begin quoting Mike Marion as of Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:36:22PM -0700: > Quoting Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Oops.. forgot my footnote earlier.. Heh.
> >The key word possibly being "were"... we now have a lot of laws on the > >books that set limits to what an employer can do (and very few on > >what an employee can do[0]). These laws would all have to be > >repealed. > > [0]I've always thought it was a little unfair that a company has all > kinds of laws restricting why they can fire people. It might seem Yah. But what's "fair" when there's such an imbalance of power? > like it's simple, but talk to HR people sometime about all the hurdles > they have to go through, and then there's always the threat of a > lawsuit. But the employees can just up and quit when they want, with > no reprecussions (save a bad recommendation). Back when I worked at Er, quitting makes you ineligible for unemployement, doesn't it? > HSN/Mistix.. there was a couple that worked there. After about a > month, they just walked up together one night to the supervisor, > handed over their badges, and quit. I've always done my best to give notice. Sometimes giving notice causes problems... Most of the jobs I have held had a 'terminate at will' clause in the contract anyway. And I think businesses are far more inclined to fire people at the drop of a hat than for an employee to just up and quit maliciously. > While such an action usually isn't going to hurt a larger company much, > someone doing that in a small business (depending on what they do, skill > level required, etc) could threaten to bankrupt the business. When I worked > for a silkscreen/embroidery place before here, owned by friends of the > family, they had 2 positions where the person walking like that could've > seriously hurt them, and possibly caused them to go under. Yup. But making someone work against their will isn't likely to result in quality work, either. It might result in casual vandalism disguised as incompetence. > I can understand if the person in question is being abused or something.. > but in most cases, there should be some kind of requirement for giving > some minimal notice. There could be guidelines for what quality as > extenuating circumstances that would negate the need for notice. Nah, because guidelines require interpretation, and who's going to trust the employer to do the interpretation? Perhaps if you quit (as opposed to giving notice) and walk away from the job, you're not going to be able to submit that last timesheet, and so you're walking away from some pay. That seems like a reasonable penalty. After all, if an employer is doing something you consider unethical or immoral, but not necessarily illegal (or illegal but you don't want to get blackballed for being an industry snitch), quitting is the appropriate response. Get _out_ of a bad situation before it gets worse. -Stewart "The balance of power is still in favor of the employer" Stremler
pgproY4KuBkAr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
