Does the US have zero employee protection laws??
Just following on from this: https://lemmy.nz/post/1134134
Ex-Tesla employee reveals shocking details on worker conditions: 'You get fired on the spot.'
I'm curious about how far this goes.
You can't get fired on the spot in NZ, unless you like, shot someone or set the building on fire or something really bad.
But it seems that in the US, there's little to no protections for employees when their bosses are dickheads?
Also, any personal stories of getting fired on the spot?
It's not that there aren't any, it's that the protections for workers are abysmal compared to protections for businesses.
For example, if I stole money from my employer, they could have me arrested and press charges for theft.
On the other hand, if I am able to prove that my employer hasn't been paying me fairly and has been shorting my paychecks, I can spend a lot of money to take them to court, and in most cases, all that will happen is the business will have to... pay you back exactly what they already owed you. They won't pay fines, no one will go to jail, and it's an "oops" and then slap on the wrist kind of deal.
Worker protections exist, but the deck is stacked against us.
Doesn’t even have to be directly stealing money, “time theft” can be prosecuted.
The Netherlands had a recent court ruling that established that if the employer is satisfied with your performance, then it doesn't matter how much time you spent doing your job. This was in a case recarding a man secretly working multiple jobs.
wage theft is literally the largest form of theft in the WORLD by the way
You're thinking of wage theft. "Time theft" is when you slack off on the job.
yeah you rite
I think you mean wage theft. Time theft isn't that big.
Or you could file a complaint with the DOL and let them take care of it -- they do not fuck around.
Basically the case, yes. It varies state by state and there are some federal laws but, the enforcement is lacking to say the least and funding tends to be gutted to make it worse. Effectively, since Reagan, there's been an unending attack on labor rights and regulations. Currently, multiple states are passing laws to bring back child labor and workers who try to unionize are getting axed with no real repercussions.
Oh, yes I heard about the child labour thing. That's so fucked.
Got a source on the child labour thing? Not doubting you, but as a non-American I'm confused as to how the hell youse aren't in open revolt.
EDIT: Responding individually later. In short, fuck. In long, thanks all for sending me those links, I'm gonna go wash my eyes out with bleach and attempt to un-know all that I now know
Mississippi teen death at poultry plant, July 26th 2023, AP and New state laws are rolling back regulations on child labor, April 27, 2023, NPR
It sucks
You likely won't see this on the coasts, where riots would definitely occur, but throughout the middle of the country all kinds of wild shit can happen and we're so disconnected from each other at this point that it basically feels like it's happening in another country.
The union is weak is how it's being got away with is my take on it.
Yeah... Others really beat me to it. It's pretty fucked up.
Copied from the last link: "As of June, legislators have proposed at least 19 child labor rollbacks over the past two years. Of those, seven have been signed into law in five states (Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Jersey). Most of the legislation has been authored and advanced by Republican lawmakers. However, Democrats in New Jersey played an integral role in passing a 2022 law that increases the number of hours children can work, and Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer declined to veto a pair of laws enacted in 2022—one to lower the minimum age for working at a liquor store and another the age to serve alcohol."
https://abc7chicago.com/child-labor-laws-work-permit-wisconsin/13673003/
https://katv.com/news/local/new-arkansas-law-removes-work-permit-requirement-for-children-under-16-department-of-labor-and-licensing-employment-certificate-fredrick-love-clint-penzo-child-labor-trafficking-youth-hiring-act-of-2023-act-195-act-687-protections-parental-consent
https://www.commondreams.org/news/mississippi-poultry-plant-teen-dies
What was it like before Regan?
It was still a constant fight but, union membership was at 23.3%, annual strikes and work stoppages were measured in hundreds, wages increased proportionally to productivity gained through technology, and executive salaries were 5-10x average workers'.
Reagan, who had benefitted from membership in the Screen Actors Guild, launched a political war against unions and labor rights, starting with the firing of 11k striking air traffic controllers who he banned from working for the Federal government (a ban only lifted in 1993) and dissolved their union (a fun sidenote to this being that PATCO were the only union that endorsed Reagan and a final "fuck you" cherry on top was the renaming of the DC airport to Reagan National). This showed business that, at least under a GOP government, strikebreaking was again allowed.
All that precipitated rapid decline in union membership for workers in the US, leading to a cycle of increased share of wealth to the top, which was used to buy more legislation to erode labor's power and roll back protections, which increased the share of wealth to the top...ad infinitum. Now, union membership is 11.3%, exec pay is 400x that of workers, and compensation has completely decoupled from productivity and stagnated.
And a reminder that Biden, supported by the dems including “good” politicians like AOC (lol) smashed the rail strike just this year
It’s bad folks
This exactly. Breaking that strike was pure betrayal and clearly showed that, while more left than others in the Democratic party, she's still going to go to bat for business over workers.
She was doing what the unions wanted
Do you disagree?
what could you possibly be talking about
Looks like that's a "no".
Uhh that hurts to read. Because I imagine the unions must have otherwise made up for the lack of a legal safety net
"Firing on the spot" is just one item on a long list. No maternity leave, health insurance bound to the job, reliance on tips to pay workers, lack of whistleblower protection, laughable PTO, limited paid time off for health reasons. All of that has been solved in civilized countries, except for the US.
This is crazy to me. Especially tip culture. They tried to start that here for a while but it got shut down.
I'm surprised that they manage to find people who are willing to work for tips. Surely wouldn't the unreliability be off putting?
In my experience, most chain restaurants back of house line cooks get paid fairly low. So let's say the highest paid linecook gets 18 an hour. They work 8 hours and make $144 that day before taxes and it is added to their check. Most of the servers in the front of house would make around $150 as well but they worked less hours. (Usually 5-6 hours). They also walk with the tip money at the end of the night. Then they claim what they wish to because the government can't prove how much you made in tips. Many claim they made far less, others claim what they made for other reasons.
It is common to see servers make twice what cooks do. Which creates an atmosphere where front/back of house don't get along all the time either.
Ironically, jobs that rely on tips are some of the most inflation resistant besides CEOs, since tips are usually a percentage of the price. It's unreliable, but very well paying. Employers are also required by law to make up the difference in pay if the tipped worker does not make minimum wage with tips, though many times the employees won't do this since its incredibly common for tipped workers to not declare tips for taxes
It depends on the restaurant to the degree, but tipped positions are almost always the highest paid position.
*If the employer is nice enough to provide any of these things in the first place. Many don't! For anyone outside the United States, I am not kidding. You can be a full-time worker in the US, working 40+ hours a week, and not get any health insurance, vacation, or paid sick leave. Any!
FWIW, I haven't had a job that didn't have all those things since I was 16. I am in the US.
It's not hard to find jobs that have all those things. But you have to be choosey.
There are also jobs where you work 12 weeks a year and get paid $40 Million, but we’re talking about protections for everyone.
In many US states have what’s referred to as “at-will” employment. When you accept the terms of your employment, there’s a small disclaimer that states that you can be fired for anything at anytime for any reason and without notice.
This is also why we have so many lawsuits here.
So, while there’s no full protection, there are laws available that say you can’t be fired for certain things, and if you can prove that you were fired due to simply being of a “protected class” or in retaliation for reporting a workplace violation, you can sue and can likely win through settlement or decision.
The thing is, few employers will maintain records that indicate that they fired Anita because she was black or Howard because he was gay. It’s usually “Anita had 4 errors in the last year” if pressed for detail. That’s why if you feel any sense of discrimination or other unfairness on the job here, it’s a good idea to keep records of the incidents and dates in a CYA file (Cover Your Ass), just in case.
Wow that sounds exhausting.
Correct. And if you get sick, just hope youve saved enough money or you'll probably just die.
That's fucked. There's a lot I can complain about being in NZ, but dam I can't imagine not being able to afford healthcare and not having paid sick leave and no accident coverage.
I started adulthood in poverty because I was hit by a negligent driver when I was in college. It takes 7 years for negative reports to fall off of your credit report here, so I spent the first 7 years of my independent adult life in poverty because somebody else was a bad driver and our healthcare is too expensive.
Edit: For those who aren't familiar with the American system of credit, if you have bad credit, most apartments will not accept you regardless of your income and many jobs will turn you down. It also makes it more expensive to do things like rent or lease anything (or buy a car, which is required in the US) because you will have a higher interest rate. It's a cycle designed to keep you spiraling downward.
what??? why do you lose credit by getting hit by a car? that's insane
Nah, I imagine you lose credit by going bankrupt trying to pay for medical bills.
That's fucking obscene. It's no wonder things are falling apart. It's comparable to China in some ways. They just call it 'social credit score' instead.
Yep, but the social credit score thing AFAIK is not really implemented that thoroughly or at all. This thing is pervasive in the US and people keep defending it for some reason.
Constitutionally, after a little scuffle in the mid 1800's, a person or business can't own an employee. Other than that not really, we usually got to strike and revolt if we want anything, but they keep us so poor that it makes it an untenable option.
But they can still be rented from the government which can still own people as long as they had some drugs planted on them, right? I mean you just went into Slavery-as-a-Service instead of a proper ownership model.
Private prisons and the loophole created in the amendment allow for the new (horrible) Saas model you've been waiting for!
This is true. And in true capitalist nature, the overhead of owning people (paying for room and board etc) can be socialized, while the fruit of their Labor is privatized and made available to well-connected corporations.
You guys get employee protections? What are those like?
I work because I need medical insurance to live. I cannot afford medical insurance on my own without a job. I make 6 figures and live paycheck to paycheck. If I lose my job, I will probably be homeless.
I would love to live in a world with employee protections. I’m not sure what those protections would be but anything better than what we’ve got seems good.
Dam dude.
I mean, for us it's normal so hard to describe. I guess no one has a constant fear of being laid off out of the blue? And even when a business goes under, they have to pay severance, or in some cases redundancy pay.
Businesses get in real big shit and it's front page news if they are found to not be paying their employees properly. Like massive fines on top of having to cover the missing pay, and potentially even jail time.
There's a certain amount of annual leave time that is accrued which can only either be taken as leave days or paid out. Apparently in the US they can just reset your annual leave.
Medical insurance isn't very common here because we have public healthcare. We also get 10 paid sick days per year (it was 5 before covid).
With all of these burdens on businesses, they still seem to be doing just fine.
Yes, sure but.. let’s take a look at CEO pay. Are your CEOs paid 100x more than the highest paid (underling) employee at that company? If not, that’s not the american way! Your businesses are still in business likely because CEOs there consider workers to be a valuable asset. In america, CEOs consider themselves to be the most valuable asset. We would need to decrease their pay to something more reasonable like 10x the highest paid (underling) employee at the company. Until then, we’re all easily replacable.
Severence is nice but in most cases you have to sign an NDA saying that you won’t discuss your severence or your time at the company, and that you won’t paint them in a bad light.
I live in an at will state.
I once got fired when I couldnt remember which toolbox i got a wrench from in a large warehouse lol.
Honestly that's legal grounds to mail them human feces in a package carefully designed to leak once it gets into their mail pile.
I was under a guy who managed the warehouse by himself for like 15 years and he could not conceptualize someone who didnt understand it as well as he did. The wrench was the final thing, but the guy had some weirdo problems with people.
I was also fired after i toom a 3 week long vacation in Vegas in feb 2020. Covid had not quite hit yet but it was clearly building. I returned and my job called me the day before i was to come back to work and simply told me not to bother. I was never given a reason.
At will states are pretty fucked up. Employers can turn your shit upside down on a whim.
Yes officer, this comment right there
IANAL 🤣
The vast majority of the US has "at will employment". It means you can be fired any time for whatever reason...or even for no reason.
However, there are a few reasons you cannot be fired. You can't be fired because of your race, gender, sexuality, age, whether or not you are pregnant.
HOWEVER, because an employer does not have to give a reason for firing you, they could theoretically do something like fire you for something like being gay and pretend it was for some other reason. If you can prove that they fired you for being gay, you can go to court, but that's exceptionally difficult to impossible to do. So really they can fire you for anything.
Some jobs are unionized, making it harder for employers to fire you willy nilly though. Most jobs are not unionized in the US.
Goddam that sucks. I see why unions are such a big deal.
Is this widely practiced or do you get nice employers who set themselves extra rules?
At-will worker here. One time I got fired for not remembering my boss's son's birthday (a son who I had never met and was also 6 years old)
That's just... I don't even have words for this.
It's tyranny. It's having a king who can take your home and even the food from your mouth at a whim.
No doubt, that's one word for it.
"At will" employment laws are load-bearers for all sorts of horrid ruling class abuses. They allow "at will" employees to be fired under any false pretenses and make it nearly impossible to prove those pretenses were false.
That's not what "at-will employment" means. It's an agreement between employer and employer that they agree to employment, and they both have the right to terminate for any or no reason. I have fired employees and been fired myself by employers based on this. Why use "false pretenses " when you don't have to. "You're fired." 'Why?" "Because you are." End of story.
What it looks like on paper and how it actually plays out because workers don't have the money or connections to legally fight wrongful terminations (from bigotry and the like, masked under "at will" pretenses) are very different things.
You wish your little inheriting-dad's-business crown made that decree a divine command, don't you?
What? My dad was in law enforcement, kinda. I work in facilities maintenance, not remotely inherited. But whatever you want to tell yourself.
Did you read the part where I was also fired from jobs and it was no big deal? Why wouldn't I need to fight it? Not everything and everyone is evil bigot sexist racist corporate. Sometimes employees need to be terminated for reasons beyond what exists in your preprogrammed little mind. Protected class terminations is not what we're discussing here. Take your soap box elsewhere. And have a nice day.
Your daddy was a fucking cop and you're expecting that to be the checkmate to stop leftists from dunking on you?
Suuuuuuuuuure. No connections or assistance whatsoever. Rags to riches. A small loan of thousands of dollars and a floor beneath you to help you back up when you fell.
I already think you're a liar but even if you aren't you're not painting a very pretty picture of anything but living in a bubble world of privilege and being unaware of it.
Yes, because you had a floor beneath you when you fell, you spoiled failchild. Lots of people are literally homeless when they lose their jobs, or just die because they can no longer get medical treatment for what afflicts them.
You tried to be hyperbolic there but so far you're just accurately describing yourself, if only you had any awareness of what your "I just fire people when I feel like it, I am very cool, calm, and collected" self-congratulatory statements sound like to the rest of us.
Cram yours nice and tight so your smug nepo baby bullshit stops pouring out.
You just derailed your own tough guy attempt by ending with a passive-aggressive sneer.
Wow. I hope you feel better about yourself. Clearly you need it. I have no interest in continu ing this. You are wrong about me on almost every count but I'm not interested in justifying myself to you. Go back to reddit/Twitter, please.
Your concern trolling is noted and will be given all the consideration it deserves.
But you probably will, because you want that validation in front of an audience you claim you don't care about so very, very badly. That's the plight of small business tyrants and other nepo babies: it isn't enough to be greedy and cruel; you want to be respected instead of mocked. Poor baby.
The problem is you legally don't have the right to "terminate for any reason" when it comes to a number of protected classes, but these laws make it so we have to rely on you being stupid enough to create a massive trail of evidence (easy part with small business tyrants), but also litigate it for potentially years on end - harder
You're wrong. Employers do have the right to terminate members of a protected class as long as it's not because they are a protected class.
And they enjoy the unwritten privilege of pretending there wasn't a reason that was because of prejudice against the protected class. But you're so far up your own ass that you either can't see that or you refuse to see it because it benefits you.
I fired someone in a protected class maybe a year ago. They were, by their own admission incompetent. They were also falsifying their time card. All documented. I've done the same with a straight white guy. Is that my prejudice?
Look, I know it happens wrongfully. But don't accuse me of shit that you have no basis for. It detracts from your whole argument.
Can you at least try to write out your self-congratulatory autobiographical post without it reading like it could be narrated by Patrick Bateman?
except there's a bit of a power dynamic here isn't there
There doesn't have to be. I don't see or treat it that way. Yes, my employer has power over me (I'm not a business owner). As do I over them, to an extent. But it doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship.
With you and your smug "I can fire them whenever I please whenever I feel like it and it's totally not because of personal biases or prejudice, pinkie promise" statements, it is inherently an adversarial relationship.
EDIT: Better yet, just read the room. Look at this thread. Look at everyone here who isn't a small business tyrant like yourself. Look at how adversarial it is to all of them. If you're invalidating their experiences, that itself is an adversarial take.
But that'd take leaving the bubble your cop daddy placed around you since birth.
You're delusional. Your quote is not remotely what I said. That's disingenuous, at best. Idgaf what the rest of the thread says. Many people can group together and be wrong; it's fairly common. Again, I do not own a small business or any other form of business. You are utterly clueless in this conversation. You seem like a troll and will be treated as such.
Of course you'd say that. Because, as I said, you live in a privileged bubble world.
But I think you're lying about that. You care enough to keep replying here, begging for someone to respect you and your very brave small business tyrant story.
At-Will Employment yeah you can get fired pretty much on the spot for no reason
edit: like yea there's labor protections if you're a protected class but if they fire you for a bunk reason it's up to you to sue the business and prove that in the first place which most of us can't do for obvious reasons
Others have covered the details of labor laws in the US, so I won't touch on that, but your question does make me think about why those kinds of labor protection laws are even seen as a necessity. And I think the answer to that is we (most people, not just Americans) view jobs as equal to livelihood.
But it makes you wonder what the world could be like if we had a universal basic income, where getting fired wasn't actually the worst thing that could happen to you. It might still suck, but you'd still be able to have a roof over your head and food on your table while you searched for new work. This, critically, would give you more negotiating power when finding new jobs, as you'd likely be less desperate for a job, meaning you could credibly insist upon better pay and better conditions.
But we could take this one step further. In economics, there's this concept called an externality, which is when you do something that affects someone else as a side effect. When you do something that harms someone else as a side effect (e.g., pollution), that's called a negative externality. Negative externalities are actually a major problem in completely unregulated economies, because they cause the "invisible hand" of the free market to fail to achieve optimal distribution of goods, i.e., a market failure. The classic example of this is carbon emissions -- the true cost to society of carbon emissions (from climate change) is not reflected in the cost of providing carbon-intensive goods, thus we have a tendency to over-produce and over-consume carbon-intensive goods and services. That is, the economy would be better off in the long-run if we emitted less carbon than we currently are, despite the short-term profits of polluting. Anyhoo, this mismatch between sticker price and true cost to society is why carbon tax is almost universally regarded to be the single best climate policy: by accounting for the costs of the negative externality, you can fix the market failure, and the invisible hand can once again work as it's supposed to.
But where this relates to where I was going is there are also positive externalities, where you have a positive impact on someone else as a side effect of your activities. An example might be doing regenerative agriculture or rewilding a patch of land -- the pollinator habitat you provide or the carbon you sequester has positive impacts on other people. And like how negative externalities tend to lead to overconsumption, positive externalities tend to lead to underconsumption. I.e., the economy would be net better off of more people did rewilding and regenerative agriculture, despite the short-term immediate costs they incur. And much like taxing negative externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) is a good way to correct those issues, subsidizing positive externalities is a good way to fix the issues of insufficient good activities.
So imagine if we not only had a UBI, but if the government also would pay you to plant trees or develop/maintain open-source software or any number of other activities that produce positive externalities. If we had these alternative means of maintaining a basic level of livelihood, then maybe we could decouple existing from jobs, and we wouldn't feel a strong need to coerce businesses into holding onto people, nor would we need to coerce them into paying people enough or giving good enough working conditions -- companies would have to pay well and offer good conditions and not fire for unfair reasons, else they'd struggle to fill vacancies.
We all saw how companies begrudgingly had to pay more during the "great resignation". Or look how the professional class (e.g., doctors, engineers) get good pay and good conditions, precisely because they're hard to replace. Give workers more options, make them less desperate, and they'll be empowered to negotiate better pay and better conditions for themselves. Sure, some regulations would still be necessary, but I think there's a lot of elegance in a bottom-up approach to labor relations.
You are making this too complicated. The "classic example" of a negative externality isn't carbon emissions, it's the "tragedy of the commons". People would overuse public land to graze their animals. Nobody took care of the public land or refrained from grazing to allow the grass to grow back, so it sucked.
A better example of a positive externality is a nice cafe that provides a nice environment for a town. The cafe doesn't just provide sandwiches and coffee. It improves the area around it and nearby businesses benefit.
this is a capitalist myth. the british peasantry maintained the commons until capitalist interests enclosed them.
No, it's a well studied phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
this does not prove it's not capitalist propaganda. (it is).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Criticism
keep scrolling
Thanks for your essay! I hadn't looked at carbon taxes like that before, it makes sense now.
Carbon credits though still sounds like meth credits in a rehab facility.
I'm an atheist when it comes to 'the invisible hand.' I think regulation is absolutely necessary.
Best argument for a UBI I've heard so far.
they exist, but breaking them will net you a letter from the court telling you to stop breaking the law, and like a 1000$ fine so...
If you aren't part of a union in the US, you're probably working without a contract in an agreement called 'at will' employment where this is 100% legal. This is how the vast majority of jobs operate
There's a single benefit there, and that's not having to read through contracts which are boring as all hell, but totally necessary for a modern society.
Theoretically yes, but they’re set up in such a way so that there’s always a work around or technicality or means testing that, in reality, means that poor, marginalized, disabled/ neurodivergent people, or non-English speakers are basically totally fucked
THAT'S FREEDOM BAYBAY!
sobs
We have a lot of laws, enforcement is the thing we lack.
Enforcement AND more laws. You can't enforce PTO and parental leave laws if you don't pass them first.
We have quite a lot of employee protections (not as much as Europe but a lot more than people realize), it's the enforcement that is the issue. While you can be fired without notice for any legal reason, if you are fired for an illegal reason or an illegal reason played a role in their decision to fire you, you can get quite a nice settlement from that. However, if you are fired without a good reason, the employer has to pay for your unemployment, so the majority of employers will only fire an employee if it falls under a reason that makes you ineligible for unemployment like poor performance or attendance (and labor attorneys can often sniff out when an employer is lying about it to screw you out of unemployment). Contrary to several other countries, employees can just quit without notice or even informing their employer, as at will employment goes both ways
Edit: Lots of other replies mention this, so I'm just repeating things...
"At-will" employment is actually a state-level law, and at least one state (Montana) isn't an at-will state. That doesn't invalidate your general points, just think it's an interesting tidbit.
There's actually quite a few at the federal level -- not enough, but they exist. There's a decent overview of the federal labor laws available here. Individual states also have additional laws, and shockingly "liberal" (in the American sense) states tend to have stronger worker protections than "conservative" ones.
Of course scumbag employers count on most people not knowing those laws or how to report violations and will actively push misinformation about them.
Edit:
As a bonus, have a Walmart
anti-union propagandatraining video, because Walmart cares about you..Wow, that made me feel icky to watch. And not just because of the 10p resolution.
If I had a nickel for every time my boss fired somebody so humiliatingly that they forgot to take their jackets with them on the way out the door, I'd have two nickels.
I didn't observe this myself -- she e-mailed everyone she didn't fire asking if any of us wanted a jacket and went on to describe the ones her victims were wearing just last week.
Oh shit.
I was fired for looking for another job
Different states have different laws. It's a farce
The Wikipedia page has to explicitly state that American “right to work laws” is a completely different concept from “universal human right to work.” The former being a law that allows employers to not pay employees or letting them form unions, while the latter is about how everyone must be guaranteed employment.
Being fired on the spot hardly ever happens. Usually the problem is that employers demand additional work for no increase in pay or better working conditions while maintaining a toxic or outright dangerous work environment because they know most people won't quit or even complain. That goes double for immigrants who are either undocumented, and have little recourse, or need their job to maintain their visa. Being fired on the spot sounds sort of quaint compared to what we usually see happening in American workplaces.
That bad huh, goddam.
So what they’re referring to in that instance “you can be fired on the spot” there are states that have laws that say employees are basically working “at will” and can be fired without explanation or cause unless the employee is apart of a protected class and is fired for being in a protected class, an example of this is a member of the LGBTQ+ community being fired for their sexual orientation. There are states that protect against this but it’s a state by state basis.
At-will employment is the name of the game in the US. I wasn’t fired personally but I found out someone at my workplace was let go and I was caught off guard how immediately it took effect - never even got a chance to say goodbye.
Not American, so i wanted to know whether a customer can really complain and get a worker fired. I read a lot of posts on reddit where people used to brag about getting workers fired for some silly mistakes. Reading that was weird. Do employers really fire employees just because someone complained on the phone due to some silly reason? Do companies believe the customer story more than the employee story? Why the need to fire anyone? Just tell the customer it's none of their business.
Theoretically it can happen. In practical terms, 99% of those cases are out of three things:
A charade to get an angry customer to go away (pretending to fire an employee)
The last straw in a series of incidents that add up to justify firing the employee (i.e. the employee has repeatedly made a mistake with no improvement over a long period of time)
Misconduct egregious enough to warrant firing them on the spot (for example, the employee punches a customer, or shows up to a job site blackout drunk)
The remaining 1% of cases are truly shitty managers that are a nightmare to work for.
I was fired once because I thought it was bullshit that the company’s paychecks kept bouncing, and that we had a employee in the hospital without medical insurance because the CEO didn’t pay the health insurance premiums.
Each paycheck was a race to the bank to see if yours would get cached first. If you deposited the paycheck in your bank account directly, normally no money would enter your bank account because employer didn’t have enough funds to pay everyone. I was a programer making $9 an hour.
So, this is a question with a cultural and legal element. Legally speaking, it is possible in many U.S. states to be fired for no reason -- the employer does not need to explain themselves when asked for a cause[^1]. This is to say that it's perfectly legally possible in (many) U.S. states to be fired for a reason so petty as a customer complaint -- whether or not that was the official cause notwithstanding[^2].
With that being said, employers aren't compelled to fire their own employees in response to a customer complaint. From a management perspective, it's generally very inefficient to fire someone because you'll then have to cover their hours and find/train a replacement. For that reason alone, it's already rare in most industries for truly petty firings to happen. Unfortunately, this rule of thumb gets totally flipped in low-training industries whenever there's a surplus of bodies in the labor pool. As a manager, if you're able to replace a burnt-out and/or below-average worker by the end of the week, why wouldn't you roll those dice?
Even then, it's not exactly a daily occurance even in settings where these conditions are common... with one big exception. When it comes to businesses which serve "regulars" (e.g.: hotels, restaurants, grocery stores) there exists a certain type of individual who expects that their complaints will have the power to get people fired. This variety of power-starved person tends to exclusively patronize establishments where they feel taken seriously. Such establishments deliberately choose to indulge these sleazebags because they're potential "whales" -- people who, if handled correctly, will be worth much more money than the replacement cost of the staff they cause to be fired. These firings are basically performative in nature and have nothing at all to do with something the employee could have controlled.
[^1]: Protected classes are a whole other can of worms. For the purposes of this explainer, please just trust me when I say that the legal system is still able to protect protected classes without directly requiring paperwork from the employers themselves. The system would be significantly better at this job with a papertrail requirement, but the fact that it manages to work at all when employers can basically ghost employees is something worth noting.
[^2]: Another can of worms! As you may imagine, when giving a reason is optional, it is often (but not always) legally advantageous for employers to report petty firings as no-cause firings. It's all about CYA. For example, if they're doing something dicey like racial discrimination or retaliation against union organizers, an employer might go in the opposite direction and meticulously document dozens of petty reasons in excrutiating detail. This is usually what's happening when a service-worker employee is "written up" -- that information goes in a file to be used against them if they ever sue.
It's bad management if they do that. That employee is going to file for unemployment and will probably get it, which companies have to pay a premium for. The company also has to hire and train a new employee to replace the one they sacked, costing the company even more. I know of times that sort of situation has happened, but in my experience working for various companies most managers aren't that incompetent to take every Karen's word at face value and immediately fire their staff over a random person's word about petty BS, even if they humor said Karen on the phone pretending that they will to get them to shut up
That's why we have unions. And why republicans work really hard to prevent unions.
in the 80s Reagan said "government is the problem", and it's been war on unions ever since from the Republicans.. they stonewall everything related to worker rights they can't destroy outright..
and all the power and money just keep going up the corporate ladder into the boardroom
The way to get rid of unions is to have better employment regulations. Unions aren't very common here.
Yes, we do have federal labor laws, which you can find summarized here: https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws. They just kind of suck compared to peer nations. Here is the section most relevant to the Tesla employee story:
Like others have said, enforcement is spotty, and what state you live in / whether the job is unionized plays a huge role as well in terms of what you actually experience.
Yes, US employees do not enjoy what first world countries consider "worker's rights".
The laws are old and the bourgeois have developed legal loopholes. E.g. my employer avoided the WARN act because the people they laid off all didn't live in the same state...
California, where Tesla has their first factory in Fremont, is an "at will" employment state. Other states that are not "at will" generally have better protections for employees. In California, they can let you go without stating a reason, which makes it really hard to fight against it if it was really for an illegal reason (like they fired you for being gay or trans).
I don't know all the states that are "at will" but it's not all of them. And California is the most surprising one.
All of them are "at will" except Montana.
Even Montana isn't noticeably better, it's almost the same as everywhere else.
Firstly, all states are "at will" except for Montana. Secondly, California probably has some of the best employee-protection laws in the US. They are still absolute crap compared to New Zealand and Europe but better than most other states.
Don't know how Americans do it honestly. At will states, no parental leave or even maternity leave(this is mind blowing plus add on the cost to birth a baby at a hospital like 🤯🤯), 2 weeks vacation, no sick time, poor insurance, etc. Read an article that says their minimum wage hasn't increased in over a DECADE. So yeah, it seems like they have very little protection.
So odd and I find I work with a fair amount of people from NA who "humble brag" about working so much or it's been years since I had a day off... just don't get it. 🤷.
You mean NO 2 weeks vacation, right? We have no mandatory minimums. It's just a perk of many jobs, and not a perk of many other jobs.
Just because it's not legally required doesn't mean plenty of jobs don't offer those. It still sucks, but you're retarded if you think the average american job doesn't provide at least some. Not to mention the fact that states and cities can and do legislate their own minimum wages.
Some people are glossing over that "at will" is a double edged sword. Everyone talks about how the employer can fire you on the spot. The employee can also leave on the spot. In comparison. some countries require the employee to stay at the company for a period of additional time before they can quit. This could be months depending on how long they've been working.
Now does this employee benefit make "at will" worthwhile? Probably not.
At will employment is really the crux that erodes all other possibilities of strong worker rights. In most European nations, firing employees functions on a sort of whitelist principle. You may not fire your employee except in one of this specific set of situations. This also puts a burden of proof on the company to demonstrate cause for dismissal. The situation in (most of) the US is more like a blacklist: all reasons for firing an employee are valid except for this specific set of situations. Now the burden of proof is on the employee, to show his situation was part of the blacklist.
If any (or) no reason for dismissal is a valid reason, it takes the tooth out of any worker's rights law you might seek to enforce. If you cause trouble for the company you can simply be fired (for "no reason" of course). Yes, that's technically illegal, and you can sue and/or contact the department of labor. They now have to investigate and find proof that you were fired for an illegal reason. Whether you get justice now depends on whether the department of labor is adequately funded, how good (expensive) your lawyer is, how well the company covered their tracks...
This is why many people in the US complain that "they have labor laws, the main problem is lack of enforcement!" The structure of the system is such that good enforcement is required for workers to benefit, but businesses benefit from bad enforcement.
I don't really disagree with any of this, I'm just saying at-will is a bi-directional street, which I haven't really seen mentioned in this thread. Being able to quit at any time is technically a right that benefits the worker.
Now in practicality does this benefit most people? No.
At will swings so far in advantage of employers it's not funny.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure the only time that you can't just walk out is if you're literally a slave.
I thought we were talking about legality, not physical restraint. For example, in Belgium an employee can be required to give notice of up to 13 weeks.
You should know that when you want to leave, they will want you to leave too.
I mean if you're a nice person you'd train someone or make tech transfer, but that doesn't take months... So you being paid slackin around or you leave quite quickly?
The other double edged quality is that businesses may be more hesitant to hire anyone who is seen as risk if protections are too strong. Take France, where the youth unemployment rate is chronically around 18%. Some find work in the informally economy, where paradoxically they have even fewer protections.
No, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so
Yes but they're pretty much the minimum.
Not really... and what little we do have usually goes unenforced.
You have to already be wealthy in order to litigate, and the workers aren't wealthy. So the laws go unenforced. Most theft in the US occurs in the form of wage theft perpetrated by employers.
Yes, we do have protections in America. The secret is to not work for ultra corporations like Amazon, Tesla, Disney, and so on. Nobody is "supposed to" be able to fire people randomly, but the more "eager" businesses take shortcuts and have the might to surpass elements of society we take for granted. Be a librarian or something.
Actually I'm going to disagree strongly with that statement.
Small business are far, far worse at abusing workers. If a small business fires you, you've got absolutely no recourse. They can lay you off with no severance and then hire someone new a day layer, and who's going to do anything about it? They don't have that many employees so there's no pattern and no class-action, and you can't afford to hire a lawyer to spend years fighting them in court.
In comparison, when you work at a big company, they have rules and an HR department to make sure they're going everything legally. Your boss wants to fire you? First your boss has to give you a negative performance review detailing exactly what you're doing wrong. Then they have to give you an opportunity to correct it. Only then can they fire you. At an absolute minimum, it gives you a chance to start looking for a new job. Often it gives you a chance to transfer within the company, if you were otherwise a well-liked and valuable employee.
If a large company wants to let you go, they're going to give you severance pay and extended benefits.
Of course you hear about the occasional incident where Elon Musk fires someone on the spot or a Disney employee gets reprimanded for something silly. But those incidents are extremely rare, and most of the time they end up settling behind the scenes for a nice severance.
Now, I know, I know. The HR department is there to protect the company, not you. But that's exactly why the HR department ensures employees are treated well, even when they're fired - because they don't want a lawsuit later.
Ok, companies choosing to not be shit isn't a protection. They could change their minds and be shit tomorrow.
Or they get bought by a larger, more shit company, who changes company culture.
Hell, they don't even have to be bought. The original owner could just die and his replacement might just be terrible.
The replacement might be terrible but they're still enforced to treat people with the legal requirement for working standards (and yes there are protection laws, but it's the big businesses that disobey them). You'll be hard pressed to find complaints about working conditions in, say, the Wegmans chain.
You can sue a company if it's small enough to not be controlling. Their treatment of you will be enforced against. A large company, however, will have richer lawyers and thus more power, plus the power to bribe.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Sue? For what? There are no laws about firing you. I once got laid off for absolutely no reason other than them restructuring and eliminating my position, along with many others to be more profitable. I got a pathetic (at least in my opinion) severance and was out looking for work with zero warning. That's what this guy is asking about.
You can't sue for being laid off/or fired. You can collect unemployment. You can sue for harassment, or being fired for retaliation or some specific other things. It's going to be a uphill battle every time even in those instances though.
If it's for discriminatory reasons, yes, you can.
Yes, that would fall into the "specific other things" I mentioned. A very small amount of the time you can sue for being fired for super fucked up reasons. Companies can just fire you for no reason whenever they want.
I was trying to imply it's high risk to do that. Suppose you have someone of a racial minority and for the first few days there is ambiguity over whether the new employee is welcome. Then on day eight, they do something, get fired, don't understand what just happened, then there can be someone to look into if it was covert discrimination. Then something like finding out all the people who were fired randomly just happened to be of one or more certain minorities, and poof, a legally enforced shadow of suspicion has been cast. GoodWill comes to mind here.
Imo big corporations are way more likely to follow the law than some small business tyrant
Disney is heavily unionized, they're one of the better companies on that list to work for. From entertainment unions such as writers and actors guilds to their theme park workers being unionized, they can't just walk over their workers like most US companies because they will fight back
Few protections, but high wages in the tech industry has gone a long way in keeping the US tech workforce fat and content.