A concept that is utterly foreign and bizarre to most other people in Western countries, including myself in New Zealand.
What if they can do what you pay them to do, but you can no longer afford them?
That's exactly what a layoff is...the result of the fact that employing this group of people is economically unsensible.
In Germany cases where companies truly cannot afford the person the following rules apply:
1. there is absolutely no way for the person to conduct different work inside the company 2. the company needs to choose those that can more easily afford to be laid off. (employment duration, young, single etc) 3. the place of work has to permanently be gone
Beforehand, the company has to talk to the workers council though so they can possibly find solutions to the problem without having to fire people.
Companies would be a lot more willing to take a chance on hiring someone if they know that they can let them go easily if things don't work out.
Disclaimer: I have owned a small business (~$8MM/year revenue) with employees.
You're free to make your argument though. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't agree with your sentiment.
I don't see why you think being a libertarian or not has anything to do with anything, by the way.
Simplifying a bit, you have to have attempted to help the employee meet standards, or find a suitable position. Also, if the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.
That's my general understanding as an employee.
that seems to be beyond what an employer should have to bear. If an employee develops problems, it doesn't make sense for an employer to help them (unless it's from their job - e.g., a wine taster getting addicted to alcohol). They aint running a charity!
My comment was intended in the context of a regular employee in the scope of "unfair dismissal"[1] which you may have a claim to if you believe your dismissal was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner." Slightly different rules for small businesses under 15 employees etc.
1. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismiss...
The reason why is be because starting a company in America is generally a good idea
While it's an upheaval to be sure, the vast majority of these laid-off employees have in-demand skills in a growing industry. Who I really feel for is people who get laid off in shrinking industries, where it's basically a game of musical chairs and there are fewer seats each round.
Do you have any on hand?
Leaving off energy companies, 9 out of the top 16 companies are American.
4.5% of the world's population, ~55% of the world's great companies.
I'm sure at will employment alone wouldn't crush the American economy. But it'd be a hit to it.
Great, now you know one reason that Americans prefer America to other countries. A lot of us are quite happy with the "at will" rules that are common in the US. Note, however, that these rules are largely at the state, not federal, level, and not all state are "at will".
Once one of the former said goodbye after all the announcements after work drinks. It was really awkward.
We had a guy on my team just tell us "today is my last day," out of nowhere. He was in the director's office earlier.
We suspected these people were given some money and told to quit, rather than keep them on. It was usually people who turned out to not really be great engineers and I think they just wanted to get rid of them without having to fire them.
I also worked in Australia for a year. My first day on the job, my hiring manager, who had been with the company for six years, was made redundant.