NYC Rasies Min Wage to $ 15 now wants to make it illegal to 'unfairly' fire employees

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"Workers have told me they've been fired for no reason at all," Democratic City Councilman Brad Lander, who introduced a bill to ban the practice in the fast food industry, told The Guardian. "Should employers have the right to fire people for any reason, including the most trivial reasons? Most people would say that's not a right people should have."
Proponents say that, in dismissing employees, fast-casual restauranteurs should need to show "just cause"—that is, proof of serious misconduct. But what compromises that misconduct is somewhat ambiguous. Under Lander's legislation, workers will be able to appeal firings via arbitration, a complaint to the Department of Consumer Affairs, or with a lawsuit.

[clip]

Westcott isn't wrong: The restaurant industry operates on slim profit margins, which peak around 4 percent, according to the financial information company Sageworks. So significant hikes to the minimum wage often necessitate staff reductions, as businesses struggle under the weight of increased labor costs. But employers may find themselves in a costly arbitration process for terminating employees they can't afford to keep, according to Michael Lotito, a labor attorney who represents the restaurant industry.

"I don't know how a small business owner would be able to survive in the circumstances of that bill," he tells Reason.While layoffs for economic reasons are hypothetically permitted under "just cause," there is quite a bit of uncertainty as to how the law would work in practice—meaning cash-strapped franchise owners could be susceptible to lawsuits for making bottom-line business decisions.

"It is that fear that will inhibit job growth, job expansion," Lotito says. That's especially true if its sister bill also passes, championed by Democratic councilmember Adrienne Adams: It would require that all staff layoffs be made in order of seniority, regardless of employee performance. "What you'll wind up doing is just buying everybody out, because it's going to be too expensive to arbitrate everything," Lotito predicts.





yeah and who is going to be 'judging' the legality of a Termination ?
Are business going to be require to 'prove' they cannot afford Y Employee before terminating the position
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
So what if they need to let people go simply because of downturn in business operations??..or because they've reduced the need for humans due to automation?..
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Push ... pull. Pull ... push. I push you ... you push me. Push me, shove you, oh yeah, says who?

Governments at work. Citizens reacting. Parents punish, children scheme. Something like that.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
So what if they need to let people go simply because of downturn in business operations??..or because they've reduced the need for humans due to automation?..
Sounds like a fair reason, no? So no issues. I guess the devil is in the details (who gets to decide what is fair). Also probably has a lot to do with big business vs little business. Personality issues between the boss and the subordinate, and the boss is also the shop owner = good reason to fire. If the boss is just one of many pointy haired bosses, maybe alternatives should be considered like moving the employee to a different department or consideration of whether or not the "boss" is actually at fault.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
So what if they need to let people go simply because of downturn in business operations??..or because they've reduced the need for humans due to automation?..
that wouldn't be firing, that would be getting laid off. there is a huge difference.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
that wouldn't be firing, that would be getting laid off. there is a huge difference.
Nope..it isn't. Call it what you want, but their arses on the street because of govt mandate higher and unaffordable pay is what it is. I am NOT ever required to ever lay anyone off. In fact, the difference between being "fired" and "laid off" is often nothing. If the business needs the reduction in employees...they can simply be made gone..fired. Done.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Nope..it isn't. Call it what you want, but their arses on the street because of govt mandate higher and unaffordable pay is what it is. I am NOT ever required to ever lay anyone off. In fact, the difference between being "fired" and "laid off" is often nothing. If the business needs the reduction in employees...they can simply be made gone..fired. Done.
You are pretty stupid if you don’t understand the difference between being laid off and fired.a fired employee can not collect unemployment while one that gets laid off can.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

You are pretty stupid if you don’t understand the difference between being laid off and fired.a fired employee can not collect unemployment while one that gets laid off can.
How about those just being "let go"? Actually, doesn't matter the terminology. Only when the employer is asked for the reason of termination by the unenjoyment insurance folks why the person was "fired, laid off, let go, furloughed, etc". If it was the fault of the employee, ie. theft of business property - money, disorderly conduct, etc., the employee is not entitled to any money from the fund.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
You are pretty stupid if you don’t understand the difference between being laid off and fired.a fired employee can not collect unemployment while one that gets laid off can.
LOL...not true.
DISCHARGED FROM EMPLOYMENT - Depending on the reason you were discharged, there are three levels of misconduct in the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
Simple Misconduct - If you were discharged or suspended for simple misconduct in connection with the work.
Benefits will be denied from 10 to 15 weeks from the week that includes your last day of work.
Gross Misconduct - If you were discharged or suspended for gross misconduct in connection with the work (serious or repeated violations of employment rules or expected standards of behavior could be considered gross misconduct).
Benefits are denied until you become re-employed and earn 25 times your weekly benefit amount in insured work.
Aggravated Misconduct - If you were discharged or suspended for aggravated misconduct in connection with the work (malicious, deliberate acts meant to cause physical harm, property loss or damage could be considered aggravated misconduct).
Benefits are denied until you become re-employed and earn 30 times your weekly benefit amount in insured work.
VOLUNTARY QUIT EMPLOYMENT
You have voluntarily quit your employment.
If you quit your job without good cause attributable to your employment, either of two disqualifications may apply: Denial of benefits (a) from 5 to 10 weeks from the week that includes your last day of work, or (b) until you become re-employed and earn 15 times your weekly benefit amount in insured work (voluntarily leaving to join a spouse, to attend school or become self-employed result in this penalty as provided by the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law). Penalties are determined based on the reason you voluntarily quit.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
If I may ...


How about those just being "let go"? Actually, doesn't matter the terminology. Only when the employer is asked for the reason of termination by the unenjoyment insurance folks why the person was "fired, laid off, let go, furloughed, etc". If it was the fault of the employee, ie. theft of business property - money, disorderly conduct, etc., the employee is not entitled to any money from the fund.
Exactly. Only firing for clear misconduct can - but not always - get you excluded from collecting unemployment benefits. Been an employer for over 25 years..I think I've seen most of it all...
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Only firing for clear misconduct can - but not always - get you excluded from collecting unemployment benefits. Been an employer for over 25 years..I think I've seen most of it all...
It’s fun watching you prove your ignorance particularly right after Chris just posted the law. You are an idiot Mo
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
You are pretty stupid if you don’t understand the difference between being laid off and fired.a fired employee can not collect unemployment while one that gets laid off can.
See that boo boo? See what YOU said? That's NOT what Gilligan said. That's what YOU said.
And Gilligan disagreed with you. So you know what that means Gilligan said? Just what the LAW says...that an employee, who was FIRED...CAN get paid...Shall I repeat this? You seem pretty slow & stupid...Here, I'll repeat it for you....

YOU said "a fired employee CAN NOT collect unemployment." You said this, not Gilligan
Gilligan said "LOL! not true"
Ok boo boo...what do you think this means?...Nevermind. You're too damned stupid to get this right. I'll tell you what this means...

What this means is that, in fact; you CAN be fired and still be able to collect unemployment benefits after being spanked for 10-15 weeks...of the 99 weeks the Magical Mullatto Muslim has allowed you to draw...as reiterated by Chris...

So, to re cap....Chris' post reiterated what this Community already knew...you're an idiot
And your follow up post just reaffirmed it...
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
See that boo boo? See what YOU said? That's NOT what Gilligan said. That's what YOU said.
And Gilligan disagreed with you. So you know what that means Gilligan said? Just what the LAW says...that an employee, who was FIRED...CAN get paid...Shall I repeat this? You seem pretty slow & stupid...Here, I'll repeat it for you....

YOU said "a fired employee CAN NOT collect unemployment." You said this, not Gilligan
Gilligan said "LOL! not true"
Ok boo boo...what do you think this means?...Nevermind. You're too damned stupid to get this right. I'll tell you what this means...

What this means is that, in fact; you CAN be fired and still be able to collect unemployment benefits after being spanked for 10-15 weeks...of the 99 weeks the Magical Mullatto Muslim has allowed you to draw...as reiterated by Chris...

So, to re cap....Chris' post reiterated what this Community already knew...you're an idiot
And your follow up post just reaffirmed it...
Bwhahahaha

That’s funny. A lot of spin, but funny
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

It’s fun watching you prove your ignorance particularly right after Chris just posted the law. You are an idiot Mo
And yet, in all reality, it is your ignorance on display. I'm talking a humongous and ginormous 100 billion candle power spotlight focused squarely on what is your ignorance. You are known as, "one that speaks out his ass". That's what my friend said .... anyway.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
If I may ...


And yet, in all reality, it is your ignorance on display. I'm talking a humongous and ginormous 100 billion candle power spotlight focused squarely on what is your ignorance. You are known as, "one that speaks out his ass". That's what my friend said .... anyway.
You guys really struggle with reality. remember, this ignorance started with gilligan claim that there is no difference between being fired and being laid off. There is a huge difference. Unemployment benefits being one.
 
Top