The justification for at-will is that without it, hiring anyone is so risky that companies will avoid doing it.
I strongly support, for instance, laws making it straightforward for people to sue for discrimination and sexual harassment. But after 15+ years in this industry, it is impossible for me to deny that discrimination and harassment claims are routinely abused by deadweight chaff employees to extract settlements from employers when they're terminated, or, worse, to keep their jobs and continue inflicting themselves on their teams.
Discrimination and harassment are two narrowly defined public policy exceptions to the rule of at-will employment, and by themselves they already create a huge amount of pointless† risk. Imagine if instead of narrowly defined exceptions, employees could evaluate every performance, compensation, and staffing decision a company made, and then litigate over them. Welcome to the United States Postal Service.
You might as well have this argument with the wind, by the way, because America is not going to move away from the at-will employment doctrine. It is a fundamental difference between the way the US and Europe conduct business, and most people who run companies would rather the world worked more like the US than Europe in this one regard.
most people who run companies would rather the world worked more like the US than Europe in this one regard.
Yep. And most people who are employees would probably rather the world worked like the EU.
at-will versus employee rights is choosing different sides of a power balance (Should we give employees more power? Or give employers more power?). It is clear that most people mostly choose the side that gives them more power.
What I like about this issue is that it's something where the most "liberal", "employee-friendly" intuitive answer (nb: I'm a "driving to Toledo to canvass" Democrat) is not as simple as it sounds.
If you want to work at companies run like the US Postal Service, staffed with lifers, then you want to be in a heavily regulated workforce like France's.
If you want to work in a more dynamic environment, where there isn't a structural disincentive to ever change jobs (because once you clear 1 year, you're can more or less lock yourself in) --- and, for that matter, and environment where you yourself could start a company and easily hire people, you want to start a business in the US.
You can turn this discussion into a soap opera if you'd like, but Hacker News is ostensibly a discussion among people interested in, trying to found, or working at startups, and I think I can safely assert that at-will employment is a clean simple win for startup founders.
The way this makes sense to me is to think about it in terms of freedom. At-will is not enforcing any agreement between the employer and the employee. The employer should be free to spend their money the way they see fit. If the money they pay for an employee no longer make sense (change of direction, dropping a department, the employee stops producing results), they shouldn't be required to keep paying. The employer and employee are of course allowed to enter a contract if they wish, but that's on them.
It's like when consumers pay for subscription services, such as TV or internet. You pay a certain amount each month until you change your mind. Don't want TV anymore? No problem. Just cancel it. Imagine if you were required to prove you had reasonable cause to cancel your TV service. Just like with employment, the option for signing a contract is on the table (very common with mobile phone service).
In a way, at-will employment is the government choosing to minimize its meddling in employment agreements. It goes against my emotional intuition, but it makes perfect sense intellectually.
Hacker News is ostensibly a discussion among people interested in, trying to found, or working at startups, and I think I can safely assert that at-will employment is a clean simple win for startup founders.
Agreed, at-will employment gives the general audience here more advantages. However I wonder if limiting the power of start ups would help start ups?
If it becomes common for some start ups to try to claw back stock options, then highly valuable employees might, in future, not accept stock options in lieu of salary, since they have a legitimate fear that it might amount to nothing. This means start ups might have to pay higher salaries, and requiring more capital. However if a company were to agree (somehow legally binding) that it would never use "at will" to fire someone (i.e. it will never fire someone for no reason), then a highly valuable employees might accept stock options in lieu of salary.
I strongly support, for instance, laws making it straightforward for people to sue for discrimination and sexual harassment. But after 15+ years in this industry, it is impossible for me to deny that discrimination and harassment claims are routinely abused by deadweight chaff employees to extract settlements from employers when they're terminated, or, worse, to keep their jobs and continue inflicting themselves on their teams.
Discrimination and harassment are two narrowly defined public policy exceptions to the rule of at-will employment, and by themselves they already create a huge amount of pointless† risk. Imagine if instead of narrowly defined exceptions, employees could evaluate every performance, compensation, and staffing decision a company made, and then litigate over them. Welcome to the United States Postal Service.
You might as well have this argument with the wind, by the way, because America is not going to move away from the at-will employment doctrine. It is a fundamental difference between the way the US and Europe conduct business, and most people who run companies would rather the world worked more like the US than Europe in this one regard.
† but: see above