Quote:
Originally Posted by WCan_Kid
It's not near as cheap or easy to get rid of employees as people think. Sure, a person can be let go at any time with proper severance and notice, but the employer still has a financial cost to consider, whereas you can simply walk away from a job legally with no consequences.
I'd wager far more employers are left to deal with the fallout of employees quitting with no reason or notice than there are people dealing with unfair terminations.
|
The reason why there’s probably more employers dealing with the fallout of employees quitting compared to workers dealing with wrongful dismissal is due to a few factors, the biggest one would be that there is recourse for one and not the other. I think it’s also reasonable to argue that the cost associated with workers quitting without notice are an assumed risk for employers. When an employer hires someone, they know the person they’ve hired may not work out, that’s why employers have things like probation period policies. So while there may be an impact from someone quitting randomly, the replacement costs have to be considered by any employer since they are the same as if an employee randomly quits. Life happens, employees don’t have defined availability that they can guarantee, your best employee who would never quit may become disabled or die and be unable to work. That’s not to excuse employees from not providing notice, just to demonstrate why as long as human beings are employed there will be risks associates with employing them that are outside of an employers control.
Quote:
|
Replacing good employees with underqualified friends is a terrible business decision which keeps it from being a widespread problem. Definitely sucks for you, but would you want to be a part of an organization that makes those types of poor decisions anyway?
|
What are you basing it not being a widespread issue on? As captain pointed out as well, we don’t know whether or not this replacement was underqualified. There are no laws against workplace nepotism so I’m not sure assuming it isn’t much of issue based on a flawed theory makes much sense.
Also I’m sure in this economy the OP would have preferred to keep his job and make up his own mind about the employer as opposed to being essentially told they’re better off not working for an employer who treats them that way.