Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2016 11:06:00 GMT -5
Understand.. so that makes it right? No, I think it's wrong. I've said many times that I think protections for labour in the US are far too light. I'm a Sanders kind of guy, you know. But I also know what the law is in the US . . . and it's not particularly labour-friendly. Hey, we Americans spell it, labor. Remember, you used to be one.
|
|
|
Post by tanbass on May 2, 2016 12:28:36 GMT -5
I always thought the labor laws were different from state to state. When I owned a business in NH, I could terminate any of my employees for whatever reason I wanted besides discrimination of course, and needed no further paperwork for the state. I have heard in MA, you have to have a trail of written warnings and paperwork to fire someone.
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 2, 2016 14:23:52 GMT -5
I always thought the labor laws were different from state to state. When I owned a business in NH, I could terminate any of my employees for whatever reason I wanted besides discrimination of course, and needed no further paperwork for the state. I have heard in MA, you have to have a trail of written warnings and paperwork to fire someone. This is right. Different states have different state laws that sometimes provide a bit more protection than federal law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 5:12:58 GMT -5
I always thought the labor laws were different from state to state. When I owned a business in NH, I could terminate any of my employees for whatever reason I wanted besides discrimination of course, and needed no further paperwork for the state. I have heard in MA, you have to have a trail of written warnings and paperwork to fire someone. The more liberal the state the more apt they are to have some extra protection, but the vast majority of states do allow for considerable recourse against malicious termination. The unemployment compensation system in most states also is a deterrent to employers canning people upon a whim as they must show their termination was just at a hearing or they end up paying on a claim while the former employee gives them nothing in return. The trail of warnings are termed "progressive discipline" and such a trail is often needed at an unemployment hearing and could be a significant factor in a lawsuit. An employer certainly has a better case whenever they can show an employee was warned a number of times before the termination occurred. Of course, with a union the protections are usually much more formidable for an employee and from personal experience I can tell you they are sometimes ridiculously applied. I can recall a number of strenuous defenses of persons that clearly deserved to be terminated, at the expense of other more deserving issues. Many companies have simply moved to avoid overbearing union memberships that have viciously protected the worst of the worst employees.
|
|