The "Blame France First Crowd"
It's been many weeks since I updated this site, as my research and coursework has demanded more than 50 hours of my time per week, and I am still unable to finish all that I need to. Therefore, I can no longer maintain my weekly updates, but I will continue to update whenever I have the time.
This week, O'Reilly's column deals with France, and the protests of a new law that would allow French companies to fire employees without cause within the first two years on the job [link]. O'Reilly just flat out lies in his column this week by saying the opposite. He says that the proposal would only allow companies to fire employees "with cause," which is simply not true. For that, he has already earned a 100% Crap rating.
In this country, unless unions are involved, nearly all employment is essentially "at will." The company can fire you whenever they want without any reason. For every job that I have had, other than my union grocery bagging job when I was 15, the fine print on the application indicates that signing acknowledges that I understand that this is an "at will" position, and the employer can fire me at any time without cause.
O'Reilly claims that anyone who thinks we should do something about "income inequality" is just trying to restrict the freedom of companies to make a profit. He claims that a well compensated working class will only lead to economic ruin.
It is clear to me that the opposite is true. A stable working class only leads to a strong, stable economy. The reason that we tend to have a serious recession every ten years or so in this country is because our economy is dependent on the rich absorbing more and more wealth from the lower class. Every decade, when the workers have no more money to give, the economy slows until the workers can get back on their feet economically, only to be robbed of all they are worth again for another ten years. Imagine trying to squeeze all of the water out of a sponge. If you keep squeezing, eventually water will stop coming out. The only way to get the water flowing again is to let the sponge expand a little bit, and then squeeze it again.
The protests in France are a symptom of a much larger, worldwide problem. Riots are hardly limited to Europe. There have been similar riots in this country, like in Los Angeles in 1992, but we have been quick to try to blame them on other things. The Rodney King verdict was only the spark. It was much more about poverty.
The only reason that France has been a victim of the riots more than the US is because the French don't believe, like we do in this country, that a company should be able to do what ever it wants, at the expense of the workers, for the sake of profit. The same would be happening here if Americans weren't so complacent about being exploited.
Rating - 100% Crap
This week, O'Reilly's column deals with France, and the protests of a new law that would allow French companies to fire employees without cause within the first two years on the job [link]. O'Reilly just flat out lies in his column this week by saying the opposite. He says that the proposal would only allow companies to fire employees "with cause," which is simply not true. For that, he has already earned a 100% Crap rating.
In this country, unless unions are involved, nearly all employment is essentially "at will." The company can fire you whenever they want without any reason. For every job that I have had, other than my union grocery bagging job when I was 15, the fine print on the application indicates that signing acknowledges that I understand that this is an "at will" position, and the employer can fire me at any time without cause.
O'Reilly claims that anyone who thinks we should do something about "income inequality" is just trying to restrict the freedom of companies to make a profit. He claims that a well compensated working class will only lead to economic ruin.
It is clear to me that the opposite is true. A stable working class only leads to a strong, stable economy. The reason that we tend to have a serious recession every ten years or so in this country is because our economy is dependent on the rich absorbing more and more wealth from the lower class. Every decade, when the workers have no more money to give, the economy slows until the workers can get back on their feet economically, only to be robbed of all they are worth again for another ten years. Imagine trying to squeeze all of the water out of a sponge. If you keep squeezing, eventually water will stop coming out. The only way to get the water flowing again is to let the sponge expand a little bit, and then squeeze it again.
The protests in France are a symptom of a much larger, worldwide problem. Riots are hardly limited to Europe. There have been similar riots in this country, like in Los Angeles in 1992, but we have been quick to try to blame them on other things. The Rodney King verdict was only the spark. It was much more about poverty.
The only reason that France has been a victim of the riots more than the US is because the French don't believe, like we do in this country, that a company should be able to do what ever it wants, at the expense of the workers, for the sake of profit. The same would be happening here if Americans weren't so complacent about being exploited.
Rating - 100% Crap
posted by Immoral Majority at 7:27 AM
2 Comments:
I am sorry, but I believe you are wrong. My understanding is, at least in California, is that it takes a good bit to be fired. In order to fire someone, there needs to be a history. The history can be warnings, reprimands, the like. If no history, then a SERIOUS violation of company rules had to take place.
A similar situation applies to someone who is layed off. It can not JUST happen without consequences. If a company lays someone off, they are not allowed to refill that same position for a certain amount of time after that event. I believe this is a couple of months or so.
Now, whether companies follow state rules or not, I am not sure.
However, an employee can leave at anytime for any reason.
These are all things that I understand to be true, from management-type people. I could be wrong of course, if I was lied to.
Thank you for your comments, both of you.
I live in Illinois, so state law may be different than in California, but as I state in my post, for all of the jobs that I have had, I had to sign a form officially acknoledging that I understood that employment was "at will" meaning that the employer could fire me at any time, with or without cause [link].
Admittably, though, I've never had a job that would be considered any sort of career.
Post a Comment
<< Home