In a Poll, 43% of Millennials in 36 Countries Say They Plan To Leave Their Jobs Within Two Years (qz.com) 228
A poll by Deloitte with more than 10,000 millennials across 36 countries found that 43% of them are planning to leave their jobs within two years, while only 28% are looking to stay beyond five years.
Job duration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do most jobs last more than two years in 2018? We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.
Employers can fire you at a moment's notice -- why should they expect more loyalty in return?
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do most jobs last more than two years in 2018? We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.
Employers can fire you at a moment's notice -- why should they expect more loyalty in return?
I only read the article summary, but if they're shit minimum wage/tipped jobs, one shithole is exactly the same as any other.
If they're "professional" jobs, some migration and grass is greener syndrome may figure in.
You're right about loyalty being a two way street though.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "grass is greener" syndrome it's that loyalty is no longer rewarded. It's better to leave a job within 18-30 months of getting it for a job at another company with the possibility of returning 18-30 months later for a much larger promotion than if you had stayed with the company.
My wife made the mistake of accepting more money to stay instead of leaving for a full time position. They jerked her around on contracts for 2 years , denying benefits/bonuses/etc. while repeatedly changing her job descr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame Millenials for adopting this attitude. It's a perfectly rational response to a warped market. Employers crying about it won't help.
Since the 80s companies have fostered this attitude as a result of their quarter focused results via "flexible" employees. When you can't count on your employer, you start looking out for yourself as number 1 if you're even semi-rational. After that switch in attitude, everything else just follows. The employers have no one to blame but themselves.
Re:Fight for $15 = mass layoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is how complex the economy is. You raise minimum wage to $15/hr and some people will get laid off, some people will have to work harder to compensate, but also cost of goods for those companies will also go up and those companies will start to charge more for products/services. Even top economists struggle to estimate how it will affect inflation, interest rates, and unemployment rate. As all these cogs start to turn it's beneficial to some and not beneficial to others. I'm not convinced it's mo
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Forget the sarcasm tag?
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there at the top:
"by 110010001000 ( 697113 )"
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's terrible. Do you not have proper employment laws in your country?
Are you sure the US hasn't already become one of those "shithole" countries that Mr Trump was speeching about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Job duration... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Job duration... (Score:4, Insightful)
America lacks proper laws, since the American employment system is a race to the bottom as far as vaca time and working hours.
But not pay. Americans earn more than any country in Europe except Norway (offshore oil) and Luxembourg (tax haven). They also keep more of what they earn.
This is "proper" since most Americans would rather earn more than have more time off.
If you want more time off, then ask your employer. But don't try to force your preferences on me.
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans earn more on average, but spend much more of it on healthcare and are at constant risk of bankruptcy from illness. Also, inequality between workers is way higher.
It's proper that society seeks to create the most collective happiness and good, while respecting fundamental rights. US society is just someone else's boot using your face as a step up.
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in France. From a colleague who worked in the US and came back to France doing the same job, he earned about 3 times more in the US. However, he spend about half of it for the various insurances needed to get to the same level of health and social care that we get "for free" in France.
So when it comes to work and money, he is 50% better off in the US. He is a competent developer.
It is anecdotal evidence but I think it reflects reality. In the US, you need to pay for your safety net, but earnings are, on average, high enough for you to afford it and keep some extra. What I find interesting however, is that even if we get better (and mandatory) protection from the state, we seem to be more into savings and less into debt. The "normal" way of thinking is save to buy, rather than buy first and pay back later. For instance, US-style credit cards are almost nonexistant (what we call credit cards are closer to what you call debit).
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Switzerland, and I can tell you the above is not correct.
Re: (Score:2)
This is "proper" since most Americans would rather earn more than have more time off.
If you want more time off, then ask your employer. But don't try to force your preferences on me.
Crazy people (in my opionion)
Re: (Score:2)
But don't try to force your preferences on me.
He says while trying to force his preferences on everyone else.
Do you know in London the pay is significantly higher than the rest of the UK, but that doesn't mean people flock to work there. It's because everything is more expensive and if they didn't most people who are less than managers (the ones doing all the work) couldn't afford to live or work there and its still a hard slog for those further from the bottom than you'd expect. Saying Americans get paid more on average just means they have more exp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your preference that people should be able to work 60 hrs a week for 2X or 30 hrs a week for X is no more valid than my preference that people should not be forced to work more than 30 hrs a week. However, they are mutually exclusive, because of the race to the bottom you quoted.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit it's worse than I thought. You actually can't see the logical conclusion to that lunacy?
Interferance (Score:2)
America has minimal government interference in transactions between consenting adults,
Except when it concerns what's going in the bedroom (sexual orientation, sex workers, etc.)
Then suddenly it's the government business to interfere legally as much as possible.
which is proper.
The idea behind the various European governments is to balance long term risk and costs.
The thing to which the adults might consenting could come with tons of long-term risk.
Health (both physical and mental) and safety risks, that the public healthcare system could end-up paying.
By putting some limitations on health and safety hazards,
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it is. Just tell your boss that you want as much vacation as a European, and also want to be paid as much as a European. He will be happy to oblige.
Which European? You really think that vacation time is the main factor between the difference in wages between the US and different European countries?
The Swiss make more on average per year than Americans (in PPP dollars the figure is almost the same, however I think after-tax wages are larger in Switzerland, it's a very low-tax country), yet they have European-style vacation time. The minimum vacation time in Switzerland is 4 weeks per year (many workplaces offer 5). In addition, Swiss males up to age 34
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you work for the wrong companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that in the US, "excellence" is defined as being used like a $20 whore and then discarded.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Interesting)
I said "excellent". No company would let an employee like that go. There would be no point. The problem with you people is you think everyone is "excellent".
Sure they would. If the "excellent" employee is being payed what they are worth, the company might decide that 2 mediocre employees could do the same job cheaper. Or maybe even farm it out to a bunch of barely passable contractors in Bangalore.
Re: (Score:3)
"Excellent" might be a stretch, but I am a pretty good employee, and my direct boss knows it.
Our problem is that the senior management that makes the actual decisions don't give a fuck about me or anyone else with the exception of the shareholders, so when they refuse me the pay rise I want, and I get a new job that pays the money I want, they will have to find a new person to fill my job which will actually cost them more money.
They might decide to not refill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies and their management end up being like the difference between my congressperson (he's fine, no reason to replace him), and Congress as a whole (what a bunch of chumps, throw the bums out!).
I may like my manager and respect him, yet be very dissatisfied with the policies of the corporation as a whole, which the managers do have some input in creating.
Particularly coming out of a recession where wages were stagnant, a company might be in a situation where many of their developers are underpaid relat
Re: (Score:2)
I said "excellent". No company would let an employee like that go. There would be no point. The problem with you people is you think everyone is "excellent".
Sure they would. If the "excellent" employee is being payed what they are worth, the company might decide that 2 mediocre employees could do the same job cheaper. Or maybe even farm it out to a bunch of barely passable contractors in Bangalore.
Yep, where I work I've seen plenty of experienced employees get replaced by interns. The experienced employee could get a lot of work done quickly but cost money, the intern cost much less but most produced almost no work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they would. If the "excellent" employee is being payed what they are worth, the company might decide that 2 mediocre employees could do the same job cheaper. Or maybe even farm it out to a bunch of barely passable contractors in Bangalore.
Every company from the highest of the high to the lowest of the low does this. I've seen it happen at Kmart, but probably the best example is Safeway. A few years ago my local store paid everyone who had retirement on the horizon a bonus to just go away, but I'm pretty sure this was more or less universal. Now I don't even bother to shop at my local one because a) most of them don't even know how to run a register and b) the ones that do are literally complaining about their job to me the whole time I'm the
Hey! They got a trophy! (Score:3)
> The problem with you people is you think everyone is "excellent".
Of course everyone is excellent. They all got the trophy, didn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
They will dispose of excellent employees as soon as they can hire 1.5 college grads to do the same work for the same money. At least, that's how some companies work.
Sadly if you want good money you often have to keep switching jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor correction:
They will dispose of excellent employees as soon as they can hire 1.5 college grads to do what they believe is the same work for the same money.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so happy for you that you are perfect. I wish I could be as perfect as you!
Re: (Score:2)
A company would never fire an excellent employee. They are way too hard to find.
With 2.4% unemployment across our whole economy, ANY employees are hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but don't expect your pay raises to reflect their appreciation of you. The reason job hopping is so popular these days is because that is the fastest way to increase your annual income. You can stay in your job and average a 3% raise every year for 10 years, or you can switch jobs every 2-3 years and negotiate a 20% increase over your previous salary each time. After 10 years you are looking at a difference of about a 35% pay increase for staying in your current job, or more than doubling your sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. There were contemporary news reports that had customers stating they stopped going to both stores due to the drop in customer service quality after the firings.
For many consumers, however, Circuit City's most obvious failing was its customer service. In March 2007, it announced plans to lay off its highest-paid hourly employees, including salespeople, and replace them with cheaper workers. That same year, then CEO Philip Schoonover received some $7 million in compensation. It may come as no surprise, then, that a quick Web search on "Circuit City complaints" brings up hundreds of thousands of entries.
From this story [time.com] from 2008. But, hey, you got to try to sound smart by looking up fallacies on wikipedia.
I screwed that up. Losing customers isn't always b (Score:2)
The article you linked to gives a long list of reasons that Circuit City failed.
Spending less on customer service staff (being more like Walmart and Amazon) may have been a mistake, or may have been a good idea. I learned the hard way, by screwing up my business, that losing customers isn't always a bad thing.
Suppose you have a business and you can make a decision which will save $1 million and lose 10,000 customers. Should you do it?
Think about your answer for a second, then consider these two related ques
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is not about customers, but sales, although they are largely interchangeable.
But you also have to keep in mind that you aren't just losing track of skilled workers, but also knowledge and experience. The lack of experienced employees can cause there to be a bottleneck for important skills proliferating.
While we can't know for sure, we do know that it aligns with the interests of shareholders and often CEO performance pay to get short-term profits. Cutting useful staff is a quick way to do
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer electronics industry, like Circuit City sold, has moved away from sales people.
Oh thank goodness, I have never had a good buying experience with a sales person. (Except in Japan, but that is wildly different).
Re: (Score:2)
Spending less on customer service staff (being more like Walmart and Amazon) may have been a mistake, or may have been a good idea. I learned the hard way, by screwing up my business, that losing customers isn't always a bad thing.
It's a bad thing for circuit shitty, which always depended on selling some crap which isn't actually worth what they're charging to people who don't know any better. A business like that depends on getting as many people through the doors and buying stuff as possible.
Walmart and Amazon show that a retailer can make a lot of money with while spending very little on sales staff.
That's a particularly interesting comparison since those two are currently locked in battle to be the masters of retail. I think Amazon is going to win, because floor space is becoming more and more of a liability. B&M stores typically don'
Could have been more like Fry's (Score:2)
> It's a bad thing for circuit shitty, which always depended on selling some crap which isn't actually worth what they're charging to people who don't know any better
Yeah their prices were high. One way they could have tried to survive would have been to reduce prices and costs. Be more like Fry's. Get rid of unnecessary expenses, such as commissioned sales people, who didn't actually know the product well, they knew how to sell crap to consumers who didn't know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the companies went out of business after firing talent does not mean that going out of business was the result of firing that talent. Circuit City was on a long downward spiral before they attempted to downsize/rightsize/cut costs.
Hmmm, my company is dying, how can I fix it? Eureka, I'll make it even shitter and that'll save it.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how much that is as chaotic as people keep claiming it to be.
Sure, when I started my career, I bounced around a bit between a good job at a company that failed, to a horrific job at a failing company, to an ok job but with little chance for advancement and I would ultimately have to leave the company to make more money, but within 6 months out of college, I got the job I've been in for the last 15 years...
I don't know how typical this is, but I remember going into the workforce all the dire warnin
Re:Job duration... (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here. Finished college in 2001 and kept the job I started as an intern in '97 through 2012. I only left because of a merger I didn't like the smell of. I've been at my current job doing roughly the same kind of work as the first one for five years. I suppose I could have a slightly higher salary if I jumped around more, but I don't know if I would be as happy.
Re:Job duration... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose I could have a slightly higher salary if I jumped around more, but I don't know if I would be as happy.
Unless your company is unusual, probably substantially higher but what you say is still correct. Moving up the career ladder beyond a certain point involves getting more responsibilities which means more pay, more hours and more stress. It definitely becomes a career you do as part of your life rather than a job, and it will eat more into your other time as a result. You certainly get less time to enjoy the more money you earn.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, I did entertain offers and got much higher offers, but thus far my current employer when faced with that has always counter-offered with even more money.
So you can even stay in one place *and* get substantial increases, but you have to get the offers to induce the counter offers.
Of course, I don't think those 'old days' stable employment were ever marked by big pay increases either.
Re:Job duration... (Score:4, Interesting)
We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.
This is a myth. Average job tenure is higher today. Some people had "jobs for life" back in the 1950s, but that was not common, and plenty of people worked as day laborers, or in short term work. This was especially true if you were not both white and male.
Also, productivity is higher in states and countries that have lower job tenure. Vibrant and flexible job markets mean unhappy people can easily go where they are more productive and cross pollinate their skills. One of the reasons for the success of Silicon Valley is California's ban on non-compete agreements, which makes both job hopping and recruiting easier.
Churn is good.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you went through more whiteout than anyone else in your history class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had the same SQA testing job from 2004 to 2015 until they laid me off. Before that, I was a contractor since 2002 for that company.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.
The time has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of 20-Lifers working in giant Fortune 500 companies just like the old days. What has changed is the expectation of the people, not the company. If the company keeps it interesting, fresh, remunerates well, and generally doesn't mistreat you then there may be no reason to change.
I bucked the trend in my generation. I've worked at the same company for 10 years. In 6 very different roles for very different departments. In 4 different countries around the wor
Re: (Score:2)
Lasted 9.5 years at my last job, could have stayed longer but an opportunity finally came along that was enough better to get me to move (~40% bump in pay when looking at total compensation package, and I was already well compensated). Been at the new job 2.5 years and I'm still considered one of the new guys, not a month goes by without someone celebrating a 20,25,30 year anniversary. So yes, jobs do still last more than 2 year in 2018. In fact any company not retaining employees for >24 months is serio
Re: (Score:2)
And there are benefits to staying. As a hiring manager I don't like to see resume's where someone is moving every 12 or 18 months. I expect that it takes you at least a year to fully understand the codebase, the product, and the processes, and if you leave in 18 months from my point of you were just getting good at your job. And 401k vesting is usually on a 3-4 year schedule, so you are leaving money behind if you leave before being fully vested. And vacation goes up - I once had a job where after 20 ye
Er mah gerd... (Score:5, Insightful)
...after decades of eliminating long-term employees, companies face employees that do not plan on staying with them!
Can you imagine that?
Re:Er mah gerd... (Score:5, Funny)
But you’re supposed to give corporations unrequited loyalty and like it. How dare you expect corporations to have any loyalty to their employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies haven't eliminated long-term employees. They've eliminated old employees. Generally the younger generation have nothing to fear... and the older generation have nothing to fall back on.
It's 2018 (Score:2)
Most millennials will still be flipping burgers.
Too wording dependent. (Score:3)
I work in recruitment for engineers in the civil infrastructure space. There are plenty of millennials in that pool.
That % is going to very much depend on how the question is worded. I would argue that most people don't have a 2 year plan, let alone a 5 year plan. When I approach someone and try to tempt them with a new job I get about 10% of people that are genuinely interested in looking at a new role and I don't see much variation based on age range. But this is not them deciding to look for a new role, that is me trying to poach them.
My clients see turnover rates of about 12% - 15% per year, a turnover of over 20% per year would be a sign of significant internal culture issues. Obviously this is a self selecting set of high income high education worker and will not represent the entire market by any means.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd really like to see what a similar poll of non-millennials would end up showing.
I'm way, way out of the "millennial" group - as are most of my co-workers and friends. But a significant percentage of people in my circle claim they are "looking"... and this is nothing new. Most of them will still be in the same job five years down the road, regardless of their stated intentions now - and they'll still be saying then that they're just about ready to leave, any day now.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously this is a self selecting set of high income high education worker and will not represent the entire market by any means.
As a reminder, this survey polled millennials across 36 countries.
Re: (Score:2)
My clients are a self selecting set.
Companies don't give raises (Score:5, Insightful)
Any pretense of a "social contract" is gone. What I don't understand is why folks don't all get behind Bernie Sanders' New New Deal. It's about time to hammer out a new contract since the ruling class reneged on the old one. And while we're at it we might as well take more for the working class this time.
Re: (Score:3)
Because explaining that the problem is complex and needs a longer term solution is less effective than chanting "build that wall".
Re: (Score:2)
So the only way to get ahead is to use your current job as a spring board into something better.
This has been the case forever. If you're not doing this, you're doing it wrong. When you're looking for a job, you should actually be looking for one that will help you learn what you need for the job after that.
That is patently incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Then Nixon & Regan came along, convinced everybody that Government was the Problem and Not the solution (lovely slogan that) and real wages and the middle class have been in decline ever since. This is also a fact you can verify on Google.
Face it, right wing economics don't work. We tried my way and it worked. We tried your way and it didn't. The logical thing is to go back to my way. Stop _feeling_ and start _thinking_. That's the only way out of this mess.
Re:That is patently incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)
Face it, right wing economics don't work.
You skipped the part where it was John F. Kennedy that cut the tax rates, how reduced taxes encouraged compliance with the tax code and tax revenues increased...
Care to address the 47% of tax filers (which is a subset of "all Americans") that either pay no net federal income taxes or actually receive so-called "tax refunds" far in excess of the taxes withheld from their wages.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As multiple [washingtonpost.com] sources [cbsnews.com] clarify, 47% do not pay the "Federal Income Tax" while 28% do not pay net federal taxes. The difference is mainly because the payroll (FICA) tax [wikipedia.org] is an income tax but is not the Federal Income Tax. That is, the United States has multiple income taxes and the 47% comment is about one of them, making it very misleading. Additionally, there's a good number of households you'd expect to not pay taxes. About a third of those 28% are elderly people, for instance.
(These numbers are all from arti
You're talking about is the Laffer curve (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
real wages and the middle class have been in decline ever since
Median real income per capita has risen 51% since 1979. https://www.economist.com/grap... [economist.com]. Household wages have declined, but households have shrunk and government transfers have increased.
Re: (Score:2)
We tried my way and it worked. We tried your way and it didn't. The logical thing is to go back to my way.
Too bad you're such a smug prick like so many other know-it-all liberals. Otherwise, people might actually listen to you!
How is it smug to say you're right (Score:2)
But it's better than it was 100 years a
Change in dynamic (Score:2)
As a "millennial", I loathe incompetence, both below, and above. Incompetence below me can be worked around, incompetence above is irreparable. I can honestly say, despite having never been fired, and having had multiple jobs, I have never quit a job, I have only fired employers. When an employer fails to meet my needs, I replace them with another one. Baby boomers are baffled by this, because they've never lived in a world where they are inherently replaceable.
Re: (Score:2)
I replace them with another one. Baby boomers are baffled by this, because they've never lived in a world where they are inherently replaceable.
There is a whole generation of displaced IT workers that have trained, only to have been replaced by, H-1B workers - it's your contention that they have no idea what it means to be "inherently replaceable."
On par with employers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Millennials just give back the consideration they get from their employers. Companies treat human resource as a fungible asset at best, or as an undesirable cost at worst. No surprise employees are not loyal to their employer in such an environment.
OTOH, employers are pulling their hair out, trying to figure out how to get millenials to actually work. More than one business owner I know actually looks for older employees because they know from experience that for every ten millenials they hire, seven of them will end up having to be let go because they can't show up on time, or don't do their work. And half of those seven will do so little and leave so quickly that the net return from employing them, after overhead and training costs, will be negati
Wrong again...Millennial's have Life (Score:2)
Not one is waiting on a career to make their dent. Every single one of them has a plan to which they've witnessed how not to make it a career
Hardly Surprising (Score:2)
That 43% of a random collection of millennials around the globe don't plan to stay with their current jobs past two years is far from surprising. We're talking about the world, not about just the 50 united states, or just the EU - it likely includes so-called third-world countries where things are tougher.
I can easily imagine that 43% of the respondents were working dead-end jobs in third-world countries, that would easily account for the majority of the 43%, add in a few over-educated/frustrated starbucks
objection (Score:2)
But I'm a Bubble boy, you insensitive clod!
In another poll of millennials bosses ... (Score:2)
In Another Poll, 56% of Millennials Bosses in 36 Countries Say The Jobs Plan To Leave Their Millennials Within One Year.
Film at 11.
A moot statistic (Score:2)
Stupid comments (Score:3)
Guys,
The takeaway from this isn't how lazy millennials are. If that's you're reaction, you're a myopic idiot. Who's stupid and lazy, and who isn't has nothing to do with it. The bigger story here is that their expectations are low because the job market has changed. Dependable "normal" jobs have gone away, and the system continues to move exponentially in that general direction. We're also approaching the tipping point. The world we're headed into looks nothing like the old one, and if your eyes were opened, and looking at this whole thing honestly, you would see that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope so. I don't think i've taken a job where I expect to be there more than 5 years. If I'm there more than 5 years it's because they are particularly good (or the economy went to shit).
Most of these companies get you in and want to promote you up and make any sort of lateral mobility difficult. So you quit and achieve lateral mobility and greater pay without having to be in management. That's the way of things.
Re: (Score:2)
i think that's low
Yeah, since 98% of them probably have shitty dead-end jobs.
Re:Fire anyone who unionizes immediately (Score:5, Insightful)
The commie unions are mini-dictatorships. Freedom means RIGHT TO WORK, but commie union bosses want to force everyone to pay their fees and submit to their control.
As a manager in a right to work state, I will always fire anyone who threatens to unionize immediately.
Thankfully, this is no longer the early 20th century and support for right to work is growing. The commie unions are losing their power.
As a manager you use your power to keep the workers down knowing that there's a long line. Fucks like you are why unions are needed, not as a way for people to get dues. You can't treat your workers like shit if they'll all take the hit and up and out on you. Without the guy doing the actual work you've got fuck all yet most of the time the people doing the work get the smallest piece of pie. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a management training at my employer I was taught that if any employees start talking about joining a union then it's our job as managers to find out why they think they need a union and solve that problem. Incidentally, I'm not a manager but my employer sent me through the training just so that I would have a better understanding of how the company functions. I also work in a right to work state but we have operations throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Unions serve a purpose as a dete
Re:Fire anyone who unionizes immediately (Score:5, Insightful)
As a manager in a right to work state, I will always fire anyone who threatens to unionize immediately.
I hope you do, because this is a violation of the law, and both you and your company will be sued into bankruptcy if you try it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As in most things it's more complicated then that. I know in my state, Utah, you cannot fire someone for joining or organizing a union. But you can fire them without giving a reason.
At my employer the CEO told us in a town hall that if any of us thinks we need a union then they (the company) is doing something wrong and we (the employees) should tell them what needs to change. We have few union employees relative to our industry.
Re: (Score:2)
>Actually, in a right to work state the employer can let an employee go for no reason.
That's not what Right to Work means. Right to Work means that you can't be forced to pay a union dues to work at a company. The term you're looking for is "at will" employment, and it has nothing to do with unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your results there correlate directly to how many supermodels you know and talk to regularly. How many supermodels do you know anyway? And can I get in on some of those coke parties?