Big Sarge Update

[infinite monkey]

I don't really understand 'work at will.' What other states have that? Does it mean they can just say buh-bye for no reason?

I can't find a listing of work at will states, either. The more I read the more confused I got. Not to derail Sarge's updates, but can anyone explain it to a layperson?

And hope it all goes well, Sarge. Life sure is crazy sometimes.

[Lamplighter]

Try Googling "Right to Work" instead

[DanaC]

Gah. Godawful 'newspeak'. The rights of employers to fire their workers at will = Right to Work.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Try Googling "Right to Work" instead

One article I happened upon said they were two different concepts. Two I still don't understand.

But thanks for playing.

Bueller?

[BigV]

not sure of the terminology, and I know less about Mississippi... but in Washington, you can be fired for no reason at all. There doesn't need to be a reason. for some kinds of employment, like those with actual contracts, the contract must be respected or there will be consequences. but for all the work I've ever done in this state, the employer (and the employee for that matter) could end the relationship at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, and with no notice.

[classicman]

One site had this explanation

Like with most legal jargon, "employment at will" has both a formal definition and a practical one. In this case, the theory is easy. The basic definition of "employment at will" says the employer or the employee may end the working relationship at any time and for any reason without fearing legal action. This means the employer can fire or lay off the employee whenever they want. According to the theory, the employers do not have to explain why they fired their worker.

This definition also claims the employee may choose to quit his or her job at any time. Under such circumstances, the worker does not have to give the employer the reason for leaving his or her current position.

On its face, this is a simple law that should work for both the employer and the employee. Unfortunately in practice, "employment at will" is not so clear. While most states follow the formal definition, many lower courts have passed laws to cancel the employer's rights. All of these laws have created many exceptions to the formal definition, and employers must keep this in mind if they need to fire someone.

[classicman]

Wishing you the best Sarge. One way or the other, it will be good to have this finished and behind you - right?

[infinite monkey]

What states?

See, I think the work at will thing is subjective and most people don't really know what it means or what states actually have it.

[glatt]

My employer says we are "at will" so it must also be the rule here in DC. They clearly state that they can fire you and give no reason.

In practice, you need a reason to fire someone, or they can sue you and make some shit up about you discriminating against them in one of the federally protected areas. The District even has a special law that says you can't fire someone based on how they look.

So when we want to fire someone, we need to have documented reasons in their file. They have to be doing a demonstrably bad job. In theory, we don't need any of that, but in practice it's to cover our butts.

[classicman]

Chart on page 2

[infinite monkey]

Thank you!

[Gravdigr]

At will employment means they can fire you "at will".

It also means you can quit at will.

Almost any job w/out a contract is 'at will employment'.

[Gravdigr]

Good luck, Coffeebean!

[Big Sarge]

Another way of putting it is that even though we are government employees, we have no civil service protection.

The hour of reckoning is drawing nigh. My biggest fear is if I'm fired, I can't hang out at the old sewage lagoon anymore. sigh.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

snip--

So when we want to fire someone, we need to have documented reasons in their file. They have to be doing a demonstrably bad job. In theory, we don't need any of that, but in practice it's to cover our butts.

I have been on both sides of this process. I've been part of the company that accumulated documentation that was forwarded and stored in the soon-to-be-terminated employee, and I've had my "performance review" in my personnel file "cited" as a contributing factor for why the decision to terminate my employment was reached.

Seriously, it's such a subjective process that anything can be said/made up/"documented" that supports the already settled conclusion. Termination of employment is a fait accompli. It's like breaking up with someone. You don't like them? Buh-bye. You want a reason? Pick one. It's irrelevant.

...

On the other hand, I know that businesses are always fighting for increased efficiency. And the decision to terminate an employee is not reached lightly. There are real costs associated with termination. There's the whole I have to fire this guy process, the whole I have to hire someone new process and/or I have to distribute his workload across the remaining employees process, and the effect on the morale of the remaining employees is (in my experience) negative. I don't remember too many assholes being fired. They usually left of their own accord, being assholes and all. But I can remember lots of cases where regular folks, nice people were "let go" (I'm going to let you go. You may go now. You have my leave to leave. It's not really fair, ever. The employer holds far more power, usually expressed in economic terms, than the employee does. Anywhoo... ). That has a cost to the business as people increase their fear/wariness up a notch and their enthusiasm down a notch. It can result in increased productivity--please don't fire me, I'm rowing as fast as I can--but it usually has a cost in morale.