3w ago

Time to abolish at will employment.

In the United States we are under at will employment in every state but Montana. Essentially, hire at will fire at will quit at will. This is not good for employees and I'd argue employers too. My proposal.

Mandatory contract employment for all non Independent contractor employment (Independent contractors must be entitled to their own hours & be paid per project/unit of work) Contracts would have set limits minimum of 12 months, maximum of 5 years. (exception for seasonal employment) The contract would be required to specify all policy rules, what hours they will work and regulations of the company, the starting pay, the frequency of raises and how much the raises are, the expectations to receive raises.

Employment courts would be set up where a fired employee would be allowed to appeal a firing in where the company would have to show cause, by showing a legal rule was broken and that there was consistent and equal enforcement. If found to have cause the employee forfeit unemployment insurance, if shown to not have cause the employer must either keep them employed with 1.5 backpay for days not worked or pay out their contract.

Conversely if an employee wants to quit they must show good cause (harassment, unequal treatment, breech of contract) or buy out said contract either directly or by monthly payments)

If either the employer or employee violates the law they can be held in criminal contempt and jailed until bailed (which will be paid to the other party) or stipulations met or contract would have naturally expired.

This imo would be far superior to the nonsense we have currently.

10 comments

While I agree with getting rid of at-will policies, I disagree with one part of your idea. Why would I ever want to indenture myself to 5 years with the same employer? How would unions be handled? How about strikes? What about health insurance benefits?
Frankly, unions already solve alot of the problems with at-will employment, and should be protected by law rather then systemically stripped away.
- Also, good luck proving your boss is harassing you and creating a hostile work environment. Now you're just stuck in a horribly mentally damaging situation with no way out.
  Stability my ass.
  
  Yeah, really. You have to pay your employer if a job is so bad, you want to quit within the first year?No thanks.
- Ideally the same government that implemented the removal of at will would also implement state level single payer.
  Unions would be more of an outside thing where guilds would form instead to help get favorable Contracts for specific fields which would probably work better. Imagine each industry including service and retail had a "guild" that would handle contracts and decide minimums via member votes
  Edit: 5 years of stability sounds amazing imo
  
  The thought of being stuck with a shitty team and/or boss that isn't technically violating any laws or my contract is absolutely horrifying to me.
  I know I'm not the only person who has had issues with suicidal ideation stemming from having such a shit job that in the end I just fucking ghosted it, regardless of losing the stability. Zoning out driving in and coming back to myself to realize I was two towns past my workplace. I don't know what I would have done if I had some sort of contractual obligation with potential fees or legal repurcussions for quitting. My car would probably be off the side of that bridge, with me still in it.
  It seems to me like you're suggesting an overadjustment for your current personal struggle of lack of stability, while ignoring other possible problems and secondary effects.
  I'm sorry you're going through it right now. The job market fucking sucks.
  But making people even less able to leave exploitative and soul crushing situations only puts more power in the hands of the corporate fuckstains that want to squeeze out every last drop of profit from you even if it costs your life.
  
  Friend, your guild idea already exists. It's just called a Union in the current day. Many trades already operate this way, from the Carpenters Union to the Iron Workers Union. There's even a Teamsters Union. The different name doesn't change the work they do. White- collar hand much less representation with collective solidarity, but that can be fixed by starting a Union at your local work place. I won't tell anyone it's easy, but it's worth putting in the work. A great example is the Starbucks unions that have popped up in the last few years. The reason you don't see more unions is because employers are terrified of them, and want to continue to freely exploit the workforce through fear.
No, I would not want to be tied to an employer at all.
People get stuck because their means of living are tied to their job. That is, the means of getting housing, food/other essentials, and healthcare.
My healthcare should not be tied to my employer.
Housing should be attainable for an average joe with no extra help from places like family. Seeking cheaper housing alternatives should not be blocked off, like living in a tiny house on wheels or sleeping in your car or living in a tent. (Ideally, no one should have to do that... But someone in a desperate situation shouldn't be punished if they're not doing anything wrong.)
Getting the things I need should not require me to have a car. (Car = $$$) I should be able to walk or use affordable, dependable, available public transportation.
UBI and universal healthcare would solve a lot of this. If an employer doesn't want me, fine they can let me go. But if I don't want them, also fine. Either way, it should be that anyone should be able to live if they suddenly leave their employer for any reason. I would not be opposed to a mandatory two weeks/one month of notice or severance.
In my country, Denmark, you as an employee can quit with one month notice to the end of next month. If you get fired without cause you have 3 months where you can either keep working or if your boss dont want to see your face you can stay home but you still get payed for 3 months. In some contracts and job titles you earn security for your position if you work there for a long time or it is a special position and you could for example have 12 months of security of fired without cause where your employer must payout the next 12 months.
The rules are slightly different of fired with cause where you loose your 3 months security or if fired because of lay offs where you have to keep working and can't just stay home (unless told to do so of cause)
Your proposal merely takes the good and bad of at will and flips them both to "against will" for no net gain to either employers or employees. It's the same problems as before, just inverted.
What were you thinking to yourself as you composed that last part about locking employees into a job at the threat of criminal liability? What made you think this was a pathway forward? You didn't have to add that part.

10 comments