| |||||||||||||
Was firing an over-reaction?Was firing an over-reaction?Posted Mar 22, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Was firing an over-reaction? by bkuhn Parent article: Blum: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost
> That's what jobs are like in the USA, sadly. Welcome to unbridled capitalism.
I prefer it to be that way, actually. It's a good thing.
Plus I don't want to work for somebody who doesn't want me working there in the first place; that sort of thing just makes life miserable for everybody involved.
(Log in to post comments)
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 15:53 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]
Well, I've worked in union shops (and specifically on the management side and not the Bargaining Unit side) and I felt it was actually really useful to have a process of escalation and documentation for firing, along with a few items spelled out that were just so unacceptable that firing could be immediate. For example, sexist statements in the workplace would be appropriate to be on the "instant firing" list, IMO.
Unchecked and arbitrary power of managers to fire people at will for anything at their own whims is not a good thing generally for society, IMO.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 19:22 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
If you are a valuable employee then the manager firing you for no reason it is also his loss. He just cost his own employers significant profit. Hiring new employees is extremely expensive and time consuming. Also if a business allows some manager to run rampant and fire employees for frivolous or personal matters then that manager is going to be costing them money. Competitors then can pick up the experience and training that was invested in the employees at a bargain price and thus benefit directly from the rival manager's idiocy.
So bad behavior in this manner is it's own punishment.
Also I do like the concept of collective bargaining power. I think it's a valuable tool for employees to make sure that their market value is kept accurate.
I just don't like it when they leverage laws to restrict the ability for non-affiliated people to seek employment, which is the typical approach in modern times. Also I don't like the reverse were businesses try to use legal tactics to prevent ex-employees from seeking employment in competitors. Both approaches damage society, IMO.
is it really? Posted Mar 23, 2013 0:16 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The idea that "bad behaviour is its own punishment" just isn't very realistic over the short term in which we mostly care. The idea that "Something bad was done to you, but those responsible will eventually receive criticism in historical retrospectives so that makes up for it" for example doesn't intuitively feel like /justice/.
The sort of direct consequences you envision are, frankly, unlikely. Manager X fires you, the company lacks your expertise, as a result Manager Y's team runs into a problem, their performance is poor, Manager Y gets fired. How was Manager X punished in this scenario? They weren't. The idea that large corporations somehow "learn" from individual incidents is also pretty laughable. Most lack any mechanism to do that. Whole industries lack such mechanisms. Safety critical industries had to invent, and re-invent means of institutional learning to stop millions of people from dying, they aren't something that just magically appears when you hire your tenth (or ten-thousandth) employee.
The US employment model isn't special in the sense that this problem is distributed throughout US society. Denial of the statistically measurable unfairness of the world, whether its in the form of "name it and claim it" theology, the myth of the undeserving poor, or the continued enthusiasm for "at will" employment is a problem that Americans ought to but most likely won't address as a nation and a culture.
You've alluded to closed shop practices, for what it's worth the EU forbids both "at will" and (almost all) closed shops. You are entitled to work without joining any type of union, political movement, club or society and employers are forbidden from terminating permanent employees for any reason other than redundancy (ie there will no longer exist any job for you to do) misconduct (either "gross" misconduct e.g. fighting in the workplace, or a pattern of misconduct which you were given opportunities to correct and didn't) or clearly inadequate (not just "less than we'd like") performance. Furthermore there are strict laws protecting workers from being classed as "temporary" workers or third party contractors when they are in practice permanent employees. By far the EU's biggest remaining problem is enforcement, the most abused workers tend to be from vulnerable groups that are reluctant to confront their employers or complain to the authorities.
is it really? Posted Mar 25, 2013 23:31 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> The idea that "bad behaviour is its own punishment" just isn't very realistic over the short term in which we mostly care.
Extreme laissez-faire / free trade theories are all failing to see that most feedback loops are imperfect and most importantly: slooow. Yeah sure: there will always be some kind of punishment... in long run. But "in the long run, we're all dead". Can we please get a half-decent life some time before that? Thanks.
No extreme and simplistic theory will ever good enough for the real world (and none is ever actually applied for real if you look closer)
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 23, 2013 14:16 UTC (Sat) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
> So bad behavior in this manner is it's own punishment.
But not at all in a proportional way.
An employer will risk losing a relatively small amount of productivity and re-recruiting costs that they can most likely afford.
An employee will lose their livelihood. 100% of their income.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 23:52 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] "Unchecked and arbitrary power of managers to fire people at will for anything at their own whims is not a good thing generally for society, IMO."One of the reasons I would never want to work for a US company under US law.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 23, 2013 0:03 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
frankly, if a manager really wants to get rid of you, they can find some reason to do so (or make it so that you really don't want to work for them any longer)
While it's trivial to fire people in theory, in practice most companies don't give lower level managers the power to fire people, and HR orgs are cautious enough (fearing wrongful termination lawsuits) that it's actually pretty hard to fire people.
Constructive dismissal Posted Mar 23, 2013 11:15 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"make it so that you really don't want to work for them any longer"
Constructive dismissal is likewise illegal where I am. It's not common, but it happens often enough that most people will have heard of someone. The employee is entitled to cease work immediately AND receive compensation at tribunal for being illegally terminated. Media reporting of these incidents is usually hugely negative, enough to make avoiding them a priority if your company's reputation is of any importance.
Obviously if both the employer and employee are no longer happy it will usually be possible to agree some mutually acceptable way to end the relationship, and the courts won't interfere with that.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 24, 2013 16:53 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> while it's trivial to fire people in theory, in practice...
I think it's an important point.
I've worked in countries/companies with very different Labour Laws and found that the difference between theory (= law) and practice can be huge. The culture also comes into play: in some places you are safer even when the law is less protective.
That's for firing ONE person though. When trying to lay off MANY people in tough economic times then Labour Laws do matter (for good or bad - not my point here).
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Apr 4, 2013 18:34 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
> For example, sexist statements in the workplace would be appropriate to be on the "instant firing" list, IMO.
"Women tend to be smaller, lighter, and less strong than men, and this can negatively impact their ability to pass a firefighter's exam, where the weight of the overcome resident they have to drag out of a burning building will not conveniently change simply because they're female."
That's a sexist statement.
If you fired me for making it, I'd have you in court.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Apr 5, 2013 8:04 UTC (Fri) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] It's entirely factual and therefore not *ist in any way, despite attempts by some idiots to assert otherwise.Now if you had said "women are …", and thereby refused to hire any female firefighters at all, no matter how strong, now that would be sexist (and actionable).
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 16:44 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
In what universe is being fired for exercising your freedom of speech a good thing?
freedom Posted Mar 22, 2013 18:56 UTC (Fri) by michich (subscriber, #17902) [Link]
I understand why you may feel it is a bad thing, but please let's try to rethink the general issue more thoroughly. First I would like to say something about two phrases that you used in your comment:
"freedom of speech" - How do you understand the phrase? Does it mean the freedom to say whatever you want to whomever you want and never have to carry any possible consequences? In my view that would be a too wide definition. There is no way to prevent the people who hear me talking from making their own opinions and expectations about myself and consequently adjusting the way they act towards me. Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want to whomever I want and never have to fear the application of organized violence (i.e. the power of the state) for it.
"being fired" - Always both the employer and the employee are acting human beings. They associate because they both expect to gain from their mutual cooperation. They both value what they get more highly than what they give. If at any later time one of them no longer believes so, this voluntary cooperation ends. What right does anybody have to force him to associate with the other person any further?
My conclusion is that although the existence of the possibility of "being fired for exercising your freedom of speech" intuitively sounds bad at first, it is actually necessary for freedom. The alternative "being forced (by violence or threat of it) to associate with people against one's will" is truly bad.
freedom Posted Mar 22, 2013 20:07 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
Employers have a social responsibility. Firing someone has the potential to ruin that person's life, it should therefore only be possible in a limited set of cases. This is why many countries have employment protection laws. Expressing an unfavourable opinion about another company isn't one of those cases as long as you don't make stuff up.
> Freedom of speech means that I can say what I want to whomever I want and never have to fear the application of organized violence (i.e. the power of the state) for it.
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 5:12 UTC (Sat) by ghane (subscriber, #1805) [Link]
> Employers have a social responsibility. Firing someone has the potential to ruin that person's life, it should therefore only be possible in a limited set of cases.
What about:
Employees have a social responsibility, too. Leaving a job has the potential to ruin a company, it should therefore only be possible in a limited set of cases.
--
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 5:35 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> Leaving a job has the potential to ruin a company
If that is the case, you're not running the company right.
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 11:27 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Sure, and you'll find most places which don't have "at will" likewise do not permit employees to just arbitrarily down tools and walk away from the job without consequences.
Our systems administrators had to give 90 days notice when they more or less simultaneously quit. That was enough time to identify any important work that hadn't been documented, start hiring replacements, figure out what our plans were for the interim and so on.
But if your business will collapse without just one person you're in trouble anyway due to Bus Factor. That one person might be kidnapped, have a mental breakdown or indeed get hit by an actual bus.
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 13:57 UTC (Sat) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]
> Firing someone has the potential to ruin that person's life, it should therefore only be possible in a limited set of cases.
If firing can ruin person's life, this is a big problem with society. Laws against management abuses are noneffective when the employees feel that they must work or face a possibility of ruined life. Consider if a social protection would be enough so prospects of finding new work are very OK, then the problem of bad managers would solves itself without any laws. People will simply leave.
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 17:05 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] If firing can ruin person's life, this is a big problem with society. I don't think there's much one can do about that. For many people their job is among the things that gives their live a purpose. Therefore even if your material needs are catered for by social security benefits, being unemployed still bores the hell out of people and makes them miserable. And an elderly person in an ailing industry will have a hard time finding a new job in any society. Also, one of the (few) things that I remember from my economics classes is that there's a natural rate of unemployment, so as long as we live in anything vaguely resembling a market economy, full employment simply isn't going to happen.
freedom Posted Mar 23, 2013 19:29 UTC (Sat) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]
> I don't think there's much one can do about that. For many people their job is among the things that gives their live a purpose.
From my experience of living in Norway people here much less attached to their jobs. It could be a cultural thing, but a social protection must be playing a role here.
> And an elderly person in an ailing industry will have a hard time finding a new job in any society.
I know a person (as me he was also an immigrant) in Norway who, after loosing his engineering job here, first literally enjoyed few months of doing nothing while getting 75% of his salary, and then became a rather successful art dealer. Such stories of people of any age trying different things after quitting their jobs willingly or unwillingly are common.
I suspect that "alien industries" is a rather artificial notion caused by too much fear of loosing jobs so people stick to theirs even if long-term prospects are not good. Add to that corporate laws that favor executives like in US and the result in excessive number of big companies and industrial mono-culture and ghost towns when the companies finally die.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 19:15 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> In what universe is being fired for exercising your freedom of speech a good thing?
Who ever said that freedom is free and that there should never be any consequences for exercising your freedom? And why do your freedoms matter and not your bosses? Why should his desires and freedoms be suppressed because he agreed to give you money for a while?
Your entire purpose in being employed is to be making your employer money. You are in a market selling your services, skills, and time just like somebody selling a toaster on ebay or somebody selling telephone service. There is really no difference.
No difference at all.
Your labor is just another product and you are just another salesman peddling your wares.
If you destroy your utility and threaten to cost your employer money because your behavior has damaged the relationships important partners then why should he be required to keep you employed?
This is why it's important to have a backbone in life. You just exercise your freedoms not because there is no consequence to your behavior or your actions, you should exercise your freedoms because they are right and just and you have convictions and that you are willing to stand up and be counted when it matters.
Also I think that discretion is the better part of valor. Which is why I am also a firm believer in privacy and against any sort of government encroachment or controls and I avoid disclosing information and using corporate 'cloud' services when practicable. Security matters. Strong and effective forms of encryption and plausible deniability and all that stuff matter, etc etc.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 22, 2013 20:08 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> You are in a market selling your services, skills, and time just like somebody selling a toaster on ebay or somebody selling telephone service. There is really no difference.
There's a huge difference: employees are people. If you don't understand why that makes one heck of a difference, there's no point in even talking to you.
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 23, 2013 8:48 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Employers do not, generally, have a problem with their freedoms being suppressed by their employees. There is a huge power gap there, which shows in contract negotiation as well as at other times, ruining the libertarian fantasy of 'if it's in the contract it must have been freely agreed upon without coercion'.
And employers that exploit their employees really *do* exist. At the extreme end they enslave their employees and work them to death. At the less extreme end they merely ignore their employees requests regarding unimportant matters like health and safety until those employees turn to the greater power of the state to force them to do so. This happens frequently, whenever a sufficiently ethically dubious employer thinks it can get away with it and thinks the employee will not jump jobs as a result. (Heck, if you stay in one job for long enough, the employer may consider that it can do this even though you are in a position with normally high mobility. My previous employer did, repeatedly, and if it wasn't for the existence of employment legislation would quite happily have worked me until I was crippled by RSI and forced to resign, rather than pay much less than one month's pay to me on a keyboard that would fix the problem. Heck, they did that to previous employees. Nobody said that employers' abuse of employees is necessarily *rational* -- in that case, it was founded in a pathological fear of any capital expenditure whatsoever. And don't say "employers who think like that will go bust", this is not so if sufficiently many employers think like that, *or* if it's shared by only part of the management chain in a larger company.)
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 23, 2013 15:03 UTC (Sat) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]
> you are willing to stand up and be counted when it matters.
...
> Which is why I am also a firm believer in privacy
This sounds like a contradiction. Anonymity allows precisely to escape the need to face the consequences.
|
|||||||||||||