SENATE BILL: Worker Retention and Firing Act (At Final Vote)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do you consider having your driver's license suspended if its required for your job to be allowable?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do you consider having your driver's license suspended if its required for your job to be allowable?

As the bill currently stands, it would be considered unjustifiable (though it's certainly a justified cause).

Though the business could make a case based on reason a), but it probably wouldn't work. Probably a good idea to include it to be safe

K. Last real life unemployment hearing i had to monitor my client fired someone because their license was suspended but they were operating a city vehicle.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can you explain to me what Section III, clause 6 does?

That part has an slightly different intention from the rest of the bill (albeit still very related) and is probably one of the most original parts (as opposed to RL inspired).

It tries to give workers extra job security by mandating that no term limited contracts can be longer than a year. If you want to keep your employee longer, you have to give them an indefinite contract. Otherwise they are out. Presumably the 1 year temporary contract would be more than enough for the business to determine whether the employee is a good one they should keep, or a bad one they should replace.

If you want to hire them again with a term limited contract, you have to wait for at least half a year (assuming the contract lasted for the whole year). This exception is intended for seasonal workers where it wouldn't make sense to hire them for a full year (say, a job at a ski resort, where you could hire the worker for 6 months, then rehire him the next winter). Maybe the cooldown could be tweaked to a 3:1 or even 4:1 ratio as opposed to 2:1 (so a teacher can work for 9 months and be hired only 3 months later after the summer)

RIP my IRL job

[Mr. Reactionary]

Does the silence mean he is not comfortable releasing any details?

Didn't see the question. I'll respond later after church.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So I work for a local government. Ive been in continuous employment with them for more than a year but my contract always expires at the end of the fiscal year (they agreed to renew it another year last week). There tend to be a lot of jobs like that in Government because finances change and the people's representatives have to decide what gets cut and renewed each year based off finances. If told they could only create new jobs if they lasted less than a year or were permanent expenses a lot of government employers would opt for caution and not create that job to avoid getting trapped with a job they may not want permanent. Based off the summary, my employer would be required to lay me off for what 6 months before rehiring me? I couldn't afford to be unemployed for 6 months. I dont like some distant bureaucrat interposing themself between my employer and me to kill my job, a job both me and my employer agreed to. Contracts need a certain degree of flexibility and I just dont see much benefit in effectively outlawing a common form of employment contract just to try and bluff employers into making hiring decisions they dont want to make. It will likely end up with a lot of us with constantly renewing job contracts losing those jobs. I think those of us involved should be trusted to enter into our own contracts rather than having the federal government say regardless of what both the employee and employer want, the feds have decided that I am not allowed to work for 6 months and its apparently in my own best interest and im just too stupid to notice.

Im also uncomfortable with this bill redefining what is justified in firing an employee and reducing it to a short, purportedly exhaustive  list. I've overseen the justifiable firing of bad employees for reasons not listed. While I respect the goals of this bill, it creates a lot more issues than it solves and represents a big change in Atlasian employment law.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I have a book at home that goes through labor laws, but current federal law already requires companies to give a 60 day notice for any mass layoffs (defined as a certain %), otherwise be required to provide severance pay. My recommendation would be that we make adjustments to that law, or determine that current standard is sufficient. Either tonight or tomorrow, I'll try and find the language in the bill in question that addresses this, then provide more details and alternative solutions.

Its called the WARN Act. The last time we amended the WARN Act in game was part of the "We should help workers act" when we set a uniform statute of limitations for bringing claims under it. I think the main difference between that and this bill is that the WARN Act only applies to employers with a minimum number of employees, excludes government employers, and only applies to "mass layoffs" defined as x number of layoffs in like a 6 month period or something like that ... its structured so you cant easily avoid the requirements by structuring the layoffs over a period of months. WARN Act stipulates minimum advanced notice with penalties I believe (i may be misremembering) payable to workers calculated per day of inadequate notice. For instance if I am supposed to give you 60 days notice but I only give you 58 days notice each affected worker is entitled to 2 days worth of penalties.

Its been a few years since I had employment law.