Iowa declares affirmative action for ugly people

[Dauphin]

Accountancy firms are a large industry. Shrug.

[kentonio]

Lol, yeah of course, just not one I've ever had any experience with. Sounds like you guys get a good deal though.

[Krill]

3 months is standard for quite a few positions, that aren't low skilled hands on jobs. I know for nurses it varies from anything from 2 weeks (staff nurse) to 6 months (Head of Nursing in an SHA), with a lot of the middle management positions being 3 months.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think at-will employment, while maybe meant to be symmetrical, is actually asymmetrical in favor of employers, who have more power than their employees.

Not at all. Employers are put out when good employees leave with two weeks or less notice - I've seen employees leave for all sorts of reasons - spouse gets out of state transfer, marriage, divorce, having a kid, going back to school, better job offer, strategic (i.e. career path) reasons, you name it. Back when I was an employee, I routinely took better offers. Employers hold no more power than employees unless you live in some ****hold one-horse town where the local dry goods-liquor store-gas station-post office under one roof is the only employer in town. Even if it is, then people should get off their asses and educate themselves, to better their position in the employment market. You seem to consistently adopt a position that employees are helpless victims along for the ride. If that's the way you are in your career, you better look inward. Peasantry is a choice, my friend. No longer a matter of birth.

Allow employees to leave/quit a job at will, but I don't see why we have to have fire-at-will along with it. If an employee is bad worker, you shouldn't have any problem firing that worker without allowing for fire-at-will.

The whole point of at will is to avoid jerk-around litigation threats from disgruntled employees. It is also a pain to document "performance" in a manner sufficient to stand up in court. I've been on both sides of employer-employee litigation. It's a pain in the ass (I've also never lost from either side) Many times it is also not performance - you can have a pain in the ass employee who is unpleasant and has a bad attitude, but "performs" the job. You can have all sorts of situations, but creating a presumed entitlement to continued employment does not benefit employees or employers. In fact, it would be the biggest detriment to real hiring you can create.

[Hauldren Collider]

Even two weeks notice can be tough depending on the person who is quitting. Asher loves to talk about how ****ed his former employers were when he handed in his notice and how they begged for him to come back. People are hard and expensive to replace unless they are in entry-level jobs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Anyone paying attention to her trading personal texts with the boss while sharing the work-space with the Mrs?

From the court record, her texts to him at least were g-rated and nothing to really get bent out of shape about. I exchange personal texts with femail co-workers/consultants/etc. who I know and work with on project to project. After some of us knowing each other for years, we're practically kin. One big happy mercenary company.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Even two weeks notice can be tough depending on the person who is quitting. Asher loves to talk about how ****ed his former employers were when he handed in his notice and how they begged for him to come back. People are hard and expensive to replace unless they are in entry-level jobs.

Exactly - and the more an employee is trained in specific company procedures, or has a professional level position, the longer it takes to get a replacement and get that person up to speed. I've seen employers who've taken six months to effectively transition around senior level management departures.

[MrFun]

Not at all. Employers are put out when good employees leave with two weeks or less notice - I've seen employees leave for all sorts of reasons - spouse gets out of state transfer, marriage, divorce, having a kid, going back to school, better job offer, strategic (i.e. career path) reasons, you name it. Back when I was an employee, I routinely took better offers. Employers hold no more power than employees unless you live in some ****hold one-horse town where the local dry goods-liquor store-gas station-post office under one roof is the only employer in town. Even if it is, then people should get off their asses and educate themselves, to better their position in the employment market. You seem to consistently adopt a position that employees are helpless victims along for the ride. If that's the way you are in your career, you better look inward. Peasantry is a choice, my friend. No longer a matter of birth.

The whole point of at will is to avoid jerk-around litigation threats from disgruntled employees. It is also a pain to document "performance" in a manner sufficient to stand up in court. I've been on both sides of employer-employee litigation. It's a pain in the ass (I've also never lost from either side) Many times it is also not performance - you can have a pain in the ass employee who is unpleasant and has a bad attitude, but "performs" the job. You can have all sorts of situations, but creating a presumed entitlement to continued employment does not benefit employees or employers. In fact, it would be the biggest detriment to real hiring you can create.

Alright, you made good points.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How does high throughput employment equate to high unemployment. If you sack someone for non commercial reasons, you'd likely replace them very quickly.

Also,

Typically if one considers high throughput employment, that usually enables (or in terms of chicken and egg is a symptom of) a robust housing industry as well. A mobile workforce typically means relocations and the like which in turn fuels and feeds off of a whole housing industry. Something completely lacking right now with the moribund housing industry creating a detrimental effect on folks otherwise normally willing to relo but avoid doing so now in order to avoid real estate losses.

[MrFun]

What about people who rent, and are looking for work? They're mobile, yet the unemployment rate is fairly high (but decreasing).

[kentonio]

So tiring hearing the same old 'if you can't get tons of jobs, it's your own fault' crap. There's a lot of people out there who don't have those options. Some lack the brains, some just have families to support on a low income, some have sick relatives to support etc etc etc. the list of reasons why people can't just 'better themselves' is endless and basically just writing those people off without any employment protection is ****ed up.

[MrFun]

So tiring hearing the same old 'if you can't get tons of jobs, it's your own fault' crap. There's a lot of people out there who don't have those options. Some lack the brains, some just have families to support on a low income, some have sick relatives to support etc etc etc. the list of reasons why people can't just 'better themselves' is endless and basically just writing those people off without any employment protection is ****ed up.

It's almost as if some on here are oblivious to those types of people when talking about employment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

the list of excuses why people can't just 'better themselves' is endless

Fixed. If you have sick family members to take care of, there are federal (and in many states, additional state laws) leave laws that protect employees. If you have family members to support in general, then it only makes sense you invest the time needed to better yourself. I know people who worked two or three jobs to put themselves through school and had families to support. There's also financial aid, vocational training resources - there are resources out there to those who will go out and find them. If you lack the brains, why is that an employer's problem? Should lazy employees be coddled and subsidized in your view?

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's almost as if some on here are oblivious to those types of people when talking about employment.

No, it's that the number of people in that predicament is extremely small compared with the number of people who really don't have brains, drive or ambition and expect to just coast along. Since the subject is raised in a thread pertaining to termination of a skilled employee for a stupid, but legal, reason, one would presume your intended "cure" is to put a broad mandate on all employers unilaterally constraining them in termination decisions, on the off chance that somehow an employee is both magically entitled to a job from that employer, and then magically entitled to continuing employment regardless of the employer's needs, so long as the employee doesn't blatantly violate some law or other "allowable" termination for cause.

Instead of helping people you seek to help, you'd end up with massively reduced hiring, loophole employment through temp agencies, outsourcing, etc. all with increased unemployment as businesses won't take the risk of being saddled for years with unproductive employees.

California is as pro-labor liberal as any state in the union, with tons of state level protective leaves, etc., and it is an at-will state, because the legislature recognizes that ending at will and imposing burdens only on employers will gut the state's economy.

[kentonio]

No, the problem with your worldview (and the famed American one in general) is that it is based soley around a push to the top. The expectation is that people must always push to be the very best, and that those left at the bottom must be there through their own failure (and thus deserve what they get). The truth is that a majority of people are not hugely driven and do not want to work 3 jobs and move states to 'better themselves'. Most people want little more than to work a stable job, raise a family and provide for them without the fear of bankruptcy/lack of healthcare etc. Most first world countries recognized this in the second half of the last century and started trying to prevent people slipping too far behind, instead of just rewarding those who make it to the top. It results in much happier countries.