Fire you for little or no reason. 7

[Paul4Meep]

I live in the state of PA, and was curious whether or not anybody was aware of specific laws in PA (and other states, just out of curiosity). A friend and former co-worker was once telling me that a company is literally allowed to fire an employee for little or no reason. "You missed one day of work. YOU'RE FIRED!" "You were a minute late getting back from your break. YOU'RE FIRED!" "We don't like you and you smell. YOU'RE FIRED!"

Now, I thought there were labor laws and such that made it so that a company had to have cause to fire you. Not enough money (which is really more so a lay-off), gross incompetence, you do something really wrong, etc. I thought a company could get into legal trouble if they just up and fired you for little or no reason.

For example, if you called out sick for the first time ever in your two years working for a company, so they fire you, couldn't you seek legal action and wouldn't you almost definitely win?

 

[ChrisHunt]

A boss firing somebody for some trivial reason is a really dumb decision. It begs the question what other dumb decisions is (s)he making that could be affecting your future?

Time to dust off your CV...

-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd

 

[Dollie]

A boss firing somebody for some trivial reason is a really dumb decision. It begs the question what other dumb decisions is (s)he making that could be affecting your future?

How about being fired for eating a piece of pizza?

http://www.simplyfired.com/

//giggle//

(Careful with link, one woman wrote in to say she was fired for reading Simply Fired...)

 

[langleymass]

Remember the last time you got bad service in a restaurant? I bet you told at least ten different people.

A similar thing happens with bad employers.

 

[deputydoofy]

I think we're all getting fired for discussing this while at work.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/doofymusic

 

[zeitghost]

Go ahead: make my day...

 

[medic]

Firing an employee for little or no reason is what employers do when they know losing that employee won't hurt the company a bit. This is specially true when there is overpopulation of professionals capable of doing the employee's job.

On the other hand, an employee which is considered an asset to the company won't ever get fired (even if the employee commits grave misconduct) as long as the employee brings more revenue to the company and don't threaten to kill the employer. This kind of employee (as an asset to the company) is the kind that employers won't easily find in their lifetime. Of course, I was just trying to emphasize my point when I said 'grave misconduct'. But it could happen depending upon the level of importance of that employee to the company.

 

[arlems]

What you say Medic makes sense to me. It is a matter of production, results and value for the company or organization that the person is working in, that makes a difference. If the guy produces things of value for the company, then who gives a damn if he is downloading MP3 files to listen at music. Let's him have it. It might help the company or organization to give this person more freedom. It is matter of common sense, not blindfolded dictatorship. I have seen some guys who are so valuable due to their work in a business that they are given enough power to get the police guy in trouble for bothering him with stupid things. On the other hand, the guys who is not helping the business that much might get more restriction imposed on him.