Questioning the overarching acceptance of "Employment at Will"
"They can do whatever they want. They don't need a reason. It's "employment at will'" . This was my husband's matter of fact comment to me when I asked about why he/or the project were to be terminated. He will never know the reasoning. He's in his 50's and one of the legions of workers in the contracting/subcontracting employment groups in greater DC area encompassing MD and VA.
I was thinking about how the mentality of "Just in Time" inventory has percolated over into employment, especially in this area. Companies often have no HQ anymore and seldom do you know your coworkers employed by the same company. You are sought by recruiters who tout how great their company is, but really it is all about getting someone into a slot that they are competing for. So you can be pursued hotly, but employment is all contingent on winning the contract or getting a subcontract, upon making it through additional layers of approval from subcontract/contractor/government. And it is always temporary. I don't know how people can plan for the future anymore.
So, I wondered about this "employment at will" basis that we take for granted. A quick look says "it is a term used in US labor law in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason without having to establish just cause for termination and without warning." It's very employer centric and has been around since the 1800's, especially 1877 "Master and Servant" treatise and has underlain the foundations of employment ever since.
But, did you know that we are the only country that utilizes this concept of "employment at will"? Not the EU, nor the UK. Not in India or China. "Most other countries have indefinite employment. They regulate employment, but you can’t fire people for no reason as you can in the U.S. If an employer operating in Europe wants to terminate an employee, specific legal procedures must be followed". Our labor laws are very pro-business while labor laws in other countries are pro-employee. "Outside the U.S., laws regulate how, when and why an employer can end an employment relationship. Many foreign employment termination laws impose lengthy notice periods, large severance pay and cumbersome pre-firing procedural steps. There can be heavy monetary penalties if these transactions are handled improperly. Settlements are usually calculated as a multiple of annual earnings. In the EU particularly, termination settlements can amount to two to three years of earnings or more. Advice: Never, ever try to terminate any employee outside the U.S. without the advice and counsel of an international labor lawyer."
http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/employment-at-will-it-doesnt-apply-to-workers-outside-the-u-s/
So what about the H1-Bs and "employment at will"? Are they protected by the laws of their own country rather than subjected to ours? Or once employed here are they too at the mercy of this concept?
Basically, I'm wondering why this system just seems to be accepted here and question whether I have heard our candidates bring it up. (Hopefully mentioning the word "candidates" doesn't put this post in the wrong forum... Feel free to repost there if it does violate protocol.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
change her poor support of the working class?
Hence the little > < thingy.
I was just trying to illustrate the lengths to which BoBs, Clinton haters & other RWers will go in their hatred. The fact that you thought I was serious sort of proves my point.
But of course IANAL. For all I know, it isn't.
I'm getting tired of hearing about "job losses" and "shrinking middle class" and "people are frustrated". Yeah, no shit. Work hard, study hard, get a couple (or more) degrees and certs, rack up some experience ... then get told that "there's a skill shortage" and the US needs to import "high-skilled workers". Um, yo? Yo? YO, goddammit, over here!
(note, I have a job myself, but don't like what I am seeing happening. And one day that could be me, too.)
