"Irresistible" worker fired in Iowa

[Neil]

Martinus isn't wrong

You were doing so well, but then you just had to step on your own dick, didn't you?  Do you have a fear of success?

Have you read nothing of his life?   

There's a difference between drinking, fighting, crashing your car and having a weird thing for little, little women, and agreeing with Martinus.  The first group falls into the category of 'mistakes', whereas the second is a catastrophic gap in your ability to judge and reason.

[merithyn]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance - depending on whether he is just an underperformer or actually did something like coming to work drunk or stealing from the company, you either have to give him notice or can fire him without notice;

But this means that an employer can - and will - make something up if they dislike you personally. I'd much rather be fired due to a personality clash than poor performance. One reflects poorly on my work, the other on something that any number of people could end up in regardless of good work ethics, ability, etc.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So I guess he just had to divorce his wife or shut down his business?  Man no wonder nobody gets hired in Europe.

His marital problems have no bearing on the assessment of the contract between him and his employee - terminating it for reasons not connected with her work performance would be illegal here.

If he really wanted he could have reached a settlement with the employee so she left on her own.

Incidentally, this is being reported all over Europe as one of the "Americans are stupid" stories. I haven't seen a single comment supporting the judgement.

By and large, aside from like Montana, employment contracts in America are considered to be terminable at will by either party without any requirement to show specific cause. I fail to see how that's an "Americans are stupid issue." I know that you  know we have at will employment, and I'll even hazard to guess you can understand the basics of it. It's a societal choice that was made, perhaps better, perhaps worse, than the standards in Europe. But I don't see how it is "stupid" anymore than say, letting trade unions run all industry is stupid in countries like Germany. It seems more like a "societal preference" thing to me.

[dps]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance - depending on whether he is just an underperformer or actually did something like coming to work drunk or stealing from the company, you either have to give him notice or can fire him without notice;

But this means that an employer can - and will - make something up if they dislike you personally. I'd much rather be fired due to a personality clash than poor performance. One reflects poorly on my work, the other on something that any number of people could end up in regardless of good work ethics, ability, etc.

While that's true, in practice even in America few employers will admit to firing someone without good cause, because generally doing so impacts the amount the employer has to pay into the state unemployment insurance fund.  So while the boss might fire you simply because they dislike you personally, they'll almost always say that it was for poor job performance.

[Martinus]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance -

Who gets to make the call?

If there is a dispute, the court.

It's no different than, say, you hiring a guy to paint your flat and then him doing a lousy job. If you refuse to pay or want the price decreased but he insists on getting the full pay, you go to the court. 

[Martinus]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance - depending on whether he is just an underperformer or actually did something like coming to work drunk or stealing from the company, you either have to give him notice or can fire him without notice;

But this means that an employer can - and will - make something up if they dislike you personally. I'd much rather be fired due to a personality clash than poor performance. One reflects poorly on my work, the other on something that any number of people could end up in regardless of good work ethics, ability, etc.

Well, the bad performance must be documented. If the employee wants to challenge that and appeals to a labour court, the judge will want to examine the employee's dossier and any evidence of the employee's poor performance. If the employer cannot prove that the employee was badly performing his job, the employee will either get reinstated or get compensation (reinstating is usually reserved for bigger organisations, where the employer-employee relationship is less personal).

Of course, if there is a grey area and the employee is somewhat underperforming, the standard approach is for the employer to offer to terminate the employment by mutual agreement - this way the employer is not under a risk of being sued and the employee does not get a bad track record for any future employers.

[dps]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance -

Who gets to make the call?

If there is a dispute, the court.

It's no different than, say, you hiring a guy to paint your flat and then him doing a lousy job. If you refuse to pay or want the price decreased but he insists on getting the full pay, you go to the court. 

Actually, it is fairly different.  Unless the terminated employee has pretty convincing evidence that the firing was discriminatory, the courts are going to give the employer pretty wide latitude to fire people based on poor job performance in most American jurisdictions;  while in your example of a contractor suing to get his pay, the courts are usually going to rule that he has to be paid in full absent good evidence that the work wasn't done or was substantially substandard.

[dps]

- you can fire an employee for bad job performance - depending on whether he is just an underperformer or actually did something like coming to work drunk or stealing from the company, you either have to give him notice or can fire him without notice;

But this means that an employer can - and will - make something up if they dislike you personally. I'd much rather be fired due to a personality clash than poor performance. One reflects poorly on my work, the other on something that any number of people could end up in regardless of good work ethics, ability, etc.

Well, the bad performance must be documented. If the employee wants to challenge that and appeals to a labour court, the judge will want to examine the employee's dossier and any evidence of the employee's poor performance. If the employer cannot prove that the employee was badly performing his job, the employee will either get reinstated or get compensation (reinstating is usually reserved for bigger organisations, where the employer-employee relationship is less personal).

Of course, if there is a grey area and the employee is somewhat underperforming, the standard approach is for the employer to offer to terminate the employment by mutual agreement - this way the employer is not under a risk of being sued and the employee does not get a bad track record for any future employers.

All the employer really has to do is give the employee a couple of write-ups.  That's all the documentation they'll need (unless the employee has very good evidence that there was some sort of discrimination involved)--the courts don't want to get into ruling on whether or not someone's job performance was actually poor or not.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There is something of a catch-22 here.

In the USA you can get fired and nobody will think anything of it.

In Europe one receives substantial protections, but getting fired will carry a substantial stigma.

[Ideologue]

There is something of a catch-22 here.

In the USA you can get fired and nobody will think anything of it.

I am not very sure that's true.

[garbon]

I'd say not true at all.

[merithyn]

I'd say not true at all.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Admittedly I made it up........


.........but that being so it seems that you are getting a raw deal over in the USA???

[HVC]

It's not totally disregarded in canada, but I don't think it's as bad in Europe where it seems like you have to kill a coworker or something to get fired.

[merithyn]

Admittedly I made it up........


.........but that being so it seems that you are getting a raw deal over in the USA???

It can be difficult to get fired, regardless of the "at will" status of many states. Corporations don't want to be known as quick to pull the trigger on someone, and it's really not all that hard to sue a company for descrimination since there are so many options to choose from. Even if it wouldn't win in a court of law, companies are more likely to settle than to let it get that far. It's cheaper, in the long run.