Dozens fired after "Day with no Immigrants" protest

[Sparko]

It's pretty sad that US employment law provides insufficient protections for workers that people can lose their jobs due to being only absent for a single day. Workers in the US deserve better rights, like they have elsewhere in the Western world.

If it were only one or two employees in a large company, then the company might just let it go. But when you are trying to run a company and it can't get anything done because a large portion of your work force didn't show up for some idiotic political reason, that basically WANTS to put you out of business that day to prove a point? Then you fire those asshats. They want to put you out of business? You put them out of business.

[Sparko]

Its not about their employers doofus, its about Trump and his policys. That only dozens out of thousands were fired doesn't seem like very many employers sided with your heartless attitude. Many if not most of the employers support the immigrants protest.

The only people getting hurt are the employers, JimL. The purpose of the protest is to prove that America can't function without immigrants. Which means they want to shut down the businesses for a day to prove that.

And it was over 100 fired that got reported on NBC. That doesn't mean that was all that was fired. Do you think every company or employer is going to report it to NBC so they can keep a rolling tally?

If they wanted to protest and not hurt their employers, they should have talked it over with the employer and gotten permission, or used a vacation day. Those that did that probably didn't get fired. Those that didn't probably did get fired.

You don't have a job, do you Jim? Because if you did, you would know that employers don't like people protesting THEM and hurting THEM and expect to have a job when they get back.

[Darth Executor]

It's pretty sad that US employment law provides insufficient protections for workers that people can lose their jobs due to being only absent for a single day. Workers in the US deserve better rights, like they have elsewhere in the Western world.

It's great that US employment law doesn't protect people who just want to take off from work without any good reason. It's stupidity like what you want in your post that turns so many people off the labour movement.

[Sparko]

It's great that US employment law doesn't protect people who just want to take off from work without any good reason. It's stupidity like what you want in your post that turns so many people off the labour movement.

Starlight is clueless.

Let's say that the companies didn't suffer any problems at all with the protest. Then the protest would have meant nothing, right? Immigrants are NOT important at all. But if they do cause problems at work, then they made their point and showed the world how important they were.

And why should the companies that felt this in their pocket book not fire those workers who think making a dumbass political statement and hurting the very business that gave them a job is more important than supporting their employers who keep food on their table?

Starlight makes it sound like US Employers just willy-nilly fire any employee that misses work for a day. They don't. If they have a good excuse, like being sick or some other problem, most companies are understanding, and let the worker off for the day or take a sick day. But when they miss a day in order to HURT the business to prove a point, then they get fired.

[Bill the Cat]

I guess for those companies, a "Day without Immigrants" now means more than just one day without those particular immigrants!

[Bisto]

If I were an employer in a business I believed in, then the impact of some of my workers choosing not to show up in order to attend some political protest, without letting me know beforehand, or arranging things with the rest of the company so we can still function, would show me a worker who doesn't really believe in what we do. It's different if they arrange things beforehand, because that would show they care, they share our vision and culture, etc. I, in particular, would respect their political stances if they show me they are a part of our company, by their deeds -- which, in this case, means arranging their day off or something.

I wouldn't necessarily fire a worker who doesn't tell me anything but just stays home or goes off to do something else without caring at all, on the first time at least. But if they constantly show this (lack of) attitude, and their work is not vital, I'm not sure I'd want to keep them

[Starlight]

Starlight makes it sound like US Employers just willy-nilly fire any employee that misses work for a day. They don't. If they have a good excuse, like being sick or some other problem, most companies are understanding

US employers have the legal ability to fire employees if they feel like it. I am saying that is not a legal right they should have. Your explanation that "most companies are understanding" is beside the point because the law should protect employees from bad bosses who are not "understanding" and not leave it up to the whims of the employer.

Instead of employees having to rely on being part of a union to have rights, or having to work for a company that is 'understanding' or 'gives good benefits' to be treated well, the government should protect all employees by laying out standards. For example, here all employees by law get: 4 weeks annual leave, 11 public holidays, 5 sick days per year that accumulate, 52 weeks parental leave, a minimum wage of currently ~$11 USD per hour, and legal protections against being fired for anything short of a really good reason (there is a process the company has to go to by issuing a series of written warnings for misconduct) and a government committee you can appeal to if you feel you've been wrongly fired which has a reputation for siding with employees against employers, and of course free government provided healthcare. If a company here is feeling 'nice' it will offer things like flexible working hours, or 10 sick days per year, or 5 weeks annual leave, or flexibility with regard to taking unpaid leave, or (obviously) high salaries... but not firing workers on a whim isn't up to the benevolence/malevolence of the individual company and workers are protected by law on that front.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, look, Dimbulb is ignorantly bashing the US again.

There's nothing wrong with US employment law, because no employer should have to put up with a worker who decides to blow-off work for a day and leave the business shorthanded. These employees quite clearly intended to stick it to the "man" by demonstrating how valuable they were to the proper functioning of business. Well, it seems they made their point, because their employers decided they weren't very valuable at all. So mission accomplished!

At my work, if you don't show up for work you better be in the hospital or dead. At least these guys won't face charges.

[Darth Executor]

US employers have the legal ability to fire employees if they feel like it.

No they don't and giving blanket protections to workers regardless of how they behave is just as bad.

[Mountain Man]

I like how Dimbulb acts like it's some moral evil for employers to actually expect their employees to show up for work and to hold them accountable when they don't. The guy really is delusional.

[Sparko]

US employers have the legal ability to fire employees if they feel like it. I am saying that is not a legal right they should have. Your explanation that "most companies are understanding" is beside the point because the law should protect employees from bad bosses who are not "understanding" and not leave it up to the whims of the employer.

not exactly. they cant fire them for race, age, and so on. However, it is only fair that they can hire and fire whoever they want. it is their company. It is the same in every capitalist country in the world, including new. zealand. and on the flip side employees can quit their job anytime they want to without any notice. It is a free country.

Instead of employees having to rely on being part of a union to have rights, or having to work for a company that is 'understanding' or 'gives good benefits' to be treated well, the government should protect all employees by laying out standards. For example, here all employees by law get: 4 weeks annual leave, 11 public holidays, 5 sick days per year that accumulate, 52 weeks parental leave, a minimum wage of currently ~$11 USD per hour, and legal protections against being fired for anything short of a really good reason (there is a process the company has to go to by issuing a series of written warnings for misconduct) and a government committee you can appeal to if you feel you've been wrongly fired which has a reputation for siding with employees against employers, and of course free government provided healthcare. If a company here is feeling 'nice' it will offer things like flexible working hours, or 10 sick days per year, or 5 weeks annual leave, or flexibility with regard to taking unpaid leave, or (obviously) high salaries... but not firing workers on a whim isn't up to the benevolence/malevolence of the individual company and workers are protected by law on that front.

I dont think I am going to take your word on all that, you have exaggerated in the past about conditions in NZ and Raphael has corrected you.

but in a free market where people can quit and go work elsewhere, companies that treat their employees badly dont stay in business. The are competing with other businesses and that fosters a market where they each try to outdo each other with perks and benefits to get and keep workers. It does a company no good to treat their workers,like trash.

[Starlight]

However, it is only fair that they can hire and fire whoever they want. it is their company. It is the same in every capitalist country in the world, including new. zealand. and on the flip side employees can quit their job anytime they want to without any notice. It is a free country.

Eh? Didn't you read what I just wrote. There are more rules here than in America about hiring and firing. Employees generally are required in their contracts to give 1 months notice of quitting, but that is up to the employer with how they write the job contract. But generally, no, they can't quit their job without any notice like you claim.

I dont think I am going to take your word on all that, you have exaggerated in the past about conditions in NZ and Raphael has corrected you.

Fine read the government website that lays it out in a table for you.

but in a free market where people can quit and go work elsewhere, companies that treat their employees badly dont stay in business. The are competing with other businesses and that fosters a market where they each try to outdo each other with perks and benefits to get and keep workers. It does a company no good to treat their workers,like trash.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in practice, and it is why unions throughout the 20th century had to fight for more rights for their workers, because the companies were treating their workers like trash as much as they could get away with.

[Sparko]

Eh? Didn't you read what I just wrote. There are more rules here than in America about hiring and firing. Employees generally are required in their contracts to give 1 months notice of quitting, but that is up to the employer with how they write the job contract. But generally, no, they can't quit their job without any notice like you claim. Fine read the government website that lays it out in a table for you.

funny that page says nothing about not being able to fire someone without notice, nor anything about not being able to quit without notice.

I did find this on a sub page:

Summary dismissal

Summary dismissal is when an employee is dismissed without notice. This means they are not:

able to work out their notice period
paid out for their notice period.

An employee may be summarily dismissed if, after a fair investigation and disciplinary process, they are found guilty of serious misconduct. This is conduct that deeply impairs or is destructive of the relationship of trust and confidence.

It is not necessary to have a specific clause in the employment agreement for a summary dismissal to be an option in the event of serious misconduct. If there is a clause, it will make the decision for a summarily dismissal more reasonable, provided the employer has followed proper process.

so they can dismiss without notice for serious misconduct or if they did something that was in their contract.

still nothing about the employee not being able to quit without notice.

Sounds to me that it is similar to America where if you have a contract, then you can have more rights than if you work without a contract. Also if a company has a written policy on how they handle problems, then they have to legally abide by it, and treat all employees the same. They can
funny that page says nothing about not being able to fire someone without notice, nor anything about not being able to quit without notice.

many jobs in America ask the employees for 2 weeks notice when quitting, but there is no way to enforce it unless they put it in a contract (salary employees). It is not a federal law. but if they dont give notice they could be given a bad review when contacted by any new potential employers.

and if you are fired for something you consider unfair you can sue the company or report them to the Dept of Labor.

[Jedidiah]

At least some of those fired were specifically warned.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...grants-n722991

[Raphael]

funny that page says nothing about not being able to fire someone without notice, nor anything about not being able to quit without notice.

I did find this on a sub page:


so they can dismiss without notice for serious misconduct or if they did something that was in their contract.

still nothing about the employee not being able to quit without notice.

Sounds to me that it is similar to America where if you have a contract, then you can have more rights than if you work without a contract. Also if a company has a written policy on how they handle problems, then they have to legally abide by it, and treat all employees the same. They can
funny that page says nothing about not being able to fire someone without notice, nor anything about not being able to quit without notice.

many jobs in America ask the employees for 2 weeks notice when quitting, but there is no way to enforce it unless they put it in a contract (salary employees). It is not a federal law. but if they dont give notice they could be given a bad review when contacted by any new potential employers.

and if you are fired for something you consider unfair you can sue the company or report them to the Dept of Labor.

Also, although it wouldn't apply in this case where it was a single day (but you would probably still get a warning) and they did give a reason. most contracts in NZ have clauses about Job Abandonment (i.e. typically 3 -5 days of not showing up to work with no explanation)
https://employment.govt.nz/ending-em...of-employment/

I do think a number of your labour laws in the US are somewhat bizarre.