WOW, I am amazed with this thread.
I understand why some people actually believe the OP is trolling, and, from the same responses she got, I realized the story may be true and the OP may be completelly unaware of her rights. Even more, I am not sure about what these rights are, since the amount of people bringing opposed arguments for something that is supposed to be known as the law (unawareness of the law isn't an excuse, at least here... am I wrong? so you're supposed to be aware) and the basic rights.
In my country doesn't even exist such a thing like "firing at will" contract clauses for employment. It is supposed that such a thing works exclusively for the employer's interests, that there is an unbalanced power relationship between the employer and the empoyee, that at labor recesive times employers would force employer to accept such a clause because of necesity, and ultimately that most contracts would end up having these clauses.
Here, if you're fired, you're entitled to get paid a well known amount: 1/12 of the salary year income per year or fraction of year you worked there, plus the proportional part of the vacations you arelady were entitled for during the last year (whose lenght are correlated to the amount of years you worked). And everyone knows this, you learn it in high school. For the employers to avoid this payment, they require a solid grounded motivation (basically the same Intituion mentioned that applies in Canada). Even if your private life were a concern for them (and it isn't) or affected their business, they would require to PROVE your fault, they would be required to send you a legaly certified note (whose copy remains at the mail company as a legal proff) stating the motivations they have to fire you.
If they were not required to do these steps, it would be enough for the employers to LIE and ground your firing on supposed rumors to skip these labor laws and enforce something like a "firing at will" clause!
Even when laws may vary, even if having "firing at will" clauses, if the employer claims you're being fired because of your supposed lack of morality (which isn't the same as "firing at will"), this would be somethig difamatory for you unless proven. To make such an statament in public without being able to prove it, ANYONE (and not only an employer) risk to be sued by civil and/or economic damages, even if there were ANY contract between the parties.
Here NOT ONE employer would dare to fire you on these grounds (even if they were able to prove what you did, they will have to prove this damages the organization, and they would face a solid wall when dealing with civil basic rights like your privacy). The more likely is that they would manage to frame you until you fail and give them ANOTHER excuse to fire you, or to turn your every day work in a nightmare forcing you to resign, or (the more likely) make an arrangement with you were you get some money and you resign.
Another related thing is the lack of pro-bono attorneys able to carry on this case. As in Canada, here there is a Labor Ministry. The aggency have attorneys for this matters. There are lawyers specialized in labor, the use is to interview the employee, look at how feasible it is to sue the employer, and then carry on the sue at the lawyers and the State mixed expense because once the case is ruled the losing part would have to pay these expenses and provide the lawyer's benefit. As the last resource, the Public Attorney's Bar have a pool of attorneys working pro-bono.
You don't have ANY of these resources or similar resources at hand there???
This whole things seems outrageous to me, but I don't know if it's outreageous because what actually happnd, of because of the uncertan way the remaining members are talking about this. I bet a lot of the members are employees... how it is possible that they all disagree so much about the laws and their basic rights?
This question is at last what makes understandable that something like this could actually happen. If the employers have such a vague idea about all of this, and even more, if the employees have a vague idea of their rights and the laws affecting them, then something to this is very likely to happen, and very often!
Now, I'll digress (aka, hihack the thread) about
Chicup comments:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chicup As for 'at will' firing side topic 
There are a reasons why the Canadian economy (and European economies) is so weak compared to the US. As an employer, at will firing allows me to get rid of loser employees quickly creating a better working environment for everyone else. |
1) The question is "weak for who?". I bet my testicles that right now the OP perception of her personal economy, and how helpful the US economy strength is for her, differs from your perception. There are few situations where you feel yourself really weak as you feel when just being fired. It gives you a shit how wealth the stock market is.
2) The State (any state) is supposed to provide support to the weakest side in any relationship among the society members. As an example, it is supposed to protect kids from abusive parents (i.e., the weakest part and not otherwise), and you'll find out a huge list of examples of this sort.
As an employer the "at will firing" allows you to get rid of employees because they're "losers" (I assume you meant lazy here)... or because of whatever other reason you find usefull for you and the mood you awake certain day. Given that the employee is the weakest part in this relationship, moreover due to the "at will firing" right you already have, this is at least something incoherent with the principles the State should stand for. The "at will firing" seems to be a measure supporting the stronger part of the relationship, insead of the weakest part.
Your statement ask for the employees confidence and blind truth on your good will and intentions (and how much you be up to stand for your principles during hard times), while you claim to have the right to judge, on your own basis, your employees good will, attitude, or whatever feature you see fit the requirements for firing them at YOUR will.
I'd say the "firing at will " grants you a way to preserve your own interests, disregarding the interests from the people that helps you run your business every day, perhaps the ones from some people that already saved your day several times, and ones whithout whose collaboration your company wouldn't be where it is today. You're entitled the right to fire some of these guys in a hard time, but just because you'd preffer to preserve your profits, and even when these guys were the ones enabling you to have these profits at first, instead of giving them some credit for your company grow.
I want to believe that, in such scenario, you wouldn't do this. But... come on, tell me how many employers you know who actually didn't it when facing this scenario.
So, lets be serious, if you want to use this topic to endorse the benefits for the "firing at will" criteria by starting an analysis supporting your idea, be aware that your analysis was way incomplete.
This is not the place to discuss this, so please, let avoid the subject at all and this sort of comments, moreover when there could be people (like myself) that won't endorse them not even my omision, by keeping my mouth shut, triggering the sort of discussions unwanted inside the forum.