Woman fired for being irresistable

The answer to this is actually quite extensive. To keep it short, though, I'll reference the Stakeholder Theory again. Management's, and business ethics for that matter, headaching issue is the balancing of the needs and wants of all its stakeholders, where the balancing act is the most difficult, and primary, task.

My previous mention of Walmart's stance to anti-unionization may have been mistaken as a support for strong union power. Unions need to exist, but in moderation. Oftentimes, such as the Hostess case, they become overzealous and, frankly, mentally retarded in their pursuit of "workers' rights". Qantas is another great case of how too much union meddling can drive a successful business and its brand to near-bankruptcy, where only an emergency government involvement saved the company from utter destruction. I already made the point to mixedmedia in another thread of the inanity of well-paid Qantas employees to go on strike.

Unfortunately, lower-tiered employees are often misguided by union leaders in what they really are entitled to in what situation. As others have mentioned in this thread, managers do have the prerogative of giving wage rates and benefits to employees in accordance, and proportion, of their budgetary and market situation. Sometimes employees have to make a sacrifice out of necessity, and unions often disrupt that process out of stupidity.

What it comes down to, is the fact that it's never a black/white issue as some people like to portray it. The many factors that need to be weighed are always case-specific and one solution may not apply to another company.

 

Here you are entitled to reasonable notice and there is always a contract of employment (whether written down or not).

Notice periods are definitely in the interest of both employee and employer. There is a minimum notice period that any employee is entitled to and, generally, that is:

• one week for employees who have worked for their employer for one month but less than two years; or
• two weeks if the employee has worked for their employer for two whole years; and
• one extra week for each further whole year's employment at the date the notice period expires, up to a maximum of twelve weeks' notice in total.

Your contract of employment may give you more notice than the minimum the law gives you. However, you can never get less than the minimum, no matter what your contract says.

Normally, notice periods fit in with how often you are paid. A weekly paid worker may only have to give (and receive) a week or two and a monthly-paid worker will often give/receive a month's notice. I have been on 3-months notice before and this works for both the employer and for me. When I hand in my notice, that will often start a discussion. If I am willing to work notice the employer must pay me for that period (even if they don't want me to work and send me home). Of course, often the employee may be keen to start a new job and the notice period can be shortened by mutual agreement - however, neither side can do that unilaterally.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_rights_at_work_e.htm

I cannot see how "at will" is of any benefit to the employee at all (having witnessed it in Virginia).

 

There's a brand of bread and bread products in the US called Wonder Bread. At one time they were the bread leaders in the New England area. They thrived and profited for years despite the existence of numerous unions within their corporation.

The bottom fell out for Wonder Bread when competitors began moving in on their market. Some offering a comparable product at a lower price. The competitor's advantage? Better equipment and streamlined production methods.

Wonder Bread went under but the brand was picked up and is still being sold.. It shares a market with other bread producers, all of whom are union shops.

The blame should not automatically be laid at the feet of unions...or management. Sometimes it's a result of competition. Does that mean that unions should be made obsolete to compete with competition? Not always. Fair wages, benefits, and employee rights can be consistent throughout an industry without any loss or decrease in market share.

That's not always the case, especially in markets where US manufacturing is attempting to compete globally.
--- merged: Dec 25, 2012 at 9:15 PM ---

Well, in the first place, if someone gives notice and you decide not to let them work out their notice period, it's not a situation of termination, so your language and perspective is a bit off.

This sounds like a dangerous way to run a business. You hire an employee who gives notice to resign and you fear that they are not trustworthy enough to work out the notice period? Why did you trust them to operate inside the business at all, if you really feel this way about them? Sounds like a failure of management or sour grapes.

 

Not to jump to his defense, but HR departments can be a real bitch to deal with. They often choose candidates for employment based on credentials, not on competencies.

The inefficiencies of HR processes is a wholly different can of worms, though.

 

HR departments choose who to employ? In which universe? That surely is NOT their role.

 

Companies who have HR departments with a final say in hiring (and I'm not sure how prevalent they are in the US - more likely they will have some to significant input) are not as judicious as they once were when it comes to seeking out the best and brightest. Low bid employees who tick off a set number of boxes will get on short lists. If they get hired but don't work out, it's easy enough to fire them even after their probation period has expired. On to another round of candidates. I've seen this happen often. Eventually, they get someone in the position at a low salary who performs adequately.

Is this wrong? Only if you're a company satisfied with adequate. Customer call centers in particular have cornered the market on giving their customers barely adequate service at the top end where poor service is the expectation. Of course, we Americans tolerate this so we have only ourselves to blame.

Every once in a while, they'll get an employee on the cheap who is brilliant. Unfortunately those employees move on fairly quickly.

You get what you pay for.

 

While HR certainly has a role in recruitment and can advise, prepare shortlists etc., any manager who delegates the final choice of employee to an HR department deserves all they get.

 

Alistair, I believe you misunderstood what I said. Joniemack has apparently understood what I said correctly, and expanded nicely.

By reducing the candidate pool through their vetting processes from hundreds, or many thousands, to a shortlist of maybe 3 to 15 people, based on credentials and superficial interviews before the hiring manager is even involved, is ultimately "choosing the candidates for employment", with the final say in the hiring manager's hands. As a Management Consultant, you should be very familiar how HR people can skew the pool in a certain direction, and Joniemack's mention of a firm's "level of adequate" has always been a nebulous affair.

An HR director I know, and am very close friends with, is a fantastic guy. Intelligent, educated, very charming... but I've seen the processes that his department has implemented, and I wouldn't ever let them choose my candidate pool for me. HR management studies don't clarify the right tools either, being often ambiguous as to the right approach and lecturers disagreeing with each other. It's all credentials and a general gut feeling. Sometimes it's relatives or a close friend they're trying to push.

Boy, do we love gut feelings and their superb inaccuracies.

 

Ah, OK. Yes, the actual recruitment work and the whittling down of applications is certainly an HR role and one in which they can become almost adequate, especially if you watch them like a hawk and simultaneously corner them like a rat in a trap. They can be helped if the job spec is good and if time is taken to make sure they actually understand it (especially the bit about required skills and experience).

 

Not sure how you inferred that methodology from my previous posts, but I'll leave a discussion on spans of control as well as degrees of delegating duties and responsibilities for another thread.

We could also throw terminology like "change management", "TQM" and "BPR" around to establish a facade of competence the way Big Four consultants do, and let HR people go haywire with their supermodern postbureaucratic awesomeness. Good stuff.

And on a last note, HR is not always a failure. Which also was entirely beside the point.

 

It doesn't sound as if "at will" applies where you work, Cyn.

I have seen employers in Virginia fire people on the spot for no reason and pay no severance - because they can and because they want to save money. I have also seen them say "Don't come in for the next few days" and do so simply so they don't have to pay them. There is no comeback and it certainly doesn't take 6 months. For many workers, this is what it is like.

 

I think I do understand what it means. It means that the employee carries the risk and is the one who loses money, rather than the employer.

From the employer's perspective, it "makes no sense to pay". The employer would naturally want the employee to have no real rights to a stable and predictable income if it means they make less when business is poor. From the employer's perspective, all is hunky dory.

However, that is, to my mind, balanced way to much in favour of the employer. It reduces everyone to the status of a temporary worker without paying them for the risk they undertake. How can anyone budget if they don't know what their income is going to be? If the job is part-time, advertise it as such. If it full-time, pay according to an agreed number of hours per week.

You say, "If I could do such things, I would". Sure, I believe many would. However, I don't think that should be something people can do to other people. I think workers should have some fundamental rights.

 

Cyn, it may be that your experience and mine differ due to the experience being in different States or different organisations (Virginia, unlike New York, has no exception for Implied Contracts and thus employees in Virginia have less protection. Also, your own HR policies may hinder you when it comes to firing employees and give them more statutory protection than they would otherwise receive).

Alternatively, it may simply be that we fundamentally disagree on this - and on what is, and is not, OK when it comes to employing people.

 

Alistair--are you sure VA has no implied contract? The doctrine forms a large body of law and States usually do not reject the common law absent clear legislative decree.

 

Again, you are entirely ignorant of business ethics as a field. A company cannot "choose" to be outside of its realm, and performance statistics and employee counts are of not relevance to it.

It is a very comprehensive, well-researched, undisputable tenet of programmed and unprogrammed decisions within a business, that I can't sufficiently cover it in a post. If you want, I can PM you a list of literature to read up on.

Much like legal ethics, business ethics may or may not overlap with morality. The legal field has ethics boards to hold attorneys accountable for their actions, at least.

Yes, let's go back to the OP.

 

I am only talking in the context of "At Will" and I'm pretty sure, in that context.

According to Wiki, at least, At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't always trust Wiki, so it's confirmed here .. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf