you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Exactly. You can walk away and get evicted and starve vs. they can make you walk away and get evicted and starve… This is what constitutes fairness by modern democratic standards, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Understand that the precursor to at-will employment was that you walk away from your job and get arrested for breaking contract, and your family gets evicted without you able to earn money to pay for their food or shelter.

    Like the other commenter says, it's extremely flawed but serves a purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "There used to be something worse" is not the same as "the current thing is good"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Absolutely not, I agree.

    But it's also kinda like Republicans saying they'll "repeal then replace" the ACA. You need the plan for the replacement beforehand, otherwise you just return to the old problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I mean, sure if you take anything a Republic pol says at face value. The real agenda is that they want to return to the old problems because they don't view it as a problem. Insurance companies having capped margins, fewer people being able to afford care… These are good things to them. What they say they want to do serves only to get their voting base on board with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • That's still the law under at will employment, if you sign a contract, you can't just quit anymore. We lost the protection of one year contracts, like you really think it's better for employers to be able to fire you with no warning than having one year contracts?? This all happened centuries ago of course

  • source
  • parent