Thread: Should you be allowed to be fired without cause?

To answer the OP's question: Yes.

/thread

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

Yeah, but you gotta put yourself in the union bosses shoes. Wouldn't you want to benefit? That's just the way it is.

Of course I would want to get paid for being a union boss, but the reality is they drive unemployment up.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

Of course I would want to get paid for being a union boss, but the reality is they drive unemployment up.

So does firing people.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

To answer the OP's question: Yes.

/thread

I like how you made your way to the point. Could you teach Joel and that cegel dude?

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

So does firing people.

I agree, but as a whole, unemployment tends to be higher in states that empower unions.

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

I like how you made your way to the point. Could you teach Joel and that cegel dude?

Probably not, but I do my best to chase them off.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

I agree, but as a whole, unemployment tends to be higher in states that empower unions.

Maybe. But I just wanted to be argumentative. I need a nap.

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

Maybe. But I just wanted to be argumentative. I need a nap.

Don't forget your wooby, you'll feel better.

A point of confusion for me:

I often hear people refer to a company firing for cause as a way to avoid paying unemployment benefits. I don't believe this is true. As I understand it, businesses must pay unemployment insurance if they have employees. Their rate is based on the industry and number of employees. These payments go to the state who then pays unemployment. If this is the case the company doesn't actually pay a former employees unemployment benefits and saves no money by firing for cause.

Am I wrong in this understanding?

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

You're not making a lot of sense overall. If someone e isn't representing the company well, that IS a reason. Should all of this be true for elected officials appointing people? Is it okay if the president fills up his cabinet with unqualified family members?

I'm making a lot of sense. As for your bad example, (besides the fact that you are compairing the owner of a company to the President of the United States) President CAN and does fill cabinets and positions with friends. But nepetism is pretty common in all parts of life. To ansewer your silly question," is it alright if the president fills his cabinet with unqualified family members?"....can he? Is he able to do that simply by pointing his fingers? Does he have the authority to do that? Is it alright, alright soundslike a moral judgement. If he does, will he be held accountable? Will his job/office suffer because of his choices? That's the question all business owners have to answer to when making decisions on employees, no matter if its hiring or firing. They, and their company, is going to have either fill that open spot adaquately, or suffer for the poor choice.

If someone is doing their job well, but smells while doing it, is that cause for firing? I don't know what their job is, but I should have the right to do it. If I, as a business owner I should have the right to fire without having to give a reason, its my company. It's my business. If I want to fire you because Im simply in a bad mood, then I certainly should have that right. If I want to hire my unqualified nephew, then I absolutely have that right. I have NO clue as to why you are trying transfer the same rights of a business owner over the the President of the US.

Originally Posted by Davii

A point of confusion for me:

I often hear people refer to a company firing for cause as a way to avoid paying unemployment benefits. I don't believe this is true. As I understand it, businesses must pay unemployment insurance if they have employees. Their rate is based on the industry and number of employees. These payments go to the state who then pays unemployment. If this is the case the company doesn't actually pay a former employees unemployment benefits and saves no money by firing for cause.

Am I wrong in this understanding?

They still have to pay. If the cause was just, it delays the payment of unemployment benefits. The fired employee might have to wait 60-90 days or so (I don't know the particulars) to start collecting, as opposed to immediately (i.e. layoff, or firing without cause).

Originally Posted by Davii

A point of confusion for me:

I often hear people refer to a company firing for cause as a way to avoid paying unemployment benefits. I don't believe this is true. As I understand it, businesses must pay unemployment insurance if they have employees. Their rate is based on the industry and number of employees. These payments go to the state who then pays unemployment. If this is the case the company doesn't actually pay a former employees unemployment benefits and saves no money by firing for cause.

Am I wrong in this understanding?

Unemployment claims directly affect what said company pays for unemployment insurance. If you have a lot of layoffs you will pay more for unemployment insurance.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'm making a lot of sense. As for your bad example, (besides the fact that you are compairing the owner of a company to the President of the United States) President CAN and does fill cabinets and positions with friends. But nepetism is pretty common in all parts of life. To ansewer your silly question," is it alright if the president fills his cabinet with unqualified family members?"....can he? Is he able to do that simply by pointing his fingers? Does he have the authority to do that? Is it alright, alright soundslike a moral judgement. If he does, will he be held accountable? Will his job/office suffer because of his choices? That's the question all business owners have to answer to when making decisions on employees, no matter if its hiring or firing. They, and their company, is going to have either fill that open spot adaquately, or suffer for the poor choice.

If someone is doing their job well, but smells while doing it, is that cause for firing? I don't know what their job is, but I should have the right to do it. If I, as a business owner I should have the right to fire without having to give a reason, its my company. It's my business. If I want to fire you because Im simply in a bad mood, then I certainly should have that right. If I want to hire my unqualified nephew, then I absolutely have that right. I have NO clue as to why you are trying transfer the same rights of a business owner over the the President of the US.

Bad example? It's the same thing. Those are jobs. It doesn't have to be the president. It can be the governor, mayor, etc. Some employees have more rights than others. The Sheriff is elected. He can hire and fire without reason. The Chief of Police is appointed by the mayor, but neither the mayor or CoP can fire a city CoP without reason. I'm sure each area is different, but that's the way it is here.

And yes, any reason is better than no reason. I'm not sure how someone can go to work smelling like shit and not get fired eventually.

So many workers now days feel they are entitled. The one poster is right. Being fired without cause allows him to get unemployment. He's not entitled to a severance. It's business and a nessaserry evil that, I promise, no employer enjoys. As a business owner, I hate doing that. But I have to in order for the betterment of the company