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

[bilby]

I prefer at will because it makes getting rid of bums much simpler. Better for everyone. people who work in companies where they don't bother to vet prospective employees for suitability.

FTFY.

It is most certainly not 'better' for those fired capriciously and without notice. Not all such people are 'bums'. Most workers think it couldn't happen to them, because they are not 'bums' - which is exactly why it is such a painful shock to them when it does happen. Smug self-confidence is no substitute from actual legal protection against unfair dismissal; and laws against unfair dismissal need not make it particularly hard to dismiss someone where there is just cause.

It is much simpler not to have laws at all. That doesn't mean that a world without laws is 'better'. Simple rules are not ideal in complex societies.

 

[bilby]

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.

That's easy - take a little of the supply side cash surplus that is now so severe that wealthy people are literally paying governments to look after their money with negative real returns from bonds; and redistribute it to the people who have a use for it - the poor.

 

[Trodon]

Employees in the United States have traditionally had fewer legal rights than employees in Europe. There are two reasons for this.

The first is that in the United States the work force has always been more heterogeneous than the work force in Europe. Most employees have been racially and ethnically similar to their employers. Most of the time loyalties of race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class.

The second is that the United States has never had a hereditary, titled aristocracy. There has usually been more social mobility in the United States than in Europe, although that seems to be changing. Employees in the United States are more likely than employees in Europe to believe that they will eventually become employers. Thus they think in terms of what benefits employers, rather than employees.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

That's easy - take a little of the supply side cash surplus that is now so severe that wealthy people are literally paying governments to look after their money with negative real returns from bonds; and redistribute it to the people who have a use for it - the poor.

Theoretically that is easy. Politically it is difficult for the reasons I have explained.

 

[Trodon]

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

That would only be true if bosses did not fire people arbitrarily. Whether or not a boss likes an subordinate is often more important than whether or not by objective criteria the subordinate is performing well. I have heard of a boss who fired someone in order to create an opening for a relative.

Once I had a co worker who hardly did anything at all. He kept his job and received good job reviews because he knew how to make the boss feel good about himself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

That would only be true if bosses did not fire people arbitrarily. Whether or not a boss likes an subordinate is often more important than whether or not by objective criteria the subordinate is performing well. I have heard of a boss who fired someone in order to create an opening for a relative.

Once I had a co worker who hardly did anything at all. He kept his job and received good job reviews because he knew how to make the boss feel good about himself.

I've worked in many different places under many different circumstances. I prefer a workplace where management are decent folk who come to work everyday to get work done, and who wish to have a workforce with the same attitude. "At will" makes finding and maintaining just such a workforce much more doable, not to mention being able to satisfy customers, raise quality, introduce dynamic improvements, etc.

Other shops seem to make mediocrity the standard in my experience. "At will" works for me.

 

[laughing dog]

I've worked in many different places under many different circumstances. I prefer a workplace where management are decent folk who come to work everyday to get work done, and who wish to have a workforce with the same attitude. "At will" makes finding and maintaining just such a workforce much more doable, not to mention being able to satisfy customers, raise quality, introduce dynamic improvements, etc.

And "at will" makes maintaining such a workforce where management are not decent folk who do not come to work everyday to get work done much more difficult.

 

[couch_sloth]

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

That would only be true if bosses did not fire people arbitrarily. Whether or not a boss likes an subordinate is often more important than whether or not by objective criteria the subordinate is performing well. I have heard of a boss who fired someone in order to create an opening for a relative.

Once I had a co worker who hardly did anything at all. He kept his job and received good job reviews because he knew how to make the boss feel good about himself.

From what I've observed, this sort of thing happens in middle-managment also. e.g. A manager who is a bit of a slacker but adept at brown-nosing; is more likely to keep his job than a workaholic manager who isn't a 'yes man'.
And sometimes middle managers are fired (or forced out) simply because their new bosses want to bring in their own people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

But "the economy" does have goals, in the sense that it is shaped by us, by people, and how we shape it (if we shape it thoughtfully) is directed by our goals or intentions or hopes for a better outcome.

People have goals. Economies arise from the pursuit of those goals.

And that goal is to serve consumers. And companies do this best if both employers and employees are free to "quit" at will. (Which does not mean they can default on their signed contracts.)

 

[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).

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

That's your perception. Maybe sometimes true.

However, if this bad behavior results in bad outcomes for consumers, that company will be punished in the marketplace, automatically.

So whatever need there is to correct this is already met by the marketplace.

Also, sometimes that paranoid manager (or whatever is wrong with him) is needed by the company, for whatever reason, and keeping him happy is still best for the company's performance and for the consumers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

No, it serves consumers better if both the employer and employee are free to "quit" at will. Which includes not signing up in the first place. Those bad practices will not result in lower prices, because the damage to the producers would result in lower supply = higher prices.

Although if you're referring to military conscription, I don't want to say that all forms of conscription were always bad for society. Can we leave that aside as a special case. Like for WW2 or for the North in the Civil War and maybe some other cases. Maybe in most cases conscription was not necessary, but perhaps it was necessary in some cases.

Could we leave that aside and just say that for all work other than defending the country militarily -- so for all private business, the consumers are best served if both the employees and employers are free to "quit" at will, which of course includes not taking the "job" in the first place.

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?

No, reneging on signed contracts is bad for consumers.

Or should only employers have that right and never employees?

Neither. Obviously.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

You could easily be deluded in your interpretation. Those higher up in the company have a better perspective as to what the company needs to do in order to better serve the customers. You have nothing at stake, whereas those higher up will suffer if they make a bad decision that hurts the company's profit.

In any case, in the few instances where a company makes bad decisions that hurt its profit, thus hurting customers/consumers, there are automatic market mechanisms that punish that company. A company that makes better decisions and holds bad decision-makers accountable will do better in the market and gain higher profit.

So it's a self-correcting problem, such as it is.

I've seen some truly inane hiring and firing policies in my time. If they can be called policies.

You have your perspective, as one who has little at stake. If you're just a low-level employee, your main concern is the welfare of your comrades, not that of the consumers.

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

It's what's in the consumers' best interest that matters. Low-level employees are least likely to be thinking about this when hiring and layoff decisions are being made.

Employees often are misled by an unwritten dogma that companies have a moral obligation to provide "jobs" and serve the "best interests" of the society in terms of the latest jobless figures and in terms of providing higher incomes to workers in order to increase the "demand" for their product, and these snake-oil economics theories give them a false picture of what is truly in the "best interests" of society.

Because it's serving consumers that is in society's best interest, not providing "jobs" and incomes to job-seekers out of pity for them.

 

[bilby]

The economy is an emergent property of the sum of human economic activity. It neither has nor needs a goal.

But "the economy" does have goals, in the sense that it is shaped by us, by people, and how we shape it (if we shape it thoughtfully) is directed by our goals or intentions or hopes for a better outcome.

People have goals. Economies arise from the pursuit of those goals.

And that goal is to serve consumers.

Really? Why? Because you say so?

I would say that if economies are an emergent response to the goals of people, then the goal of the people is to serve the people, regardless of their status as 'consumers'; and the economy is not the kind of entity that has goals worthy of respect, except insofar as they align with the goals of the people.

And companies do this best if both employers and employees are free to "quit" at will. (Which does not mean they can default on their signed contracts.)

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the goal of the economy is to 'serve consumers', you have provided no evidence or reasoning to suggest that "companies do this best if both employers and employees are free to "quit" at will". It is just a bald assertion. Why should I believe your claim? Show your work.

 

[Axulus]

So let me get this straight: if I hire someone, you want to force me to keep paying them and continuing to buy their services despite me no longer wanting them around as an employee, for whatever reason I may have? And you think this has no effect on my decision to hire someone in the first place? You can bet that I will be more likely to prefer to have fewer employees and the ones I do I have I'll be sure are the cream of the crop. Screw those felons, teenagers, eccentrics, people who had even the tiniest bit of mistake on their resume or interview - I may be stuck with them if I hire them and find out they don't fit in well with the rest of my team and my company culture, so they don't even deserve the chance.

At least, that's the attitude the intellectual elite central planners want me to take, apparently.

 

[bilby]

So let me get this straight: if I hire someone, you want to force me to keep paying them and continuing to buy their services despite me no longer wanting them around as an employee, for whatever reason I may have?

Yep.

And you think this has no effect on my decision to hire someone in the first place?

Nope.

You can bet that I will be more likely to prefer to have fewer employees and the ones I do I have I'll be sure are the cream of the crop. Screw those felons, teenagers, eccentrics, people who had even the tiniest bit of mistake on their resume or interview

So what? They are screwed anyway - unless you have full employment. Do those people get to the top of the list of applicants now? No? So 'at will' does fuck all for them, either way.

- I may be stuck with them if I hire them and find out they don't fit in well with the rest of my team and my company culture, so they don't even deserve the chance.

Whereas employers are lining up to hire them at the moment.

At least, that's the attitude the intellectual elite central planners want me to take, apparently.

Nope. They have no influence on who you hire under any system current in the OECD.

The attitude they want you to take is "He has been loyal to my company for the last five years; perhaps I shouldn't sack him just because my nephew needs a job".

"At will" has fuck all to do with hiring; under other systems - even those with very strong worker protections - there are probationary periods so that if a new hire doesn't fit in, he can be fired within the first few months on the job.

"At will" is about firing. The point of difference with other systems is in how long term employees are treated.

The hiring of convicts, teenagers and eccentrics are unaffected - those people don't get hired unless there's nobody else available under any system; and if they don't work out or don't fit in, all systems allow for their dismissal in the first few months.

Your objections are a red herring.

 

[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.

You think tenure is what stresses out teachers?

It was a very stressful system for teachers during those first three years because of the tenure system. Turnover is high during that time because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

So let me get this straight: if I hire someone, you want to force me to keep paying them and continuing to buy their services despite me no longer wanting them around as an employee, for whatever reason I may have? And you think this has no effect on my decision to hire someone in the first place? You can bet that I will be more likely to prefer to have fewer employees and the ones I do I have I'll be sure are the cream of the crop. Screw those felons, teenagers, eccentrics, people who had even the tiniest bit of mistake on their resume or interview - I may be stuck with them if I hire them and find out they don't fit in well with the rest of my team and my company culture, so they don't even deserve the chance.

At least, that's the attitude the intellectual elite central planners want me to take, apparently.

Yep..one good example was that person who stopped believing in the company culture to pay workers $70K. We had no problem letting her go to find someone who believed in that higher min wage for the company.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You think tenure is what stresses out teachers?

It was a very stressful system for teachers during those first three years because of the tenure system. Turnover is high during that time because of it.

Prove it. Show the data, the surveys of teachers and former teachers who list as their primary reason or even one of their main stresses with teaching to be tenure. I'll put the kettle on. This may be a while.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"At will" has fuck all to do with hiring; under other systems - even those with very strong worker protections - there are probationary periods so that if a new hire doesn't fit in, he can be fired within the first few months on the job.

"At will" is about firing. The point of difference with other systems is in how long term employees are treated.

Which is precisely why you don't want to work for an organization where the managers are assclowns.

I worked for a company with thousands of employees and not once in 10 years was a non at will employee dismissed. We used to joke about the fact that we were fucking geniuses because we always hired the perfect employee.

I've come to the conclusion that companies without at will hiring deserve what they get and are stuck with each other because they're losers all. If they weren't they wouldn't need these job guarantees despite incompetence.

On another point employees are just as much consumers and customers as the people who buy their products. It's just a different market. Keep that fact in mind when you reread the last couple pages.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It was a very stressful system for teachers during those first three years because of the tenure system. Turnover is high during that time because of it.

Prove it. Show the data, the surveys of teachers and former teachers who list as their primary reason or even one of their main stresses with teaching to be tenure. I'll put the kettle on. This may be a while.

Turnover in the first five years is something like 50%. How does that turnover compare to other jobs?

 

[ksen]

So let me get this straight: if I hire someone, you want to force me to keep paying them and continuing to buy their services despite me no longer wanting them around as an employee, for whatever reason I may have? And you think this has no effect on my decision to hire someone in the first place? You can bet that I will be more likely to prefer to have fewer employees and the ones I do I have I'll be sure are the cream of the crop. Screw those felons, teenagers, eccentrics, people who had even the tiniest bit of mistake on their resume or interview - I may be stuck with them if I hire them and find out they don't fit in well with the rest of my team and my company culture, so they don't even deserve the chance.

At least, that's the attitude the intellectual elite central planners want me to take, apparently.

Yep..one good example was that person who stopped believing in the company culture to pay workers $70K. We had no problem letting her go to find someone who believed in that higher min wage for the company.

What do you mean "letting her go?"

Didn't she quit on her own?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Prove it. Show the data, the surveys of teachers and former teachers who list as their primary reason or even one of their main stresses with teaching to be tenure. I'll put the kettle on. This may be a while.

Turnover in the first five years is something like 50%. How does that turnover compare to other jobs?

I know turnover rate is high in the first THREE years (so you don't even have to wait for five). What I don't know is that the reason is tenure. Show me.

For reference, your quote

You think tenure is what stresses out teachers?

It was a very stressful system for teachers during those first three years because of the tenure system. Turnover is high during that time because of it.