like to see people suffer. They're doing what's best for the company's function of serving the customers better.

Whatever works best for consumers is what matters, i.e., the end goal. While the employer and the employee are only a tool, or only a means to an end -- i.e., the end of serving the consumers.

And of course employers and employees and all other producers do their job best if they are left free (individually) to "quit" (or "fire" anyone they deal with) at any time they arbitrarily choose (except that they must fulfill contracts they signed).

Nonsense. Managers do it all the time - especially if they feel (real or imagined) the least bit threatened by you.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Look at the unemployment rates, especially of the young, in areas with strong worker protections.

- - - Updated - - -

The smaller the employee turnover and the longer workers work.

the harder it is to find a job and the higher the unemployment rate.

If there is money to be made, employers will employ and will do so regardless of worker protection.

No. The more worker protections the more expensive workers become and thus the higher profits companies will have to see in order to hire.

So?

Look at the unemployment rates of the young in Europe!

OK! I AM LOOKING!

Me too.

In the US, (according to BLS), the youth unemployment rate was 12.2 percent in July 2015

In the UK, (according to the UK Government's briefing paper 'Youth unemployment statistics'), the unemployment rate (the proportion of the economically active population who are unemployed) for 16-24 year olds was 16.0% in the quarter April-June 2015

In Australia, (according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare), the unemployment rate for 15-24 year olds was 13% in 2014.

Given that there are differences in the way these stats are measured, those numbers don't seem to be wildly different. Certainly there is no big difference between the US and Australian figures; despite Australia having very strong worker protections.

It seems that the only way to get the numbers to match your narrative is to cherry pick them. It also seems likely that there are other factors than just worker protections that influence the differing rates of youth unemployment between these three nations.

A bit misleading as teens in temporary jobs aren't really relevant but close enough but you're proving my point. (And the spread is usually wider than this, we haven't finished climbing out of 2008 yet.)

Actually he is disproving your point, but not surprising you would miss that.

 

[Togo]

A bit misleading as teens in temporary jobs aren't really relevant but close enough but you're proving my point.

Athena is right, these figure disprove your point.

 

[fromderinside]

A bit misleading as teens in temporary jobs aren't really relevant but close enough but you're proving my point.

Athena is right, these figure disprove your point.

Wait a minute. Black sub-population has youth unemployment two to three times higher than white unemployment which distorts US numbers even more. If we are presuming weaker US laws then Loren Pechtel might be on to something.

 

[lpetrich]

There's really only ONE rule that matters: whatever best serves the consumers is what's right.

So you support press gangs and slave-labor camps? That will bring about Low Prices For The Consumer VERY quickly.

It's best for the economy if both the employer and the employee are free to "quit" the other one at any time, for any reason.

So you support an absolute right to renege on employment contracts? Or should only employers have that right and never employees?

(Business-leader worship and Panglossian tripe snipped)

 

[Archimedes]

The company doesn't suddenly fire the worker unless it's best for the company = best for its profit = best for consumers. Companies don't terminate an employee just to be sadistic or to inflict pain because they like to see people suffer. They're doing what's best for the company's function of serving the customers better..

You obviously haven't worked for the same employers as I have. I've seen some truly inane hiring and firing policies in my time. If they can be called policies.

Acting in what you believe to be your best interests is not the same thing as actually acting in your best interests.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because they simply cannot believe that it could possibly be allowed to be as awful as it actually is.

Because most Americans genuinely DON'T KNOW they live under "at will" hiring terms.

Believe me, that's a pretty jarring discovery when you get fired for what would otherwise be a totally illegal reason (e.g. for declining your boss' "suggestion" that you not take maternity leave or for being too pretty and potentially distracting to the horny executive assistant and god knows we can't afford another lawsuit) only to be told there's nothing you can do about it because you live in an "at will" state.

It seems that even people whose employment is 'At-will' do not understand just how few rights they have as an employee, until and unless they are capriciously or wrongfully dismissed - leading to their toleration and even support of a system that they would neither tolerate nor support if they understood it.

Nobody would stand for this crap if we all knew about it. The problem is, most of us don't know about it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If most people do not know we have an at will employment, it's not much of a problem then. Most people don't get fired. The worst things I have seen with people getting let go is actually at the teacher level when after 3 years they get tenure there was an incredible amount of stress and turnover because of the added protection.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If most people do not know we have an at will employment, it's not much of a problem then. Most people don't get fired. The worst things I have seen with people getting let go is actually at the teacher level when after 3 years they get tenure there was an incredible amount of stress and turnover because of the added protection.

You think tenure is what stresses out teachers?

 

[bilby]

If most people do not know we have an at will employment, it's not much of a problem then. Most people don't get fired. The worst things I have seen with people getting let go is actually at the teacher level when after 3 years they get tenure there was an incredible amount of stress and turnover because of the added protection.

If most people don't get robbed at gunpoint, it's not much of a problem then.

If most women don't get raped, it's not much of a problem then.

If most people's homes are not destroyed by tornadoes, it's not much of a problem then.

I can see your point

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I prefer at will because it makes getting rid of bums much simpler. Better for everyone.

 

[Trodon]

The more you protect workers from being fired the harder it is to find a job and the higher the unemployment rate.

What works best is a growing economy with a growing employment rate. From the beginning of the Second World War to the inflationary recession of 1974 that is what the United States had. It is not clear how to restore such an economy, although politicians claim on the campaign trail that they know how to do it.