Did you stop reading there and not the subsequent sentence?
>Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified
>Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified
> but "you have to give just cause" (which in practice, means multiple formal write-ups and several months of PIP, even in places without a union contract) seems excessive.
You still said requiring "just cause" is excessive. So you still want an "at-will" sword over your head.
That sword is still going to be over your head regardless of at will employment. You could be laid off (no cause needed), the company goes bankrupt, or you become disabled. Where do you draw the line? If you don't want to accept "sword over your head" for firings, why would you accept it for layoffs?
I would hate it to have an "at-will" contract. Just thinking that my manager or his manager or whoever can just fire me the very same day because of who knows what is just awful.
It is not mandatory to sit on your old job for 3 months.
You lose your income in both cases, and I said I'd support severance/notice period for firings. I don't see how the two are materially different.
Yet you keep insisting that somehow at-will employment with immediate termination is somehow good.
I'm not sure how you got that impression. My original comment:
>Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified,
Edit: removed my reply in favor of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42046204
Is your manager going to disable your body? How is this even remotely close to a manager being able to fire you for whatever? You're just ignoring the whole "at-will".
I'm not talking about a "sword" of any possible negative thing happening to you. Why not bring up asteroids? Or another plague? Or just suddenly a REAL sword beheads me? THe "sword" is solely the at-will. Learn how metaphors work.
Your argument sucks at base level.
> It's fine to argue "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare", but you can't arbitrarily decide when it's fine to apply that principle.
You keep deleting key parts, like "people should be shielded from the risk of losing their income/healthcare from manager's whims". It's not arbitrary.
And a layoff aren't caused by "manager's whims"?
2. Layoffs are usually a less common occurrence than firing people. While the US sucks at labor laws in general, there's at least the WARN act for mass layoffs
3. Layoffs are when multiple people are let go at the same time, which is a distinct category from firing a single person
4. Hence there are often separate negotiations and separate clauses in the union contracts regarding firing a single person (one category) and laying off multiple people (a separate category)
Why the hell you're arguing (in extremely bad faith) against labor protections is beyond anyone's understanding
>Why the hell you're arguing (in extremely bad faith) against labor protections is beyond anyone's understanding
I'm not sure why you're focusing so hard on the "no severance/compensation" part, when from the start I said that "some notice/severance would be justified". Is it because I said that at-will employment "seems... fine?", and you can't get over that, despite my subsequent statements?
Until we get to the bottom of this, I don't think it's worth it for me to engage with any of your other points.