This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am about to remove a statement that is supposedly supported by Alan Hyde's book, Working in Silicon Valley: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-Velocity Labor Market. While Hyde's book is certainly relevant to this page, it does not seem to support the statement that the ref is placed next to, which says this:
Although harsh upon employees, the doctrine of at-will employment is widely credited as one of the major factors behind the strength of the U.S. economy, and in particular, in making possible the success of Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur-friendly environment.
I do not have access to the book itself, but the Journal of High Technology Law says the following in its review of the book:
Mr. Hyde specifically states that the book is not a guide on how to re-create Silicon Valley’s distinctive labor structure elsewhere.
It seems that by necessity, Hyde's book does not proscribe economic policies and/or legal regimes that would promote the sort of thriving economy found in Silicon Valley; however, the current version of the page would lead one to believe otherwise. If anyone would like to reintroduce this statement, please provide clarification and/or qualification.
Update: I just committed the change. I will send an email to professor Hyde to get his opinion about this matter. -- Danielx ( talk) 08:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
However, as in a “traditional” labor market, regulation for the benefit of employees is a must and the “flexible” labor market creates further legal quandaries. Mr. Hyde acknowledges that public policy and legal intervention can provide “social safety nets” for workers involved in high-velocity labor markets. Flexibility attributed to fast paced developments in Silicon Valley does not excuse employers from providing traditional benefits, such as health insurance and pensions. He also recognizes that constant job changes make it that much more difficult to implement social protections for workers.
I edited the rather optomistic comment recognizing ICGFFD as supporting causes of action for wrongful termination based upon a breach of the covenant. Not true in all States recognizing this quasi-implied contract claim, and the trend line of the cases has been heading the other way.
Alltone
Alltone 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Hi all! Even is prohibited, At Will Employment is used to discriminate against minorities in United States. This American Law is a dangerous weapon that must be abolished.
Martín R. Rodríguez Oct. 9, 2006.
What a lie!
by Martin R. Rodriguez
All Rigths Reserved
What a lie! Twist your tongue!,
Open your mouth to declare,
This state has a marvelous labor law!,
This is a great right to work state. Oh Yeah!
What a lie! Twist your tongue!,
take their job,once again,without care,
it doesn't matter! fire them all!,
No concern! Cause dispair!
What a lie! Twist your tongue!,
Put your knife in their throat! who will care?,
Fire them all! none will ask: Is it fair?
This is a great right to fire state. Oh Yeah!
Dictionary definition at the moment. Does it stand a chance of being expanded.. the current content could be in-lined into homemaker which is the only place that links to it? Or is the term more general than a homemaking role? I ask partly because this term doesn't not exist in the UK?
Pete/Pcb21
(talk) 14:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Labor is not a commodity. First of all, it's not tangible, it's a service, which by many definitions would exclude it. Anyway, in the USA at least it's legally not a commodity. It's a little disheartening every time someone calls it a commodity. There is a significant difference between money in compensation and money derived through commerce. The most obvious being that workers do not incorporate themselves as businesses :-|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000017----000-.html
Labor is indeed considered an expendable commodity in much of the United States. The majority of states follow at-will employment, and even if discrimination has taken place, it is very difficult to prove, as lawyers in hardline at-will states are often reluctant to take on these cases. This is not likely to change anytime soon, with the decline of organized labor and the ascendancy of pro-management Republican policies since the 1980s.-- MarshallStack 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I changed the heading on the common law exceptions to eliminate the phrase about "swallowing the rule." I would argue that the common law exceptions are nowhere near the point of "swallowing the rule" in the United States. The vast majority of employment situations may be described by the general rule of employment at will (employer may discharge the employee "for good cause, for no cause, or even for bad cause"), subject to the very limited case law exceptions and of course the statutory exceptions as explained in the article. Famspear 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a speedy merger. — Markles 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
At will employment.....all employment is at will. There are ways to fire anyone regardless of any law that could be created. Any job worth the cost of fighting for already has a legal team who could keep litagation going much longer than any common person has money to contest it in court. Less taxpayer money should be spent, in this country, for issues like this. As far as screaming minority..... good luck ..... First you would have to cure all the components associated with fraud, lies, and dirty dealing. Any headway made to "right the wrongs" would be constantly knocked back to "beginning steps" by any number of people along the way. Besides who would be running the government then? Considering all the steps necessary to change any misjustice, we will still be screaming minority and misjustice in another 100 years. In answer to merging the topics....it would make the information easier to find for people on both sides of the equation. Cracks like the one about Alabama would help keep responces shorter. My SOAP BOX answer was necessitated by that glib comment. Radiologyinstructor 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Drenda Benn
Your wrong, dude. Several people in the US have successfully sued former employers for illegal firing. While being fired for being a protected class is difficult to prove, it can be done, and it has been done. When it is proven, plaintiffs can collect millions - yes, millions, of dollars in punitive damages. Besides, if you do it right, it costs you absolutely nothing to sue a company if you loose. How, you ask? It's called contingency-based attorneys. Cotingency-based attorneys operate on a "no recovery, no fee" basis, so if you loose, and thus get no recovery, you don't owe the lawyer a dime.
Please do your research before you come here and start running your big, fat, annoying, cocky, arrogant mouth. Pretty please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbin ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following statement:
"All U.S. states recognize retaliatory discharge as an exception to the at-will rule."
Since I could find no basis for it. IANAL, but the reference that I found specifically refuted retaliation as a cause of action unless it violated public policy or some statute. Feel free to re-add with citation. -- b4hand 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-No, you're 100% correct. An employer can fire you as punishment for anything that is not against public policy, such as turning in the company for a crime. And when I say "anything," I mean anything, as in they could fire you for, say, criticising one of their favorite politicians (freedom of speech does not extend to the private sector). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbin ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I put in the Wagner Act of 1935, and just because I know somebody has never heard of it and will want citation, I put it in there automatically. It was based on an academic journal called Managerial Law, but apparently, I got the HTML wrong, even though I copied and pasted the formula from the cite journal template. If someone could correct the HTML, I'd appreciate it.
I have to say I'm very impressed with this little page. And looking at the history it seems a really good example of a gradual build up, with a few different contributors. I wanted to ask, in the UK we have the requirement to give reasonable notice before a dismissal under s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or payment in lieu of notice. Everyone has a minimum of 1 week after 1 month, 2 weeks after 2 years, 3 weeks after 3 years, and so on till you get to 12. Anyone who is an "employee" is covered. And of course the contract itself can offer greater notice period. Am I right, this does not exist in the US (excluding the WARN Act)? Wik idea 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the section on "public policy exceptions" was singularly unhelpful. Isn't that just saying, "these states have a rule that, if they make a rule, the rule will apply"?
What kind of public policies give rise to an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.232.195 ( talk) 08:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
the section I marked as a copy vio is a clear copy paste it is word for word punctuation for punctuation the same as the source.-- 209.181.16.93 ( talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyrights and BLS Publications
* The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a Federal government agency and everything that we publish, both in hard copy and electronically, is in the public domain, except for previously copyrighted photographs and illustrations. You are free to use our public domain material without specific permission, although we do ask that you cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the source. * The public domain use of our materials includes linking to our website. You do not need to obtain special permission from the BLS to link to our site.
I removed the tag. Pjbflynn ( talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
A request for a (hopefully) simple fix: The red-state/blue-state graphics detailing which exceptions exist in which states are not clearly labeled as to which color represents the exceptions and which the norm.
I can infer that the blue states are probably the exception states from the fact that they tend to be in the minority, but I don't know this for a certainty. Could someone who does know please adjust the graphics or captions to make this information explicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholsonadam ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This passage that I added:
"Contrary to this, however, is recent research which shows that "[b]y every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s smallest small-business sectors (as a proportion of total national employment)." [1] This suggests a much less clear link between at-will employment and entrepreneurship."
should not have been removed. The reason given was "[It] DOES NOT DISCUSS EFFECTS OF AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT." However, the passage is directly related to the claim that at-will employment "is widely credited as one of the major factors behind the strength of the U.S. economy." Small business employment is often used as a proxy for entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship is being held up as a direct result of at-will employment ("at-will employment has been credited with making possible the success of Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur-friendly environment"). So it certainly discusses the effects of at-will employment - it questions whether it is having the supposed effect that this article states. Even if it did not, however, many other parts of this article do not discuss the effects of at-will employment and nor should they if that is not the aspect of at-will employment they are discussing (like its origins).
I kindly request that it be re-added.
Kriswarner ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, I would like to remind you that Civility is part of the Wikipedia Code of Conduct and one of its five pillars. Thank you! Maloot ( talk) 09:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Examining this talk page, I am unable to locate any current discussion of the reasons for the February 2012 POV notice placed in the intro. If there is a remaining concern over POV issues, please add a discussion of them here before simply placing the template on the article. Otherwise, it is every reader/editor's wild guess about what issue is perceived to exist, and no path exists to remedy the unknown POV concern. Memories of lost time ( talk) 18:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The article does clearly contain bias - stating that "employers are reluctant to hire employees if they become uncertain about their ability to immediately fire them" because of a paper by The Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank, is not NPOV. Maloot ( talk) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
By all means, contextualise this discussion as you wish. Of course sources can be biased, but I still think there is a neutrality problem here - I have made a minor edit for now, as a bit more searching around, and perhaps discussion, will be required before proper balance can be rendered. Maloot ( talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't accept any of that really unless you've got a lot more to back it up, though I thank you for it as it's quite revealing. Educated intellectuals? As opposed to uneducated ones? Hmmmmmmmm. As the article is specifically about a doctrine of US law, clearly the article needs to centre around debate within the USA. Wikipedia is not America though, and there's a way to capture all of this in a more NPOV manner. "What is NPOV" states that "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts" - yet your words above indicate an unwillingness to align with that. As a lawyer in North America, I can see how you are in a strong position to contribute to this article, but I would ask you to please accept that this is also a good reason why you shouldn't 'own' the article and thus should instead gracefully work with others who can help make the piece more neutral in tone. See 'Writing for the Opponent' - "Also, people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term or point of view, simply because it's the one commonly used or familiar to them. But English Wikipedia is a highly diverse and international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. Maintaining objectivity about the most personal or contentious subjects is new to most people, and many disputes over the terminology and phrasing can be resolved by simply balancing points of view (in proportion to their significance, of course)." Anglo-American focus is explicitly stated as contrary to NPOV. This article doesn't need a massive rewrite, it just needs a little recontextualisation - I suggest that we don't need to work against eachother here. Thank you
I am going to insert the POV tag whilst we discuss this - to be clear, I am stating that the tone and emphasis of the opening paragraphs are not NPOV. I think, long-term, I would suggest that this article can and should be opened-up to include international viewpoints (there was, about a year ago, policy discussions within government of having at-will employment in the UK), whilst still acknowledging that roots and history of the idea. Let's collaborate! Maloot ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been puzzling over the following paragraph and its relevance to at-will employment:
At-will employment, as explained in this very article, by definition allows the employer to terminate without reason. As the doctrine is applied in America, limitations on the right to terminate are exceptions to the at-will doctrine, and limit the employer's ability to terminate for "bad" reasons, not without reason. While the first sentence is undoubtedly true, closing an unprofitable factory for business-economic reasons--resulting in mass layoffs--is good cause even in (non-American) jurisdictions with strict worker protections and provided for under union contracts (which might impose severance benefits unavailable to at-will employees). As such, this makes no sense in context.
Going back over the page's history, this phrasing started out backwards. The second half was added by SimonP in March 2005 as part of a largely-reworked, and at the time uncited, explanation of at-will employment and exceptions:
Followed by this addition by Toytoy in April 2005:
On 13 Sept 2009, an anon {{fact}}-tagged this, and then Aboutmovies added the citation without explanation, discussion, or an excerpt to explain why this citation supports its premise, or how the premise relates to the subject or context of the article.
In Wikipedian fashion over the past seven years, these fragments escaped their context, reversed order, and no longer support the article, so I am removing it. NTK ( talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
A sentence read "On the one hand, the doctrine of at-will employment has been criticized for its harshness upon employees. Clyde W. Summers, Employment At Will in the United States: The Divine Right of Employers, 3 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 65 (2000)." Emphasis mine. I replaced the pov word "harshness," which may be from a rs. Nevertheless, it is overstatement at best. Tens of millions of workers spend a lifetime with an "at will" employment, not only in the US, but other countries, with no indication of "harshness." This is a pov selection of words by an author, whose intent is to trigger a reaction in the reader, and not to present facts in an objective manner. It is media-oriented. Student7 ( talk) 15:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me removing the NPOV notice posted in March? There hasn't been any discussion on the NPOV of this article since mid-March, more than two months ago. It would seem that there have also been edits since then that addressed the NPOV issues raised.
If someone wants to begin a new discussion about any NPOV issues with this article, then there's no reason to remove the template, but with no discussion for over two months and most of the issues seemingly having been addressed, I see no reason to leave the notice up.
I'll wait a bit before I remove the notice to give anyone who wants to begin a discussion regarding the NPOV of this article a chance to do so. -- Schaea ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)