Comment by ModernMech
3 days ago
Here's another controversial take: as long as healthcare is tied to employment, companies shouldn't be allowed to fire someone except for actual negligence / malice. If they suck at their job, find them another one at the company -- there has to be something they can do in a company of 5k employees.
On the other hand, it may end up the other way: pressure you or bully you into quitting yourself. Here in Spain it happens sometimes: firing you is expensive and they don't want you around for whatever issue, so they'll try to find any justification to fire you, or just pressure you in some way on another to make you miserable enough to quit. No doubt that would happen in the US.
In the United States, that's known as constructive dismissal or discharge.
https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/glossary.asp?p=constr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
This can easily backfire on the employer with discrimination, hostile workplace, and a variation on wrongful dismissal lawsuits.
From Wikipedia:
It would take significant change to multiple parts of federal legislation and that in many states with additional worker protection laws.
For example, in California ... https://workplacerightslaw.com/library/retaliation/construct...
this is too radical even for china or like good ol USSR… damn dude :)
"as long as healthcare is tied to employment" makes it barely radical at all.
so you have guaranteed employment for life with the same company? that is about as radical as it gets. this would shoot the unemployment through the roof if I, as a business owner, am unable to fire anyone that I hire! health insurance or not, that is to radical for even the most "social" country in existence (or that previously existed)
10 replies →