At will employment. You can be fired anytime for any reason, and there's not much in the way of recourse. Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job.
This sounds strange to me. Since there's a massive power imbalance between employee and employer, how is that seen as an equivalent tradeoff?
1. In places where termination is for cause, termination often causes an employee not to have access to various government benefits 2. At-will employment likely encourages more hiring in the first place, so it's possible that with more restricted firing you'd never have gotten the job.
I do not feel these benefits make up for the drawbacks and do not favour at-will as an organizing principle for industrial relations. But I just figured it would make sense to at least say the apparent argument.
They just have to find an excuse.
At-will only benefits the employer.
It does not benefit the employee in any way.
At all.
At-will, in a sane world, means that a company cannot fire an employee unless they severely disrupt business operations, but the employee can quit and recieve unemployment benefits.
But I don't trust you to understand basic human decency so let me communicate that in a way you can understand: goo goo ga gah, bllblblbbb goo goo ga gah.