How easy is it to terminate an employess in your neck of the woods?

[El Presidente]

Relax team subordinates,......this has nothing to do with Czars....go back to work 

 

I saw a story in relation to the below and was wondering of the veracity of it contents.  "at - will state?"

In the land of Oz, getting rid of an employee will need you to prove that either they are a thief, incompetent (3 written warnings) or that their role has disappeared through a business restructure.  You will no doubt be taken to the Fair Work Commission to have your case assessed. You will not come out unscarred. 

 

 

[chris12381]

It's not even this easy in the US.  This violates US National Labor Relations Act which gives employees the right to communicate with each other.  As part of this right, they are allowed to discuss their wages and compensation.  Any policies implimented by an employer that prohibit this are in fact, unlawful.  This letter is actually a great piece of evidence.

By the way, what exactly is a legal percussion?  🤨

[Ken Gargett]

i am assuming that the reference to 'employess' is not a throwback to when such a term referred to women and not blokes? actress, lioness, etc etc.

 

45 minutes ago, chris12381 said:

By the way, what exactly is a legal percussion?  🤨

something played by an employess. 

[NSXCIGAR]

I am not an attorney, but if cause is given and it can be shown you did not violate that cause you may have a cause of action legally. Taking the example above, if it cannot be proven the employee discussed wages but was fired for it, there may be a legal case against the employer. 

[Nevrknow]

1 minute ago, chris12381 said:

By the way, what exactly is a legal percussion?  🤨

Legal drum kit. All the cool bands are doing it.

[NSXCIGAR]

2 minutes ago, chris12381 said:

It's not even this easy in the US.  This violates US National Labor Relations Act which gives employees the right to communicate with each other.

I wasn't aware of this. Good to know. I thought it sounded a little unorthodox and unenforceable. I wouldn't work there. And I would be very hesitant to answer to a guy named "Jer". 

[Nevrknow]

If only I was there. I would loudly discuss it on video to anyone that would listen.

Then hit hit my speed dial atty on the way out the door laughing.

[NSXCIGAR]

4 minutes ago, chris12381 said:

By the way, what exactly is a legal percussion?

I think that could describe caning in Singapore.

[Nevrknow]

At will. I don’t like your shirt color. Goodbye.

Easy peasy.

[chris12381]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I am not an attorney, but if cause is given and it can be shown you did not violate that cause you may have a cause of action legally. Taking the example above, if it cannot be proven the employee discussed wages but was fired for it, there may be a legal case against the employer. 

These employees don't even need to wait for the employer to fire them for a bogus cause of action.  Since it seems they have implimented this rule against discussing wages, in violation of the NLRA, any employee could file a charge against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board.  

[Nevrknow]

15 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Relax team subordinates,......this has nothing to do with Czars....go back to work 

Love the preface! 😂

[wine_junkie]

It also varies from state to state with some spots being “right to work” which allows much less freedom to fire someone without write ups, etc. 

[chris12381]

It seems the employees subordinates posted a letter to 'Jer (Jer-Bear if your nasty) with their compensation.  As well a multiple links to NLRB's website discussing the NLRA worker protections.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages

  

 

[chris12381]

12 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

something played by an employess. 

I was thinking either a drum line at a law school or...a judge's gavel?

[KCCubano]

I owned a mortgage company for 20 years. Only people I canned would have been tossed in jail today for their actions. Plus steep monetary fines. 

[bassistheplace]

This guy isn't a very good leader. Let's start with that

[chris12381]

I worked in the public sector for 15 years.  I started as a union member and once I was promoted to management, I was managing union members.  I'm also the son of a labor lawyer who represented management for 44 years.  I love labor law.        

With respect to the question of how easy is it to fire an employee, it's not a simple question to answer.  In the US, each state has some of their own rules with the foundation of all of them built on fedeal labor laws.  Most states are "at will" meaning that an employer may terminate you without providing "just cause".  Of course, an employer can terminate only  employees who are members of a protected class (race, age, sex, disability, etc.).  

Even in places where it is considered "hard" to fire an employee, compared to what I hear others describe outside the US, it's not.  It requires documentation, paperwork, some meetings and patience.  I got it done several times with public sector employees...out here in California.  

[NSXCIGAR]

56 minutes ago, chris12381 said:

These employees don't even need to wait for the employer to fire them for a bogus cause of action.  Since it seems they have implimented this rule against discussing wages, in violation of the NLRA, any employee could file a charge against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board.  

Right, if as you say the free communication between employees is federally protected. I posted that before you mentioned it. But it would be the case for any cause, no? If one if fired for stealing yet the employer has no evidence of such, wouldn't that be the basis for unlawful termination? 

[MrBirdman]

Relative to most every other western democracy, it is fairly easy to terminate employees in the US unless it is because of their race etc. or they have have collectively bargained protections (11% and always dwindling due to the legal erosion of unions). You can terminate people at will - the worst that will happen is your unemployment insurance will go up. Yes, there are more protections against retaliation for workplaces covered by federal regulations, but the vast majority of employees work at businesses that don’t fall under their purview. 

[Greenhorn2]

My US state is a right to work state. All they have to say is "your service is no longer rendered and goodbye.!

[LordAnubis]

When i hear employee termination and poor performance, i fear Di will fire you Pres.

[chris12381]

17 hours ago, Greenhorn2 said:

My US state is a right to work state. All they have to say is "your service is no longer rendered and goodbye.!

Right to work means having the ability to work for a unionized employer without joining the union.  

 

18 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Right, if as you say the free communication between employees is federally protected. I posted that before you mentioned it. But it would be the case for any cause, no? If one if fired for stealing yet the employer has no evidence of such, wouldn't that be the basis for unlawful termination? 

The answer to your questions (I think) depends on the state this takes place in.  I think in this instance it's Kentucky, which is an "employment at will" state.  An employer can believe you are stealing and terminate you.  You're pretty much outta luck in that case.  But even in employment at will states, one CAN bring wrongful termination cases against an employer in certain circumstances.  Some of these would be things such as being asked to violate state or federal laws, violating an employment contract, participating in a civil rights complaint, Whistleblowing, etc.  Basically if your employer retaliates against you by claiming you stole something but you believe it's because you reported you were asked to destroy documents that prove the company has been polluting a nearby river and instead turned them over state and federal agencies,  you have a case against such an employer for wrongful termination. 

 

[Bijan]

Over here you can fire at will. And generally no one is fired for cause even if there is a clear justifiable cause, because it's pretty much an instant lawsuit. I believe due to the fact that a person fired for cause/with cause is not eligible for unemployment insurance. So firing for cause is a big middle finger to an employee.

[Huckleberry]

While you can sue for just about any reason and at anytime, in Iowa you can dump an employee fairly easily.  Of course folks use softer words like "furlough" or "downsize" or "let go" or "reorganize" but if you want to do it, it isn't all that strenuous.

If we are keeping track I am sure I probably commit a fireable offense every single day...lol!!  

[Ites]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

While you can sue for just about any reason and at anytime, in Iowa you can dump an employee fairly easily.  Of course folks use softer words like "furlough" or "downsize" or "let go" or "reorganize" but if you want to do it, it isn't all that strenuous.

If we are keeping track I am sure I probably commit a fireable offense every single day...lol!!  

 

Over here, talking about salary is not considered an offense, however usually not socially acceptable. But like huckleberry said, the companies can pretty easily get rid of employees by pulling the "reorganisation" or "downsizing" card. I've seen colleagues being let go for "lack of work" meaning the company didn't have enough for them to do (which wasn't always the case) and for "lack of commitment" or "poor cooperating skills". The only case it becomes a real issue for the company is if they try to hire someone else for the same position shortly after firing someone. Officially they would be required to rehire the same person, but the solution for the company then is to change the requirements for the position to make it look significantly different. 

So in short. Officially it's impossible to terminate without good reason, but knowing the rules also means knowing how to stear clear of obstacles.