Dozens fired after "Day with no Immigrants" protest

[Terraceth]

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

It's true they have the legal ability to fire someone at any time if someone is hired on that basis. However, not many jobs do that because, for obvious reasons, people aren't all that keen to sign up for a job they can lose at the drop of a hat. Almost all jobs do have fairly specific rules about what can actually get you fired and when they hire based on those rules they have to follow them. It is true that many jobs have a probationary period where you are considered at will employment, but once you're past that they have to be able to point to a specific rule you broke.

At any rate, none of the jobs I've worked at would fire you for missing one day of work unless you had some kind of previous mark on your record, which I strongly suspect would be the case for the people here who were fired. I doubt it's a matter of needing the company to be "understanding" and simply a matter of not being dumb enough to take a day off if you're at thin ice at your job already.

[Sparko]

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.

The federal gov controls parts of it but the states control the rest

For instance some states are right to work and others are not - which governs whether they can fire you without cause or not

But in this case they had cause either way

How does NZ handle downsizing and layoffs? I am sure they can at any time decide to lay a person or groups off if they decide they no longer need them, right?

[Raphael]

How does NZ handle downsizing and layoffs? I am sure they can at any time decide to lay a person or groups off if they decide they no longer need them, right?

With care. There has to be a consultation process whereby the affected employees are given a period to offer alternative suggestions.

Even if it is a foregone conclusion, until the consultation period (usually a week or two) concludes, the employer can't say "we've already decided we're getting rid of all of you." (that would put them on the wrong side of a wrongful dismissal case). They also have to allow staff to have a support person in on the meeting (a union rep, a family member, a friend, a lawyer etc.).

Once the consultation period is over, assuming there were now suggestions that could be implemented to save jobs (and this often does occur where someone has an idea that allows the business to save some jobs), then the reduncies kick in. You're entitled to any outstanding leave payouts, but the employer does not have to offer you a severance package unless one is specified in your contract (most don't offer one)

I went through this when our whole office was made redundant a couple of years back, so got clued up on the details.

[Sparko]

When you get laid off and even fired ( if the employer doesn't fight it) you get 6 months of unemployment benefits in the US - amount determined by the state

[Starlight]

When you get laid off and even fired ( if the employer doesn't fight it) you get 6 months of unemployment benefits in the US - amount determined by the state

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right? And that the rest of us generally regard the US lack of a proper social safety net as barbaric?

Don't confuse Raphael's comment that many employers here offer no redundancy pay-out, with any kind of statement that unemployed people get left to starve - of course the government pays them welfare benefits if they lack income due to being unemployed.

[Raphael]

When you get laid off and even fired ( if the employer doesn't fight it) you get 6 months of unemployment benefits in the US - amount determined by the state

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/ ours doesn't cut off after six months, but you have to be actively looking for employment.

[Mountain Man]

When you get laid off and even fired ( if the employer doesn't fight it) you get 6 months of unemployment benefits in the US - amount determined by the state

What's being lost here is that the best way to not be fired or laid off is to 1) Do the job you were hired to do; and 2) Prove yourself to be an asset to the company.

[stfoskey15]

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.

But it seems like workers in New Zealand have better benefits than the average American worker, so...

[Starlight]

But it seems like workers in New Zealand have better benefits than the average American worker, so...

The way I like to think of it is that we used to have lots of unions who would negotiate these things with the employers, so that both parties had reasonable input and rights. But that was pretty inefficient, and took lots of time and energy. So the took what 'most employers had agreed upon with their unions' and simply made it law and it applies to everyone. Everyone knows where they stand and what the rules are and everyone can just get on with working without wasting time arguing over whether workers have basic rights.

There is still room for political debate around the margins. For example, our current right-wing government introduced a controversial '90-day trial period' where the employer can write into the contract that they have the ability to dismiss the employee without giving a reason within the first 90 days if they view the employee as unsatisfactory. The government argued that this would encourage employees to take risks by employing people who had dubious backgrounds (e.g. ex-criminals) who they weren't sure about and wouldn't have committed to without the 90-day dismissal ability.

I have come to believe there is still a place for unions with regard to the issue of income inequality (e.g. if the CEO and upper-management is minting money and the employees are on the minimum wage). But in general it just makes sense for me that the government lays out basic worker protections and that unions shouldn't have to haggle over those.


P.S. Speaking of employment rights, I see in Sweden, where they are already experimenting with a 6-hour working day aimed at achieving more productive work-hours and a better work-life balance, a politician has just suggested a policy of allowing paid breaks for sex and argued that it's a healthy activity which many couples don't get enough of and that during the day is a good time for it.

[Bill the Cat]

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right? And that the rest of us generally regard the US lack of a proper social safety net as barbaric?

Because we have people who use the "safety net" as a permanent hammock.

Don't confuse Raphael's comment that many employers here offer no redundancy pay-out, with any kind of statement that unemployed people get left to starve - of course the government pays them welfare benefits if they lack income due to being unemployed.

A side question... can you just up and quit, or are you required to continue working against your will for a period of time?

[Mountain Man]

Six-months should be sufficient, but the job market was so bad under Obama that a lot of people simply gave up looking for work (Obama had the worst labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter).

[lilpixieofterror]

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right? And that the rest of us generally regard the US lack of a proper social safety net as barbaric?

That's right. Apparently not having more than 6 months of unemployment benefits is 'barbaric', but allowing mothers to execute their own children isn't. Yet more evidence that your so twisted that you can't even think straight.

[Darth Executor]

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right?

No it doesn't. Stop making stuff up, I doubt you looked up a single country's unemployment benefits before running your mouth. In canada for example you can get them cut off well before 6 months, it depends on how long you worked for and the unemployment rate in your area.

[Mountain Man]

My next door neighbor sat on his front porch for 2-years while collecting unemployment. Of course he was gaming the system. In order to keep one's benefits, you have to make a "good faith effort" to look for a job, and my neighbor would deliberately apply at places he knew weren't hiring, or for positions for which he was clearly unqualified. Of course this technically met the requirement, so his benefits kept getting extended until they were finally cut off after 24-months. Funny thing is, he found a job within days of losing his handout.

The point is that there is no hard cut-off

[Sparko]

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right? And that the rest of us generally regard the US lack of a proper social safety net as barbaric?

Don't confuse Raphael's comment that many employers here offer no redundancy pay-out, with any kind of statement that unemployed people get left to starve - of course the government pays them welfare benefits if they lack income due to being unemployed.

unemployment lasts for 6 months normally but it can be extended under crisis. Obama extended it to a year during the recession. After that, they can apply for welfare.

The reason it cuts off is 1. It is Insurance that the employer and employee pay into. 2. it is supposed to incentivize people to get a new job instead of pretending while sitting on their butts.