If an employer is going to fire someone, there had damned well be good cause.

Wouldn't it be nice if corporations cared as much about their employees as much as they do about their bonus checks?

of discipline for workers for work rule infractrions.

If the workplace is organized, then the union has negotiated work place rights for the rank and file.

I think it boils down to encouraging unionization of most private sector workers and that starts with the card check(EFCA I believe) system of unionization - which Obama promised but did not make an effort on - and an overhaul of the NLRB.

14(b) of Taft-Hartley needs to be repealed. RepubliKKKan Right-To-Work(right to starve really) needs to be made illegal and secondary boycotts need to become legal once again.

and against full repeal of Taft-Hartley. I favor repealing the ban on secondary strikes, but I don't favor making right-to-work laws illegal. Each state has the ability to repeal those laws on their own, if they choose to do so.

I apologize but I do have two cents to add:

I think disabled people should also be allowed to work any job they might be able to do WITHOUT PENALTY. I.E. vets who are service connected and non service connected.

AND one injustice that I've been trying and trying to bring to light- the means-testing of veterans on V.A. pension. Not even that vets family or spouse is allowed to work or the V.A. reduces, dollar for dollar his pension. Thats dirty and low down. I've seen vets and their spouses have to get divorced to survive and I knew of one man--70 years old--committed suicide so the V.A. wouldn't take the car or house.


Happy fkg Veterans Day....

Then yes, it is means tested, because it is specifically meant for low-income veterans. It has no relationship whatsoever to the VA disability pension, which has no means testing whatsoever.

But employers should be able to lay employees off if they need to do so in order to keep the business afloat. I'm not in favor of mandating that employers/owners open their books to the government every time they face a downturn in business and have to let employees go.

Employment where you exchange your time and talents for a salary and benefits is still something dependent on whether society has a need for your time/talent, whether that is a private or public sector "employer".

When I first started working for a multi-national company and had colleagues in other parts of the world, especially western Europe, I was a bit perplexed at their "notice" periods. That is probably because my experience in the American labor market was, absent a contract where RIFs were done according to a seniority system, any employer could lay you off or "fire" you for cause or without cause with no notification.

What I like about the notice period (usually 30 days but in some countries more) is (1) it gives the employee and his/her family notice that a layoff is coming (2) Employees have opportunities to seek other employment within the company (rarely much help but it is an option) and (3) Employees have time to begin to plan their job search (granted this isn't very good for the employer because the employee becomes less productive and may engage in unethical behavior around customer lists, IPR, etc.) and (4) Local, state and federal governments are aware the changes are coming.

It has always seemed one-sided to have an employer allowed to lay off or fire anyone at any time for cause or without cause with no notice. But most companies expect employees to give them at least 2 weeks notice or, in most companies, you forgo any unused vacation or other accrued benefits.

So a federal notice practice (not applicable to small businesses - suggest those under 50 employees) would make employers think and perhaps plan a little more, would make the transition a little more bearable for the employee and give government a forward look at upcoming reductions in force so as to plan for it.