NationStates

Proposal aims to ban At-Will Termination of employees, a despicable practice that fails to give workers' any sort of guaranteed stability, even if they execute their duties in their work to the best of their abilities. This proposal serves to reduce strain on government benefit systems by reducing the amount of terminations, improving mental health by providing stability to all workers, and creates a fairer system across the board.

Prohibition of At-Will Termination
Category: Regulation - Area: Labour Rights

Acknowledging that there may be legitimate reasons to terminate an employee,

Realizing that, in some jurisdictions, at-will termination allows an employer to dismiss an employee for any reason,

Determined to continue improving workers’ rights and stability,

Hereby,

Defines “at-will termination”, for the purposes of this resolution, as an agreement between an employee and employer that the employer may terminate the employment relationship at anytime for any or no reason, with no notice, and no liability for lost compensation or damages,

Bans the practice of at-will termination, with the following exceptions;

- The employee agreed to be employed in a seasonal or temporary capacity,

- The employee was employed under a temporary and reasonable probationary period,

- The employer can demonstrate that the employee failed to meet the reasonable expectations of the employer, as presented in an ‘employee handbook’ or other employment-related materials,

- The employer can demonstrate they are operating at a loss,

Requires employers to provide reasonable notice to an employee prior to their termination, or to provide compensation equal to which would had been received had reasonable notice been given, upon termination.

This is a good effort, but has a long way ahead.

"At-will termination" should be defined, as the employer would never terminate an employment for a solely arbitrary reason. Contracts are terminated for some economic reason and gain of the company, that in itself is fine. What needs to be limited is when the interests of the company unjustly outweigh employee's interests in that equation.

This resolution should also specify to what form of employment does it refer to, not all employees have a permanent job.

"Opposed. At-will employment, while in need of certain protections, is nonetheless an efficient and useful method of ensuring both employees and employers maximize their ability to choose."

I think legislation in this area could be very interesting, although I'm not sure I could support this in principle given that there are some virtues of at-will employment. It definitely promotes capitalist enterprise but it also promotes hiring and greater overall employment rates by avoiding expensive legal costs associated with hiring the wrong person, especially for smaller businesses. For example, a house painter may not take on an employee at all if forced into a dilemma where they must either pay a lawyer to ensure compliance with these notice and "full list of fireable offenses" provisions or else be stuck with a bad employee if they hire the wrong person.

Cosmosplosion wrote:Prohibits the practice of at-will termination,

You will need a definition for this, I think. Although you seem to already have one in mind: "a despicable practice that fails to give workers' any sort of guaranteed stability, even if they execute their duties in their work to the best of their abilities."

Cosmosplosion wrote:Requires employers to provide a detailed, full list of potential reasons an employee may be terminated upon an employees hiring,

Question: could the "detailed, full list of potential reasons" include "failure to meet the general expectations of employer," and "employer's decision to temporarily scale back operations" and "employer's discovery of a better qualified candidate, in the opinion of employer"?

If not, why exactly?

Cosmosplosion wrote:Further requires employers to provide reasonable notice to an employee prior to their termination, unless they present a clear danger to others through their actions.

Don't have a problem with this at all.

Anyway, an exception for small employers and seasonal, temporary occupations might go a long way toward winning my support.

I have updated the proposal and I believe I have addressed all of the concerns as well as I can.

Phantomson vehemently announces, “When an employee begins to work somewhere, they should read the employers’ rules and stipulations.” He continues, “Workers ought not to work somewhere when they are aware that the termination of their employment could begin at an instance, and the World Assembly ought not to control employee/employer relationships, with the only exception being for the safety and security of either party.” Finally, without much effort, Phantomson notes, “We are against this proposal.”

OOC: The AoE is “Labor Rights”. “Workers’ Rights” isn’t an AoE.

Terttia wrote:Phantomson vehemently announces, “When an employee begins to work somewhere, they should read the employers’ rules and stipulations.” He continues, “Workers ought not to work somewhere when they are aware that the termination of their employment could begin at an instance, and the World Assembly ought not to control employee/employer relationships, with the only exception being for the safety and security of either party.” Finally, without much effort, Phantomson notes, “We are against this proposal.”

OOC: The AoE is “Labor Rights”. “Workers’ Rights” isn’t an AoE.

"Well, Ambassador, often times workers do not have a choice in where they work, not in the sense that they are required to work at a specific place, but they are only qualified for a specific industry or lack the necessary education to pursue a job with greater protections. Often, workers are forced into toxic work environments, as a means to provide for themselves and their families. We are seeking to level the playing field, and give workers a fair shot anywhere they go.

All an employee has to do, in some jurisdictions, is not be liked by an employer and they can be terminated. It does not have to be for financial reasons, it does not have to be in the "best" interests of an employer. Any, or no reason whatsoever. That's not right.

Further, employers expect employees to give them notice in most areas before leaving the company, what is wrong with making employers do the same?"

"It looks like you just banned layoffs. You'd be better served to ban the premise of continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration for altering employment contracts."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"It looks like you just banned layoffs. You'd be better served to ban the premise of continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration for altering employment contracts."

"The proposal as currently written allows employers to place new employees under a temporary and reasonable probationary period upon hiring. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, this proposal already does what you are asking."

How to make it that very few get hired for non-temporary positions 101.

Cosmosplosion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"It looks like you just banned layoffs. You'd be better served to ban the premise of continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration for altering employment contracts."

"The proposal as currently written allows employers to place new employees under a temporary and reasonable probationary period upon hiring. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, this proposal already does what you are asking."

"You are misunderstanding me. Which is concerning from an employment law perspective. Also, layoffs have nothing to do with probationary periods."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"You are misunderstanding me. Which is concerning from an employment law perspective. Also, layoffs have nothing to do with probationary periods."

"Especially in the case of layoffs, which are most common in cases of downsizing a department or company, a reasonable notice period is hardly too much to ask for. After all, decisions like that aren't made on the fly, but after economic consideration. As such the City and Republic of Greifenburg will support this proposal, as workers should be given the chance to look for other job opportunities in a timely manner."

Schreiner reads through the proposal again.

"Though, I would welcome an inclusion of the reasons as to why a notice period is necessary. Perhaps mention the impact of at-will terminations on the affected workers. I'm certain it would help delivering the importance of this proposal."

Greifenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"You are misunderstanding me. Which is concerning from an employment law perspective. Also, layoffs have nothing to do with probationary periods."

"Especially in the case of layoffs, which are most common in cases of downsizing a department or company, a reasonable notice period is hardly too much to ask for. After all, decisions like that aren't made on the fly, but after economic consideration. As such the City and Republic of Greifenburg will support this proposal, as workers should be given the chance to look for other job opportunities in a timely manner."

Schreiner reads through the proposal again.

"Though, I would welcome an inclusion of the reasons as to why a notice period is necessary. Perhaps mention the impact of at-will terminations on the affected workers. I'm certain it would help delivering the importance of this proposal."

"Reducing overhead is often necessary as an immediate measure. Further, with warning, you are less likely to get adequate work out of employees, and even run the risk of sabotage out of a perception of revenge. As though a layoff is personal. Economic consideration, while not 'on the fly' nonetheless can be swift."

OOC: Looking at the title, I thought this was an abortion thread. Maybe change it to something more apt, like "Ban on At-Will Employment Termination"?

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reducing overhead is often necessary as an immediate measure. Further, with warning, you are less likely to get adequate work out of employees, and even run the risk of sabotage out of a perception of revenge. As though a layoff is personal. Economic consideration, while not 'on the fly' nonetheless can be swift."

"If immediate termination is required to a level where it is necessary, to the point where the company itself is at risk if not done otherwise, then it is a failure of management, and not of the worker. As such I don't see your point in that regard. Shifting the economic risk from the company to the workers, potentially not only affecting their livelyhood but also their health, and the willful shifting of costs from the company to the government and taxpayers, if a welfare system dealing with unemployment is in place, is nothing short of unethical. Not to mention that at-will employment is all to easily abused as a tool to induct fear in your workforce.

Also, if a company gets to the point where they have to fear retribution from layed off personal, maybe said company should reconsider its approach on how it treats its employees in general. You would be amazed just how well you can work with people if you, well, actually start to work WITH people, and not try to make it a us versus them situation."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Looking at the title, I thought this was an abortion thread. Maybe change it to something more apt, like "Ban on At-Will Employment Termination"?

OOC
And I thought that it would restrict voluntary euthanasia...

Cosmosplosion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"It looks like you just banned layoffs. You'd be better served to ban the premise of continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration for altering employment contracts."

"The proposal as currently written allows employers to place new employees under a temporary and reasonable probationary period upon hiring. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, this proposal already does what you are asking."

I appreciate the changes made so far. I encourage you to continue and will likely have more advice. For now I would just recommend listening to what others have said and trying to ensure that reasonable points are addressed in the draft. I believe there probably is a way to outlaw some of the great evils of at-will termination without kneecaping the economies of member nations or (more importantly) substantially disadvantaging small businesses. What you have proposed so far would probably work well for large employers in good times. But small employers and bad times probably need some consideration here.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reducing overhead is often necessary as an immediate measure. Further, with warning, you are less likely to get adequate work out of employees, and even run the risk of sabotage out of a perception of revenge. As though a layoff is personal. Economic consideration, while not 'on the fly' nonetheless can be swift."

The proposal at present requires only "reasonable notice" which is a flexible standard that can adapt to circumstantial needs. In non-emergency situations, reasonable notice might mean something different than in an emergency situation where the employer has to cease operations immediately. In the later case, reasonable notice could mean nothing more than informing the person over the phone that, due to the circumstances, they have been let go and should not come to work that day. Obviously, where there are circumstances suggesting a risk of sabotage reasonable notice might be a meeting with the manager right before you are escorted from the building (akin to a firing) but I would think that, most of the time, enough notice to allow the employee some time to avoid catastrophic impacts to their financial life would be appropriate for the majority of employees.

Bears Armed wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Looking at the title, I thought this was an abortion thread. Maybe change it to something more apt, like "Ban on At-Will Employment Termination"?

OOC
And I thought that it would restrict voluntary euthanasia...

OOC And I thought it banned going back in time and killing..... okay never mind that was funnier in my head than it is here. Anywhooooo..... agreed on changing the title so carry on.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
And I thought that it would restrict voluntary euthanasia...

OOC: Same for me.

Greifenburg wrote:"If immediate termination is required to a level where it is necessary, to the point where the company itself is at risk if not done otherwise, then it is a failure of management, and not of the worker. As such I don't see your point in that regard.

"Bull hockey, ambassador. Decisions to fold up locations can, and sometimes are, made in a matter of days. Days that, one might note, the ordinary person might not consider sufficient notice for."

Shifting the economic risk from the company to the workers, potentially not only affecting their livelyhood but also their health, and the willful shifting of costs from the company to the government and taxpayers, if a welfare system dealing with unemployment is in place, is nothing short of unethical. Not to mention that at-will employment is all to easily abused as a tool to induct fear in your workforce.

"Shackling companies to structured notice systems with little regard for their ability to stay afloat is equally bad, ambassador. As is exposing them to increased risk from disgruntled employees. I am not arguing, as you insinuate, for no protections. I argue that the standard is unworkable for businesses with tight margins, for whom bad holidays may make the difference. Bars spring to mind."

Also, if a company gets to the point where they have to fear retribution from layed off personal, maybe said company should reconsider its approach on how it treats its employees in general. You would be amazed just how well you can work with people if you, well, actually start to work WITH people, and not try to make it a us versus them situation."

"Your premise that disgruntled employees vent frustration on an employer solely because of their treatment and not out of a perceived adversarial relationship is baffling and wrong."

The Yellow Monkey wrote:

Cosmosplosion wrote:"The proposal as currently written allows employers to place new employees under a temporary and reasonable probationary period upon hiring. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, this proposal already does what you are asking."

I appreciate the changes made so far. I encourage you to continue and will likely have more advice. For now I would just recommend listening to what others have said and trying to ensure that reasonable points are addressed in the draft. I believe there probably is a way to outlaw some of the great evils of at-will termination without kneecaping the economies of member nations or (more importantly) substantially disadvantaging small businesses. What you have proposed so far would probably work well for large employers in good times. But small employers and bad times probably need some consideration here.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reducing overhead is often necessary as an immediate measure. Further, with warning, you are less likely to get adequate work out of employees, and even run the risk of sabotage out of a perception of revenge. As though a layoff is personal. Economic consideration, while not 'on the fly' nonetheless can be swift."

The proposal at present requires only "reasonable notice" which is a flexible standard that can adapt to circumstantial needs. In non-emergency situations, reasonable notice might mean something different than in an emergency situation where the employer has to cease operations immediately. In the later case, reasonable notice could mean nothing more than informing the person over the phone that, due to the circumstances, they have been let go and should not come to work that day. Obviously, where there are circumstances suggesting a risk of sabotage reasonable notice might be a meeting with the manager right before you are escorted from the building (akin to a firing) but I would think that, most of the time, enough notice to allow the employee some time to avoid catastrophic impacts to their financial life would be appropriate for the majority of employees.

"I am, perhaps justifiably, concerned that what is reasonable to an employer in an emergency is not reasonable to the reasonable ordinary person on the street who lacks business acumen or information."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I am, perhaps justifiably, concerned that what is reasonable to an employer in an emergency is not reasonable to the reasonable ordinary person on the street who lacks business acumen or information."

Reasonableness is an objective standard of evaluating what action is appropriate under the circumstances. It is dictated by the laws of logic, not subjective whims. Of course, our perspective may affect whether we can perceive the reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of a position, but that's a problem of our perspective and not the standard. The rabbit may not see a hawk from inside his burrow, but the hawk may be there nonetheless. Heaven have mercy on the rabbit that ventures forth, convinced from his perspective that it is unreasonable to think a hawk may be about.

There is a virtue at play in this proposal aimed at improving the good of the many. I think with polish a resolution on this subject could be good law. I do agree with SP that, at present, this is too unbalanced. Surely, trying to extend reasonable protections to workers is a noble cause. But there are some employers who, either by their nature or because of their situation, may be in need of reasonable protection from these provisions. There is virtue also in protecting those folks, and not enough thought has yet been given to them.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Bull hockey, ambassador. Decisions to fold up locations can, and sometimes are, made in a matter of days. Days that, one might note, the ordinary person might not consider sufficient notice for."

"Ambassador, in this case I have to call bull hockey. In most cases, and I mean most cases, a location does not 'suddenly' become unprofitable or lacking sufficient work to require closure, but follows a longer term downwards trend. If management decides that it should ignore those problems for a long enough time, only to 'suddenly' realize that changes have to be made, then it is quite frankly managements problem, and shouldn't lead to indirect punishment of the workers."

"Shackling companies to structured notice systems with little regard for their ability to stay afloat is equally bad, ambassador. As is exposing them to increased risk from disgruntled employees. I am not arguing, as you insinuate, for no protections. I argue that the standard is unworkable for businesses with tight margins, for whom bad holidays may make the difference. Bars spring to mind."

"As I said, most companies do not go suddenly in a situation of existential risk. I am also not convinced that disgruntled, vindictive employees are the norm, except if all they get is a 'You're fired'. In such a case I can very well believe it, and can only say that this could have been handled better. As to the example of bars, even those tend not to go under within one holiday season. While I can agree that more volatile markets and sectors exist, those already have plenty of migitation mechanisms, from seasonal and time limited contracts, to part-time job offers, and I'm pretty sure that temporary work through agencies has not been made illegal through a resolution. I could be wrong about the last part though, at least I didn't find any."

"Your premise that disgruntled employees vent frustration on an employer solely because of their treatment and not out of a perceived adversarial relationship is baffling and wrong."

"Equally baffling is your conviction that employees percieve such a thing out of the sudden, as is the implication that workers apparently are volatile by nature. While I don't deny that such individuals exist, if it becomes a problem of such extent it is highly unlikely that the employer did not foster this, unbeknowingly or not."

Greifenburg wrote:"Ambassador, in this case I have to call bull hockey. In most cases, and I mean most cases, a location does not 'suddenly' become unprofitable or lacking sufficient work to require closure, but follows a longer term downwards trend. If management decides that it should ignore those problems for a long enough time, only to 'suddenly' realize that changes have to be made, then it is quite frankly managements problem, and shouldn't lead to indirect punishment of the workers."

"That there is a downward trend does not mean that the decision to cut costs is not one requiring rapid response. It isn't punishment, it is the nature of slim margins."

"As I said, most companies do not go suddenly in a situation of existential risk.

Ooc: before I went into law, a company I worked for closed its doors overnight because of a regulatory change. This is not unusual, especially for contractors who work in a dynamic industry like energy.

"I am also not convinced that disgruntled, vindictive employees are the norm, except if all they get is a 'You're fired'. In such a case I can very well believe it, and can only say that this could have been handled better.

"Believe it. One of the reason employers supervise the cleaning out of desks is to prevent theft of supplies, information, or, vindictive clearing out of work already done but not yet finalized."
Ooc: and in my case, it was with armed security due to the sensitivity of the information.

As to the example of bars, even those tend not to go under within one holiday season. While I can agree that more volatile markets and sectors exist, those already have plenty of migitation mechanisms, from seasonal and time limited contracts, to part-time job offers, and I'm pretty sure that temporary work through agencies has not been made illegal through a resolution. I could be wrong about the last part though, at least I didn't find any."

"I see you've never worked on a small farm."

"Equally baffling is your conviction that employees percieve such a thing out of the sudden, as is the implication that workers apparently are volatile by nature. While I don't deny that such individuals exist, if it becomes a problem of such extent it is highly unlikely that the employer did not foster this, unbeknowingly or not."

"Employees are people. People are volatile and petty. Assuming the best is poor planning."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"That there is a downward trend does not mean that the decision to cut costs is not one requiring rapid response. It isn't punishment, it is the nature of slim margins."

"Rapid response to a downward trend, I can understand that. One that requires immediate termination, not so much. That speaks of deep structural problems."

Ooc: before I went into law, a company I worked for closed its doors overnight because of a regulatory change. This is not unusual, especially for contractors who work in a dynamic industry like energy.

Ooc: I honestly don't know what to say, because regulatory changes normally don't come overnight. But even then, a company that genuinely goes out of business is hardly a good defense for at-will in general. On a side note, at-will employment is IRL pretty much exclusive to the US. That's probably why I simply can't buy into the whole 'Workers are evil and will try to screw you over if you give notice' argument on both ooc and ic level.

"Believe it. One of the reason employers supervise the cleaning out of desks is to prevent theft of supplies, information, or, vindictive clearing out of work already done but not yet finalized."
Ooc: and in my case, it was with armed security due to the sensitivity of the information.

"That might be the case in your country, I can't deny that. Fortunately, the average Greifenburger seems to know that cooperation beats antagonization, that you might want to come back to the old company at some point, or that your old boss might very well give a recommendation to hire you to your new boss."
OOC: Something like that is simply not the norm where I'm from.

"I see you've never worked on a small farm."

"You're right, I haven't. But I know that our farms do well enough with the mechanisms I mentioned before."

"Employees are people. People are volatile and petty. Assuming the best is poor planning."

"If that is indeed the state of your people, I weep and hope that the citizens of your country may become better people someday."