Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#21

Post by lotsofpulp »

stronglikedan wrote: post #14
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

Only in "at will" states, and usually then, only when your company is small enough (like <50 employees). And even then, you still have to be careful to not give a reason. If you give any hint of a reason, the employee can sue for it.

Only Montana is not at will, and their population is negligible.

And the reason can be as simple as “no business need to continue employment”. And you can sue for anyone for anything at anytime, but it does not mean you will get anywhere, except losing money on court fees or lawyers.

The only direct monetary cost to employers is increased unemployment benefit insurance premiums due to having more previous employees collecting unemployment benefits.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#22

Post by coldtea »

FFP999 wrote: post #12
lloydatkinson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSJ can’t help but write hit pieces, I think they are paid for. Firstly workers should be grateful to waste hours of time commuting to office jobs and shouldn’t be allowed remote jobs, then the next meme is “silent quitting”, the current meme is “workers aren’t quitting enough (sub text: bosses are running out of ways to instil misery and stress)”

The WSJ writes hit pieces because they know exactly who their audience is (the business wing of the Republican party and the Republican wing of the business community) and if they didn't write hit pieces, said audience would lose interest.

Horrible bosses and cut-throat capitalist business practices are totally bipartisan.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#24

Post by LispSporks22 »

Supermancho wrote: post #5

Nobody is quitting because jobs are more competitive than 5 years ago. This looks like yet another WSJ hit piece on the lower classes. The company management isn't to blame for people getting fired, it's the workers (who perform) not quitting. Those pesky workers make it so hard for a company to always look like the good guy. They really are always the good guy, obviously.

> jobs are more competitive than 5 years ago

Yeah it’s this.

As an assclown that recently quit without something lined up because “don’t worry honey, I’m a rock star” I’m definitely finding it harder to find a position >= last salary, similar roles this time strong. In fact salaries overall seem like of down lately (for like staff/architect/senior roles).

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#25

Post by lotsofpulp »

Ajay-p wrote: post #18
ilovetux wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two main reasons: First, and probably the largest motivator, is that if you fire someone without cause they will typically be able to collect on unemployment insurance which would increase the employers premiums each month. Second, nobody likes to fire people especially if they haven't done anything wrong. Also, layoffs like this hurt the moralle of the remaining workers which could turn into too much turno…

You forget the legal ramifications of firing someone. If they are a protected class - POC, women, disabled, etc. - it can mean a large headache in the form of a lawsuit, or a complaint to a labor board. Many companies have run into this when attempting to separate someone who advocated for unionization.

Without proof, plaintiffs will not get anywhere. If an employer wants to terminate employment just to reduce expenses, there is negligible legal risk.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#28

Post by lainga »

Supermancho wrote: post #5

Nobody is quitting because jobs are more competitive than 5 years ago. This looks like yet another WSJ hit piece on the lower classes. The company management isn't to blame for people getting fired, it's the workers (who perform) not quitting. Those pesky workers make it so hard for a company to always look like the good guy. They really are always the good guy, obviously.

    After the uprising of the 17th of June
    The Secretary of the Writers Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By increased work quotas.

    Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#29

Post by lotsofpulp »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Question: Why would "not quitting" be a headache for employers? I thought in the US you can just fire people you don't want anymore, instead of waiting for them to quit. Makes no sense to me.

Answer is media companies need clicks to earn money, so they pump out garbage articles proposing nonsense premises to increase likelihood of people clicking on it.

Re: The new headache for bosses: Employees aren't quitting

#30

Post by Dudester230602 »

Supermancho wrote: post #5

Nobody is quitting because jobs are more competitive than 5 years ago. This looks like yet another WSJ hit piece on the lower classes. The company management isn't to blame for people getting fired, it's the workers (who perform) not quitting. Those pesky workers make it so hard for a company to always look like the good guy. They really are always the good guy, obviously.

"Please come back to office to have all those water cooler conversations that bring unbelievable creativity... Oh you cannot? Such a shame... Please feel free to leave."
Post reply on HN