January
3
Blog #9 – Is a job a civil right?
One of the issues brought up in the video on the Homestead Strike of 1892 that we watched on Tuesday/Wednesday was the idea of a worker having a right to his/her job. The workers at the Homestead steelworks believed that they had a right to their jobs, that the right was a fundamental right as an American much like the right to vote or free speech or owning fire arms.
Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, on the other hand, didn’t believe that they had to listen to their unions and nor any intention of honoring the unions at all. Frick locked out the Amalgamated after their contract expired on June 30, 1892 and with Carnegie’s approval, had every intention of breaking the union and replacing them w/ lower paid non-union workers.
As we know, most of the workers ended up out of work for good. Some skilled workers came back in other jobs at lower pay at Homestead. In the end, the Amalgamated Steel Workers Union was finished from Homestead.
Please answer the following questions:
1. Does a worker have a right to his/her job? If so, does it depend on the worker’s circumstances (for instance, if the worker is an adult or teenager / full time or part time / has children, married or single)? Why or why not? If not, why not?
Answer 2 if you said Yes. #2. If a worker does have a right to his/her job, how can a company downsize in troubled times? What options does a company have when it needs to cut costs? Today, jobs are being sent overseas and people are being laid off during a recession. Would those practices have to stop if unions and workers have more of a say-so in the management of a company?
Answer 3 if you said No. #3. Obviously, things have changed in the U.S. since 1892, heck, since 1982 when our country used to manufacture a lot of stuff. Currently, about 15% of American jobs are in the manufacturing sector while 80% are in the service sector. So, many of those manufacturing jobs that used to exist no longer exist in the United States and are filled by lower paid workers in other countries. What responsibilities, if any, does the company have to its workers if it lays off its workers? For instance, in the film, Roger and Me, Michael Moore showed that in 1989 GM was willing to move 15 – 30,000 jobs out of Flint and overseas if it meant saving the company money. But the surrounding community and city of Flint were (and to some extent still are) economically devastated when GM left the city.
Here’s the trailer for Roger and Me.
Due Wednesday 1/5/11 before class begins. 250 words total for both answers.
If by “civil right” one means it is a birth right like freedom of speech or freedom of religion then yes having a job is a civil right. This interpretation is derived from the stance of an independent person not affiliated with a specific society. The more common interpretation is that a civil right is something granted to a person by their government, for example health care. Health care is a civil or innate right that everybody deserves from their first breath to their last. But it is not a civil right in the social/governmental sense, as it isn’t something that one must be guaranteed by authority. In the assumption that the interpretation of “civil right” implied here is that regarding authoritative granting, then no, having a job is not a civil right. Obviously it should be a god given right of every person to work if they wish, however, it is not the responsibility of an authority, be it the government or an employer, to provide that job as a person’s right. Therefore, the government should not establish programs such as ELR and businesses should not be required to hire a person for the sake of hiring them. Neither group owes the individual anything. A government does not need to provide because though the citizen pays taxes, their tax dollars are, in a way, a membership fee for living in that municipality and a payment for all the things they get in return (police, fire, public parks, schools etc.). A company does not owe the worker anything because prior to the worker seeking a job, the company and worker had no other relationship. If the worker is deserving of the job, and the company needs the worker for their labor, then they hiring is reasonable, but a company need not be forced or required by “civil right” (in this case it is essentially social standards) to hire a person.
In terms of the responsibilities owed to a worker that has been let go, to go along with the afformentioned interpretation of “civil right”, neither the government nor the company owes the former worker anything. Though it is obviously completely reasonable that a company or government would do so. An example is that the government provides unemployment benefits for those that fulfill certain requirements regarding length of employment among other things. Additionally, if a company lays off a worker, especially if the reason was in order to downsize the company, they will offer various job placement opportunities as well as other restitutions. Neither the company nor the government is required to provide these compensations, but it is a morally good thing to do, assuming the worker was fired for a just reason. If the worker was fired for a drinking problem, performance issue, harassment issue etc. then by all means the company can do the bare minimum to help them if they so choose. It is their own personal choice. No independent entity should be FORCED to provide for those that no longer provide for them. Part of the reason for this is the fact that when a person is employed they are catering to the demands of their job. They put themselves, to an extent, under the control of the company. If they wish to keep earning their pay checks they must continue to work when the company wishes them to work (this can of course be negotiated by unions and such). Once the employment has been terminated the worker is no longer providing anything for the company’s success. Therefore, the company no longer needs to provide compensation to the worker.
1. A worker does have a right to his or her job. It doesn’t depend on whether that person is a teenager or an adult because a teenager could not have a family to support them and they need to support themselves. Or an adult could be trying to get a job but not able to find one because they either have too much experience or too little experience. If the person was working full time versus halftime it still doesn’t matter because a teenager could be working halftime because they have school and other things to do. Also an adult could be working more than one job and they will need halftime and full time jobs. It depends on the situation there in.
2. A company can downsize if it’s in trouble by if there in a situation themselves, when times are hard there is nothing that you can do for other people, they don’t mean to be selfish but it’s what they have to do to make more money or moves forward to the future. Options that companies have are to either layoff or send people overseas. But these practices would not have stop if the unions and workers have more say-so in the management of a company because they can’t change the fact that the economy has decreased over the years. It’s not the company’s faults whether to let a person go, it’s the faults the economy led to cut the people off.
3. Responsibilities, the company has to have is find people to do the jobs that the workers who were laid off did in the past or the company has to double up jobs for the people to do. It will be hard but eventually they would have too hired more people to come back and keep their business running because the people that are doubled up won’t be able to do it all, all the time.
I believe that only certain people are entitled to keep there job so you can’t make it a law that it is a civil right(which is really too bad because some people deserve security in their jobs but sadly some people just don’t do enough at their job to be deserving enough to keep it). Some people aren’t productive at work and they show up with and attitude or just simply don’t pull their own weight. Other people, however, work their way up and are constantly working hard to keep there job. If a person is doing everything they are asked and possibly even more then they do deserve their job 100% and should not be fired because they’re paycheck is higher than someone less experienced or for their age. Unfortunately this does happen so I think there should a MUCH better system that goes into layoffs, because ultimately these people have done nothing to be *fired* and if it weren’t for cut backs they’d still be at their jobs. The exception to this is that some people need to get what’s coming for them and if anyone thinks for one second that they are aloud to sit around and slack off and GET PAID FOR IT they seriously need their head examined/get fired as soon as possible. If it was a perfect world than everyone would be secure from lay offs but not from being fired. And it’s really too bad because it’s quite someone could keep their job if companies would cut back on some of their luxuries and excessive spending.
p.s i don’t think much work would get done if it was a civil right to keep your job.
3. The company definitely has responsibilities to their laid off employees!! If a company has to cut back then their responsibilities to the workers would be that they get a severance and extended health care. Another thing they could do is help them find a job by recommendations or maybe a list of people who are hiring that need the same qualifications that the person has. For people to get laid off with no benefits is really rude because some of the people being laid off could have devoted years of their life and it would be quite devastating to get laid off with nothing at all in return. It’s the LEAST the company can do for them.
1. A worker does not always have a right to his/her job. Sometimes it really does matter what their circumstance is. Married people that have children and that work hard deserve a full time job that pays well. That way they are able to support their family and provide a healthy life for them. It is vital to have a job when there is a family involved. With no job it is nearly impossible to support them. If someone is going to give their all when it comes to work and providing for their family, they deserve it most. If someone is younger, single, and lazy they really do not deserve a job that much. They only have themselves to worry about and if they are not doing all they can to work hard that job should go to someone a lot more deserving of it.
2. The responsibilities that a company should have to its workers after it lays them off are to provide them with some sort of unemployment benefits or even send them to other places to work if they can. If a company could provide a little money for a few months to the people they lay off, it would really help them out. That way the laid off workers would have a little more time to figure out a plan and find a job, yet they would not have to worry about money as much. Money would still be a concern, but if a worker had been working for that company for a long time and had worked as hard as they could, they deserve to get something.
1 & 2) I think that the government should find a way to create or help create jobs. I don’t think that the workers have a right to their job. It doesn’t matter if they’re part time, full time, teenagers, adults, have kids, single, or married. I think that people should not feel entitled to a job, or feel like they shouldn’t be fired if they aren’t doing their job. But I feel like workers should know whether or not they are going to be laid off ahead of time. Corporations/Employers do know if they are not making as much money as they used to, so when they even think about laying people off, they should let the workers know. I also think that Employers should lay people off based on their work ethics and progress/achievements since they started working at that particular job not based on years of experience, education, and/or age. Hard workers should keep their job and average workers should be second on the list next to mediocre workers. This might seem harsh but this will push everyone in the company to work harder because if they do not they could be replaced.
No one has a right to any job, until you’ve worked hard enough to deserve it. This does not depend on the worker’s circumstances, because if you make an exception and say a single parent has a “right to their job” over a married person, exceptions would have to be made all the time for every person, until it could no longer be controlled. Although it may not seem “fair,” the people who are qualified for a specific job are hired while the people who aren’t qualified do not get hired. Once you have a job, you still don’t have “entitlement” to it, because in this country (or anywhere), it’s not a constitutional or civil right to have a job. Your employer cannot fire you for discriminatory reasons—that is a civil right; but the general idea of “having a job” or “keeping a job” is not a right that can be protected.
Once a company lays off a worker, the company has no further responsibility (unless there was a separate severance arrangement). If a company has to lay off workers or move to stay competitive all you can do is sympathize with the workers in the company. It’s not right to force a company to retain workers and become more and more uncompetitive. One of the reasons companies are uncompetitive is because unions demand and get higher wages for their workers.
We talked about this today and during the class discussion I noticed something that I found interesting; people WITH jobs were very vocal about how hard they worked for them and how jobs are a privilege. People WITHOUT jobs kept quiet, I have a feeling nobody was really going “I am entitled to a job! This is America and I am American so I should get a job”. Personally (even though my “job” is an occasional babysitting gig) I think a job is, in a way, a privilege; it should not merely be handed to you the second you drop out of school. Having a job should depend on circumstances. For example a 23-year-old man who lives in his parent’s basement playing call of duty; black opps should not be given a job over a qualified hardworking 20-year-old man. Jobs should not be handed out based on race, gender, or age (I believe the African and feminist movements covered this) jobs should be assigned strictly on qualification. If you have a master’s degree from some community college in an obscure field like Mongolian culture you are less qualified for a secretary’s position then another person with a business degree and 15 years of experience. A company’s responsibility is to insure that there are as many jobs available for the general population to fill. Having jobs in a wide variety of fields enables people with all different types of expertise to obtain jobs. Sadly layoffs are inevitable and downsizing is crucial in order to survive in these trying times. I believe (unless a person was being cut for complete incompetence) that when laid off a person should receive his next paycheck and a recommendation to add to the resume so that it is easier for them to find a new job.
1)no. i do not belive that anyone actualy has a right to a job. but i do belive that everyone has the right to an opportunity to one. if everyone ended up having a job than that would probably cause the wages of everyone to lower seveirly due to the massive population to account for all of the new workers who would then need pay. then because of the fact that some jobs dont realy need alot of people to do them the jobs would be done faster and then the people would get paid while doing nothing. now if everyone had the opportunity to get a job but wasnt nessassarily gaurented one then people could at least have the chance to get a job insted of doing everything beyond reason to have to get by. and if they didnt end up getting one than id say thats more in them than anyone else.
2)i dont belive that when a company layes off workers it should fully take care of the person/ people it lays off. but i do belive that the company should provide some consalation to that person and their family if they have one to help them get by for at least a little while. but how much the companie helps the person and for how long i belive depends on how much the person contributed to the companie. and the size of their family. (like if their single or have a wife and kids)
Blog #9
Braxton Allred
1/4/11
Wickersham 3rd hr
Question one: I believe that a person doesn’t have the right to have a job automatically because of government law. But I do believe that everybody should get the opportunity to seize chances (school, college and other things) and have a chance at getting a job I think this because I think that people should have to work for they get; not everyone deserves a job just because. I know that it’s a lot harder and less convenient for most people, but that’s truly the only fair way to do it. For example, if I was guaranteed a job after I’m done with school, I and most likely a grand portion of the general population would probably not try very hard in school to get any better. But there would also be some kids that are extremely ambitious and would really try and be able to get a good job. This difference in personalities would not only cause a gigantic social gap between the rich and poor, but would also create a huge group of not very intelligent and unskilled workers. By not having a guaranteed job after school, I’m given the inspiration to strife to get good grades (thus making myself smarter), get more skilled, focused and be more responsible. These traits are not only good for my own benefit, but are good for society if many people have them. I know that it may not be completely fair for everyone, but if someone isn’t going to try to earn a job, why should I give them one? They might just skip work and be very un-efficient in what there’re doing, causing huge problems in the company that I’m in.
Question two: if a company lays off a person, I believe that they have some responsibility for the people they lay off. But once again I believe that only people that deserve some help should get it. For example, a person that was a good worker, has a big family (shouldn’t be fired in the first place) but if they are and are only fired because of company problems like money, they should be get more help over someone that gets fired for not showing up for no reason or does something illegal. The company should help the families by maybe giving them a little money to help the person that was laid off so they can survive until they find a new job.
I dont not think that people have a “civil right” to thier jobs. I feel this for a couple a reasons. The first reason is because the work we all go through during our schooling. Some people work very hard and put an effort to thier grades and future. Some people don’t seem to care about how they do in school. The people who don’t care arn’t as qualified because they don’t have as much knowledge and proven lazy. My second reason is that the companies that are hiring people don’t owe them anything. Buisness owners that own a company don’t owe unmotivated people anything, because its thier buisness and they should have the right to choose how they run it. Making managers and ceo’s hire people that arn’t qualified is wrong. I think that a company does owe thier employees benifits if they fire one of thier employees. I feel that they should give them “unemployment money” which is a certian amount of money given to you monthly so you can stay on your feet so when you find a new job your not bankrupt. I also feel that if the employee was a good one they will find a job somewhere else if good things are said about them, because other people in thier field will need thier talents.
I do not think that workers have a right to their jobs. People work hard and spend years and lots of money to go through education and training to get a certain jobs. The people who have good work ethics and try hard to achieve goals should be the people who should get jobs, not the people who dropped out of high school and then laid around their house for years until they applied for a job. If everyone is able to get jobs without work then people will stop trying, becoming a doctor or a lawyer won’t be a big deal. Winning award form schools won’t be an honor anymore. It would make people stop trying to achieve anything the drive from people’s lives will be gone. Everyone will just go through life just going with the flow going through the motions without any ambition or excitement. A lot of people love what they do and live for their jobs and to make others happy and if just anyone can get that job instead of the hard working, passionate individuals than really life wouldn’t have meaning for them. Sure only certain people can live their life to the fullest by completing their job and only certain jobs can give you a sense of pride that you helped but without that some people will have no reason to try. Then you would just have people working half-heartedly to fulfill their job description. Then there are the people who don’t want to work at all but do it out of necessity. They don’t live happy lives either because they don’t want to be there but they are because that is the only way to survive in life.
If a company lays off workers they have to make sure that there aren’t any physical or health problems that have been around a long time and are still severe that need the healthcare the job provided. If a family has a disabled child or parent that needs care or a family member with cancer the company needs to make sure that this family will be able to set up a new job or health care so that the family member can still get care. This only applies to companies who give employees health care so that when they lose their job it gets taken away, if employees are already paying their own health care then it doesn’t matter. Companies need to also give employees plenty of notice before their job is terminated so that the job loss won’t come as a shock. Having little to no notice can lead to loads of health problems that may later lead the employee to no longer be able to work. This also lets people search for new jobs in case the money is needed for rent or education so that they family doesn’t get evicted and students can stay in college or the school they were attending. Companies can also tell you what you do wrong so that you can fix the problem or go back to school so that way you can get and keep a new job. Although I am not really sure if they already do this so if they do never mind.
Molly Sovran
1. No. I don’t think anyone has the right for a job. Everyone can be eligible for one, but that’s if they have the education, ability, and the determination to work hard. It doesn’t matter if you are an adult or teenager, I truly feel that if you work hard then your reward is the job you wished to have. A teenager could get a job over an old man, because maybe they have better work ethics and would be well suited for the job. It doesn’t matter if it’s part time or full time, you don’t deserve one. Life isn’t handed to you on a silver platter. Just like jobs aren’t. If they are married with children, then that should make them work harder for the job that will support their family.
2. The company should have the decency to direct them in the path to find a new job, or they can tell you of some places that are hiring. But they don’t have to schedule your interviews and go to them and hold your hand to find a new job. That’s all you and that also stems from your determination and willing to work hard to not only find a new job, but if you get hired to work well at the job so you will most likely have a lesser chance of getting fired again. Companies aren’t responsible for you once you are gone. But they can help you out if its needed desperately.
1. No, I don’t think that a job is a civil right. First of all, if someone isn’t qualified for a certain type of job and has no experience/ ability to do it then it isn’t fair to just automatically give them the job. If people did this, then the workers who were actually qualified for the job position and had experience could be stripped of a job opportunity because an inexperienced worker already filled the spot. There could be consequences to the company, also, if they were willing to hire any unqualified person. If any random person was allowed to have any job, then majority of the workers may turn out to be inexperienced. This could lower the productivity of a business which would put them at risk of going out of business. If the jobs aren’t civil rights, then it gives companies the option of deciding who they want to work for them and who they don’t believe is capable.
2. If a company does lay off its workers, I think that it has the responsibility of helping them find another job or doing anything that they can to help the former employees financially. It would be unfair to just throw a worker out and expect them to easily bounce right into another job and be successful with no period of struggling. The company should at least tell them that they are going to be laid off with a lot of notice so that they have time to go seek other jobs.
I do believe that jobs and the right to be a productive and contributing member of society are basic civil, and perhaps even natural, rights that not only every citizen in our beloved U.S. of A. but every citizen of the world should have. (I will preface the following by stating that I mean no harm to those hardworking people among us who have lost a job, and they have my every sympathy) I believe this because every living thing on the planet is productive in one way or another, and, regardless of religion, i believe that each living thing has a purpose or must find one within the course of its lifetime, and it defies nature to be an apathetic, lackadaisical shell of a human being,. If, however, one so chooses not to exercise the right to be a contributing member of society and so chooses to become one of the aforementioned apathetic, lackadaisical shells of human beings, that is also their right, but they must do so with the knowledge and understanding that other members of society cannot sustain them if they CHOOSE not to exert themselves for the furthering of their own financial circumstances and the furthering of society. As for those who would criticize the idea of the right to work as a basic natural right as an absurd flight of fancy, I would say that it should be possible, although not without Herculean effort, to create an economic system where every citizen that felt the need to work could work. This would require a significant across-the-board tax hike, which would be necessary to provide government subsidies and incentives to hire to businesses, but this would be feasible for the people of America to supply, as everyone would be employed. As a final note, I would like to add that it would be a great financial help to our country to have such a significantly larger workforce, as it would dramatically increase our gross domestic product, and all the increased expendable income that consumers would now possess would effectively increase the income of many U.S. businesses.
1)I don’t think a worker has a “right” to his own job. They have a right in a sense that once it’s their job, it’s their own and nobody can muscle in on it, but it’s not a right like freedom of speech is a right. You can’t go around saying “Since I went to college, I deserve to get a high paying management job, it’s my right”. You have to work for it, and once you get it, it’s your own, but you’re not guaranteed it.
3)If a company lays off it’s workers, I honestly think that while it’s wrong, they’re not responsible for anything anymore. Unless they asked the worker to retire due to age or injury, they don’t have to pay a continued salary or anything. Just because they laid off the worker doesn’t mean they have to help them get another job. It’s wrong that companies can just throw away workers like nothing, but logically speaking, the company doesn’t have any ties to the worker after the worker’s left the company, weather that’s through their own actions or management’s.
I do not believe that having a job or the government providing you with a job should be or should ever have been a civil right. This is, in a way, a type of communism. Although I think that in theory communism is a very good idea it has never worked in the real world. The reason jobs being a civil right wouldn’t work is because if a person is guaranteed to have a job what encouragement do they have to try in school or at their job. It is unfair for the people who deserve to work for a company with all the competition from people that don’t put in nearly as much effort as you do. With a system like this the company itself is also suffering. Forced to hire anyone the government throws at them how can they expect to have any productivity or any honestly hard working people on their payroll. Even in the late 1800s and early 1900’s some people thought that it was their right to have a job while more qualified, harder working people who needed the money much more than they did where jobless or working low paying jobs that didn’t require the skill needed by other companies. This system wouldn’t work in the present day either for many of the same reasons. Although many people who have been laid off in the last few years are hard working citizens many of the people who don’t have a job at the moment are content living off of unemployment and food stamps. If people don’t want to help themselves who should the government use the taxpayers hard earned money on them.
I think workers do have a right to their jobs, although of course each circumstance has its own answer. If a company laid off workers because it decided to “cut costs” since their multi-billion dollar corporations needed MORE money, well then the workers certainly deserved their jobs. However, if the worker was slacking and not doing their work maybe they needed to get fired. Of course, incidentally, fired and laid off are two different words with two different meanings. I think circumstances like age or marital status don’t matter as much as the work ethic or determination. I’ve known some stereotypically bratty teenagers as well as some honest, hardworking adults, but I also know determined teenagers and adults with absolutely no work ethic.
There are many ways for a company to downsize without laying off people, however these ways may not be as comfortable to the managers of the companies. Companies can, firstly, cut paychecks without fully laying off the workers although that may cause the same disturbances as laying off. The companies can begin to pay less for health insurance for their workers, or not provide it at all. They can also stop giving their men such large bonuses and pay raises but thats not an appealing idea to them either. Instead of cutting workers, companies could cut costs somewhere else such as with insurance or other extras. Overseas jobs and laying off during a recession would probably stop with a union because in that case the union is looking out for the workers, instead of just the management looking out for their own members and nobody else.
A worker does not have the right to their job. A job is something that must be earned based on qualifications. If a person becomes less qualified for a job or becomes a liability, than it is the company’s right to fire that person and hire someone with better qualifications. I also feel that the circumstances of a person should not be a factor in that person’s job. I think that the world is full of people who are young, pregnant, and married and they aren’t just given jobs based on their circumstances. The jobs that they have are due to their amount of education and determination that they have. Also if a person is given a job based on just their circumstances then the company is at the risk of not having the best worker for the job that needs to be done.
I think that if a company lays off a worker in order to save money for the company or for some other reason that is solely based on the income of the company; then that company should give the worker pay for a couple of months so the worker can get back on their feet. In my opinion it is wrong to lay off a person without any reparations because the company wants to save money. If a company is having issues with money, than maybe that company could find a way to save money with out destroying the income of hard working people. But on the other hand if a worker is laid off because they aren’t working hard and costing the company money as opposed to making the company money, then the company has no responsibility for them.
I don’t think that a job should be a civil right. The government shouldn’t have to set aside money so that every single person (even the lazy ones) can have a job. Honestly, the government can’t afford to. Trillions of dollars worth of debt doesn’t exactly leave maneuvering room to be spending money on that. If we could just get out of these wars… but that’s another topic entirely. If the government is able to make more jobs available to the unemployed, should they? Yes. But the government shouldn’t be monitoring every person to make sure they have a job. It’s an individual’s responsibility to go out into the world and find work. There are unemployment benefits and other ways to keep yourself afloat until you get a job. Also, if a person doesn’t want a job, they shouldn’t be required to have one. Some people have enough money to get by without one and they shouldn’t have to get one if it isn’t necessary.
If the company lays off its workers, there should be some kind of small help like suggestions for places they could apply to for work, letters of recommendation, resume writing assistance and any other help the company can offer. After all it’s not he workers’ fault if all of the jobs are moving overseas. And if the company is laying off a large number of workers, they should offer more help. They should help with the job hunt and if the workers have to move, the company should help them sell their house and find a new one someplace close to their new job. A layoff should be a hassle for the company. That way, if it’s possible for them to cut costs and downsize in other ways they may choose to do that instead of lay off thousands of workers.
I don’t think everyone has a civil right to a job; that really just doesn’t make a ton of sense. You can’t possibly try to give everyone a job. Also, if you guarantee jobs it would make it harder for people to get a job they like. If someone who doesn’t like their job doesn’t work hard at it we wouldn’t be able to fire them because we’ve guaranteed them a job. I think if you have a job you have the right to secure it with a contract with the employer, but it shouldn’t be the government’s job to supply everyone with a job. It just wouldn’t work; the government would have to make too many rules about who qualifies for a job and who doesn’t.
A company shouldn’t be able to just lay someone off and have no responsibility for their welfare. I think it’s naïve for a company to lay off so many workers. If the company causes the area where their business runs to be devastated economically, there aren’t people with money to buy your product. In the case of Flint and GM, people who are unemployed can’t afford new cars. If a company lays off workers it has a responsibility to find them a new job or pay them at least minimum wage until they find a new source of income. If the company is finding the worker a new job, they should be required to find them a job which can support that person’s family and one applies to their skill set. If the latter is chosen the person would be required to prove that they are looking for a new job. .
I believe that Americans should be able to get jobs if they work for it but Americans are not entitled the right to a job. The government cannot promise everyone a job for many reasons. If they were to do so they would have to find money to help pay all the workers and that would just add to the nation’s debt. To get a good job in America an education is very important and each individual must commit to an education and put themselves ahead to compete for a job. For the most part, Americans all have an education available to them. Financials may become an issue when it comes to college and the government can’t finance for everyone to go to college to get an education. It is not right to allow people who don’t have any drive or initiative a job where they are getting paid because the government is making the employer pay them. People should not be discriminated when it comes to being hired. As long as the person is educated and committed to work they should be highly considered for the position. Gender, race and age discrimination should not exist in the workplace and it is sad that it happens today. Having a job is almost like a privilege and should be taken seriously if wanted to be kept. Americans are entitled to the right to vote and to the right to express themselves freely but the right to a job does not fit in with those.
Many companies are lay off working and moving to foreign countries where they can open factories for less money and not have to pay their workers as much as they do in America. They are taking advantage of low wages and workers that will work with no benefits. 80% of American jobs are in the service sector because companies are seeing opportunities overseas for their factories. Like in the movie, Roger and Me, it is not just the workers but the communities that need the factory/company to keep workers employed. Let’s say most of the members of the community were hired by the factory and then the factory relocates leaving them all without jobs. These people will then cut their spending and that will hurt local business owners. The whole thing created a chain reaction that leads to an economic depression in that one area specifically. It is sad that American companies like GM move overseas and then try to pride themselves on being an “American” company. When factories move they leave thousands of workers without jobs. These workers are left with no jobs and are often unsure of what to do. I believe that the company should help employees they lay off. One way is to compensate them and give them some money to keep them going while they look for a new job. The company can also help their former employees find other jobs or help them go to school or get training so they can continue to work with the growing standards in today’s job market.
I don’t think that a person has a civil right to their job. Mainly because if the government gave everyone a job, most or a large portion would be unable to handle most jobs that were out there. A certain level of experience and education is required to maintain a specific job, and if jobs were just handed out to people, there would be less incentive to get the expertise needed. I think that it does depend on experience and age. You are not going to give a ten-year-old a job just because everyone gets one. The child would be unreliable not responsible for almost any job he would be given. If the company needed to cut costs, while having to give everyone a job, they would have to lower the rates or salary for most or all of the workers. Since almost every company would have more employees, the wages would be much less stable, especially with the hard times going on today. Companies might also have to increase hours with no more pay, or produce goods that are in much worse quality. All of which would cause the company to suffer and possibly disappear. I think if a company had to fire or lay off a large group of workers, the company would have to pay them severence and maybe give them money for a short period of time until either the time period ran out, or the person got another job. The company should really not be that accountable because the only reason to make lay offs is either to survive, the workers are not working properly, or to save much needed money. But I still think that people should not just be given a job. Everyone has the right to work to make money, but not everyone ahs the ability to. Some people don’t care enough to maintain a steady job, or don’t put in the effort needed to function properly. I think what America has now is fine and people are hired based on their credentials since everyone has the right and the ability to get an education. Or almost everyone..
No, I do not think that a worker has a right to his/her job. A job is something that a person must earn and work hard to hold on to. If it were considered a “civil right” for every person to have a job, how could you possibly set the boundaries? What if there’s a 17 year old who left his parents and is living on his own, but he/she can’t get a job because it’s only rightfully yours when you’re 18? What if the age was lowered to 15 and kids started getting hurt while at work? Most importantly, where are we going to find enough jobs to give to everybody! It’s not like the government can just force companies to open up more jobs for people. The companies may not be able to afford to pay the extra workers, and then what happens to the company, it goes out of business? A job must be earned based on your qualifications and work ethic. With so many people receiving jobs, the skilled people would have a hard time pulling away from the untalented, and then the company would be wasting precious talent. There are simply too many problems that would come up with making a job a “right”. If any man truly wants/needs a job, they can work hard and find a way to get one.
I do think that a company has some responsibilities to its workers if it lays them off. When a person is unemployed, they are able to exercise as many options as possible and seek out many possible job opportunities during their day. However, when a person has a job, they are not looking for job opportunities during the day, they’re working. Not only that, but it’s not like they are planning on having to need a new job any time soon, because they believe they’re currently pretty stable with their job. As a result, the laid off person would need some time to find a new job, and I believe it is this span of time that a company has a responsibility to pay the worker some money. The company can’t just leave a worker out on the street with no way to pay for themselves or their family. However, I do believe this should only be necessary up to a certain amount of time, to prevent a person getting paid for not working for as long as they desire. Something around the length of 6 months to a year, or before that if the person finds a job, so that they still have a way of supporting themselves.
A worker does not have a civil right to his or her job. It is impossible to organize a system to guarantee every citizen a job if our country is democracy. If a new type of government was created that included jobs as civil rights, it would be a lot like socialism or communism. If this new system was put into practice (in the United States or any other country) I can’t see it working. Being guaranteed a job is a nice thought, but not a nice reality. Employers could not fire an incompetent worker or hire anyone (who should be given the job if everyone has a right to it?). Companies could not downsize because it would be a violation of their worker’s civil rights. If a company can’t lay off workers that it can’t afford to pay them, it would have to close. But it couldn’t do that because that would cause all of its workers to lose their jobs, violating their civil rights. The employees of this ailing company could not just quit and find another job because there would be few jobs to find. A company couldn’t hire anyone without depriving hundreds of other people of a job, which would be violating their civil rights. A system like this can’t work.
If a company is forced to lay off its workers, then it should set up a system that helps its former employees find new jobs. I understand that if a company has to lay off workers it doesn’t have a lot of money, but it could write letters of recommendation to prospective employers and refer their former employees to employment agencies.
While I believe that a job is important, I do not believe that a person has a right to a job. They should only have a job if they are willing to work hard. If the person is not willing to do the work required, then they should not have a job. If a job were a right, then that job could not be taken away from someone. However, if a person is not putting in the effort or is not efficient, then that would justify firing that person.
This is not to say that companies don’t have a duty to provide for the people who work for them. Companies should give their workers a fair pay, and provide employer benefits. If a company lays off workers to save money, the workers should be entitled to employer benefits until they can find a new job. Many companies will pay workers for 6 months after they are laid off so the workers can still have money while they are searching for a new job. This is especially important for workers who have a family to provide for, and need a source of income until they can find another job. When a worker is laid off, he/she usually put in the effort needed for that job, so there is no justification to take the job away from that person except that it saves the company money. Therefore, that worker should still be entitled to the same employer benefits until he/she can find another job.
1) While I do not typically align myself with liberal politics, FDR’s Second Bill of Rights came to mind when this question was presented. In this document, he laid out the economic rights that Americans should be entitled. Among others, the rights included employment with a living wage (a salary that was based on the current cost of living), medicare, and education. It is indeed a right to have a job and a living salary. If not that, at least education should be a right.
Glorious education makes us smarter and brighter. With our new-found knowledge we are able to understand the world better and, with it, employment usually comes. Let’s put it this way- if the entire country was better educated, the Chinese and Indians would want us working for them and not the other way around.
The kind of situation I described only applies to adult citizens of the US that are of legal age. As long as the wage supports the current cost of living, the job may be part-time or indeed, full-time.
2) What was sadly not addressed in FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights is what should occur if a company has to lay off workers or cut costs. Sure the whole ‘right to employment’ looks good on paper, but does it work in the real world? Of course, it does. This is America. The land of endless opportunities. If one were to lose a job, another would surely be waiting for them.
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights is legendary and inspiring. One of the last sentences he spoke in the address in which he laid out the Rights was as followed, “For unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,”
I think that a job, under normal circumstances, isn’t a civil right at all. In my opinion, a job is simply a privilege. Their age doesn’t matter, if somebody just doesn’t like to work or is just extremely lazy, then they shouldn’t necessarily have a job. However, if they have a family, then a job is a need, though it still shouldn’t be considered a civil right. I think so because there are so many people who have relatively good jobs, but are completely incompetent in their line of work, and because of these people, many people who actually deserve that job can’t get it.
I think that if a company lays off its workers, then it doesn’t necessarily have any sort of responsibility towards them anymore. While the person who gets laid off definitely feels like their employer just screwed them over, a usually people are laid off for good reasons, and if they aren’t laid off, a company may well die and put everyone working for them in trouble.
The United States is a capitalist society, where private property is most valued and prized. When you are given money from another human being, that is a privilege, not something that the lucky person is entitled to. When you work for someone, you are making a contract that in exchange for your time, you will be paid a certain amount. After this of course the major problem is how much is a person’s time worth, and whether the employer is abusing his employees by making outrageous demands. Of course, if jobs were made a right, it would be much simpler, but life is not simple. We have to work at protecting the worker while also protecting the employer. Giving things free to either of them is unfair, but the employer has numerous times shown that because they have the money, they are tempting the donkey with the carrot. The donkey doesn’t have to eat it, but probably wants it desperately.
Sadly, whatever the background, the employer withholds the right to select who he wants to hire. Nowadays application processes have improved with new laws to prevent racism, sexism, or any discriminatory attitudes from interfering. Nonetheless, most people will not hold more “right” to a job than others, but will “deserve” it more depending on experience and education. Which is why older adults and adults in general get jobs more often because they are more likely to have more experience than a 15 year old.
Finally a company does have the responsibility to relocate “jobs” when they have to lay off. Companies cannot “dump” people on the streets because it is much harder for a family to live comfortably. Companies need to be forced to help locate work because then they are just benefiting themselves at the expense of others.
I think under certain circumstances that they do have a right to their job. If a worker has been doing well, they shouldn’t have to lose their job. Firing a perfectly good employee just because they can isn’t right. If they have no reason to be fired then they shouldn’t be. I don’t think the circumstances would be different for anyone. Sure it would be a bit more dire if a person was, for instance, a single parent but if anyone has no reason to be fired other than budget cuts or simply because they want to, they should have a right to keep their job. If someone acted poorly on the job then they would lose that right but that shouldn’t happen now or back near the Homestead strike because of the conditions of living. No one would want to lose a job during a recession. The policy should be if you work hard, you keep your job.
If a company has to make downsizes, they shouldn’t start with their employees. They could use supplies that are cheaper if they have no other choice. They could run fundraisers, do anything to help raise money. The workers shouldn’t suffer for a company’s blunder, or an economic recession. I understand losing a job when an entire corporation closes down, but they shouldn’t sacrifice someone else’s life because they can’t think of any other way to make money. They could try to sell the product more. They could advertise, use cheaper supplies, and discard anything that isn’t necessary to the company. Anything that could slow down the unemployment rate.
First of all, short answer: No, a job is not a civil right. In a perfect world, that would be reasonable, but in today’s world, that isn’t the case. Mainly, it is a matter of work ethic.someone who works their butt off day in and day out isn’t going to be happy when the stoner that lives in the next apartment over waltzes in to work 4 hours late and then complains to the union or the ACLU because he got fired. A prime example of this was the Soviet Union, where you got paid the same no matter how hard you work, or how lazy you are, most of the time the latter due to a total lack of motivation.
3. A company’s responsibility is simply to not outsource. in today’s economic climate, if someone were to be unhappy with their job, it would be a shared feeling and something would most likely be done about it. If not, there is 12.4% of the work force (nov. 2010) that would gladly take a whiny worker’s job. Simply put, there is no shortage of labor in the US and outsourcing only makes the problem worse. When people aren’t employed domestically, our GNP will take a nose dive, our foreign debt will increase, and when nobody can afford what is left of our domestic industry, our economy can’t survive, let alone thrive.
I don’t think a worker has a right to his or her job. Having a job is a privilege, and you have to work hard to keep it. If the worker is an adult who has been there at a business or company for years then he/she may have earned some security, but sometimes when your older it also means your ideas aren’t as good and you may be too stuck in the old ways that you can’t re-learn how to do the job a better way. I don’t think it should make a difference if you’re twenty or fifty because it’s about the work that you do. If you have good ideas at 20, why should you have to wait till your fifty to get the job you want?
I feel like I’m contradicting myself but this is a really debatable topic so whatevs 🙂
I think that overall you don’t have a right to your job, but if you’ve been somewhere for years and you still care about your work and put effort into it, you should be the last person they look to for firing. The person worked hard to get into a higher position and maybe went through years of school. Also, it might be harder for them then for a teenager to find a new job because they would have to re learn things and since they’re older it would be harder. If you are older and don’t do good work anymore, you should be fired, even if you’ve been at a company longer than some other people.
2. I think the company that lays its workers off should do as much as they can to help them. No one wants to fire people so I’m sure the company would do whatever it can to help out its ex-workers.
some things it could do is maybe give them some good references if they are trying to apply to another job or give the workers they are going to fire a six month warning or something so they have time to look for another job. I don’t think there is much else a company can do and it doesn’t actually have a responsibility to workers. Some people get fired; some keep their jobs that the way life works. The company needed to cut costs and it was your unlucky day. other then offering good references, the only thing they can do to make the person happy is give them back there old job.
No, I do no believe that a job is a civil right for the working American. Companies go through the same economic troubles that banks and the stock market does, so it will be necessary at times for them to make cuts on their number of workers. I do believe that companies should be more careful and aware about whom they lay off. A young person who has had a job for a year versus a fifty-year-old man who has been working that job for thirty years: I believe that the young person who has less experience should be laid off. The older man has more experience and has been with the company so long that he may have earned a small right to the job in one way or another. Also, since companies should be allowed the right to lay people off, they need to have certain responsibilities for the said people. There should be a fair amount of money paid to those who are being laid off. When people are laid off the need a package of sorts so they can at least stay afloat while searching for another source of income. Also, these people should be given a number of references to places they may be able to find help or even find a new job. Overall no, I don’t think that people have a civil right, but the companies that are laying people off must know that they are responsible for the workers in one way or another.
1. I do not think that a worker has a right to their job. An economic system cannot work in a society in which there is no risk of being fired. The biggest issue of making having a job a civil right is that people will no longer have the ability to fire their workers. If nobody can be fired then there is absolutely no incentive to work hard. Imagine if two people are working the same job for minimum wage. In this situation if neither of them can get fired, then one person could slack off completely with no consequences. This is bad for obvious reasons. Another issue with guaranteeing jobs to citizens is that at the moment the private sector is only providing for so many jobs. This would mean that since a job is guarranteed to everyone the government would have to give people work. This would cost an enormous amount of money that our government simply does not have. The only concievable way of getting the money to fund this is by raising taxes. When taxes are raised, especially for the people with higher incomes that control most of the country’s corporations, it hurts the economy by making it more difficult for businesses to survive when they have to pay so much more to the government. If businesses begin failing, then that actually results in a loss of jobs for the american public. These jobs would then have to be made up for by the government because of their new right. This results not only in even more taxes on the once healthy businesses that will be snuffed out but also will cause these businesses to fail due to an inability of competing with the government because the government cannot ever fail. Eventually no more private sector jobs will exist because it would be simply impossible for them to surive under these conditions. When there are no more private businesses then all that is left is governmentally run opperations that cannot ever fail and people can never be fired from. Esentially it would be communism. This new form of government is bad because there would no longer be any work incentive whatsoever because the people know that no matter how much they produce, they will be given the same amount. This form of government does not reward hard work, it does not reward success, and it does not reward the ability to do something well. Aside from this, it also doesnt punish failure, it doesnt punish inability, and it doesnt punish laziness.
3. I do not believe that a company has any responsibility for their workers whatsoever once they have been laid off. I believe one of the most important aspects of a capitalistic society that makes it so successful is the right to hire, and to fire anyone that you want. If a company doesnt want someone to work for them, then that person should not have to be compensated in order for this to be okay. If someone else is willing to do the same job for less pay, then they should get the job. Just because a worker might rely on a company for financial stability doesnt mean that the company should be held responsible for the worker once they have been laid off. A comany is not doing the worker a favor by hiring them. A company hires workers out of a necessity for their own existence and should fire them for the same reason if necessary, especially if they are being replaced by cheaper, or more efficient workers. The reason it is okay for a company to hire workers for less money is because they will then be able to produce their product for a lower cost and lower costs of goods is good for the entire society. I believe that lower costs for goods and services is always a good thing for a society and if it can occur in all industries can be just as effective at increasing the lifestyle of workers as increased wages.
Jacob Seid
I think this is a great thinking question. Personally, I can go both ways about a worker having a right to his/her job. I think that wanting a job depends mostly on one’s circumstances and where they are in their life. For example a present day teenager may not need to work (unless for a few exceptions) and therefore does not feel it necessary to get a job. On the other hand, A middle aged housewife whose breadwinning husband had recently got laid off may need to support her family and therefore she needs to go back to work. In my opinion what makes it a civil right to work is that in the great United States of America, we are free to do as we please and we should all have an equal opportunity and be able to get a job if we want or not. Basically I think it is a civil right to take advantage of our free country because it can provide us each with multiple rewards and a sense of fulfillment. I also think that as an American, I take for granted all of the opportunities we are given in this country; opportunities which may not be available in other countries around the world. I think the right to work comes with one’s individual satisfaction with the jobs they are given enhancing their self fulfillment and fulling utilizing what our country has to offer. In turn, one’s rights to his or her job become stronger.
Just because a someone has the right to work doesn’t mean they have to work, it just means that they are free to be their own persons and find a job suitable for themselves. It is very apparent that now in these hard economic times, that more and more companies seem to be laying off their workforce in an attempt to downsize and save money. One would think this would interfere with the peoples’ rights but it doesn’t. It doesn’t interfere with people’s rights because the company is inside a free country which means it is free to do what it needs to do in order to be successful, just as a person does, even if it means laying off people. Just because people have a right to work, doesn’t always mean the ideal job they have or want is an option. Don’t get me wrong, they still have the right to work but because this is America, the little guy, the worker, and the big guy, the company which is downsizing have to be treated as equals and therefore if one can do as they want, the other can as well. Even though we are all treated as equals, unfortunately we may not get equal amounts of money or satisfaction.
In order to cut costs, companies, just like people who have over extended themselves, need to remove the unnecessary and the indulgences from their lives. For companies, this could mean laying off 100 workers or for the case of a family, it could mean the housekeeper only comes twice a week or once a week as opposed to coming 5 days a week. Yes it may not be the nicest thing but it is what we as people can do to save ourselves. We are very lucky to be living in a place which allows us to be equal and free in order to be the best people we can be.
I don’t think being handed a job right out of school is a civil right every American deserves. By not having a guaranteed job, people are more likely to be competitive and try harder when they are in college and when they enter the job market, and I think this competition creates a society that can always be advancing as people try to out do one another. However, I think once a person has been in a job for a long time, they shouldn’t be forced out because of anything, unless they truly aren’t physically or mentally capable of performing the job anymore. For example, I don’t think a teacher should be forced to retire if they are deemed “too old” by a district. Even though the idea of having a guaranteed job is very appealing, especially during these hard economic times, I don’t think people would ultimately be very happy. There simply aren’t enough jobs in the American market for everyone to have a job they want—many people who want to be in the service sector might be forced to take manufacturing job simply because that was one of the only available positions at the time. That being said, I do think companies owe something to their employees if they decide to move their jobs overseas to save money. I think companies should be required to pay healthcare for 18 months or until the employee finds other work, which ever comes first and pay partial salary to the employee for a time.
1. A worker does have a right to their job because how else are they supposed to find the means to live. Everyone needs money to survive in this day and economy. Workers should have this right, but it can also be taken away if the worker doesn’t put effort into their job. If they are unenthusiastic and could care less about how they perform, then that right should be taken away, so that people who are hard workers and care about their jobs can have the chance to work. They can get their right back if they can prove themselves to be a trusted employee. A workers right shouldn’t depend on their circumstance because if a person with more experience has a right to their job and a person who doesn’t have a lot of experience doesn’t have a right to their job, how will the person with less experience gain the experience needed if he/she doesn’t have a right to work? It also shouldn’t depend on whether or not the person is married or single, because either way the person has to provide for someone: themselves or their family.
2. Companies can downsize in troubled times by reducing paychecks instead of laying people off. That way, even though the workers won’t get as much money, they will still have a job, which is better than nothing. When a company needs to cut costs, it can cut back on the supplies it uses, or be more efficient in the way they run things, so as not to waste money. Maybe instead of having to pay cooks for their cafeteria, everyone can bring their own lunch. If something was once free, they could add a charge to it. For example, if doughnuts were once free, a company could change it to $1 a doughnut to increase their revenue. All of these options can be used instead of cutting costs; otherwise, workers won’t feel that they have a right to their job anymore. Those practices would have to stop if unions and workers had more of a say-so in the management of a company because the workers would most likely vote against losing their job to someone overseas. Although, if workers had more of a say-so, issues wouldn’t be resolved very peacefully because tensions would arise from what the management would want, to what the workers would want.
I believe that a worker has a right to obtain a job and I don’t think it depends on the worker’s circumstances. If someone works hard to achieve their goal of getting a job for whatever profession then they should get it no matter their circumstances whether its age, sex or race. It wouldn’t be fair if students getting out of many years of study and with the good work mentality to find themselves in a poor situation without any job. However, I don’t necessarily believe that someone should get the job if they haven’t earned it face to someone that has worked for a longer period of time. Also, the worker needs to still meet the standards while working and then later on, could possibly obtained a higher position in the profession. The civil rights are the rights to personal liberty. And I think that having a job is a personal liberty that everybody fundamentally has and needs in order to survive in the society.
During troubled times, and when a company needs to downsize a bit, they could maybe lay off certain people that have worked there for not so long. The options that a company has when its needs to cut costs is reduce the hours the workers have and lower the pay of every worker. I don’t think the practice of sending people overseas would be stopped by unions, because people would still not be laid off and they would still have their jobs and earn money. While getting laid off during a recession might cause bigger problems because no more money comes through.
1. No, a worker does not have a right to his/her job. It is his/her responsibility to fulfill their duty to be able to maintain their job. It is up to each individual to be qualified for the job they want. If they have obtained that job, it is up to them and only them to do the work needed to keep it. The employer has the right to hire and fire people based on their actions and achievements or faults. It does not matter what their situation is. If someone really needs the money, they should be responsible enough to work hard and keep the job.
3. Companies need to have qualified hard workers to be successful and they can’t have people holding them back. If a company lays people off, I don’t necessarily think they are required to do anything for that person. If the company knows it will need to lay off people soon, they should tell the workers so they have time to find a new job. I don’t think they are required to exactly, but it won’t hurt them and it will help the workers get prepared. Also, if the company is relocating, the should give workers plenty of notice to make a decision whether to move or find a new job. Relocating takes lots of time and planning, so it should not be a problem for them to notify the workers before it happens. Now, if it was the worker’s fault they were fired, it’s another story. If they do something that causes them to be fired, the company owes that person nothing. Every situation is really different, but I don’t think there’s really a time when a worker has a right to their job.
A job is not a civil right what so ever. No exceptions and no special circumstances. You need to earn a job by yourself and even if you work hard and you think you deserve a good job, you don’t. Society doesn’t owe you a thing! Most of the time if you are qualified and work hard enough you WILL get the job you want, but it can’t always be for sure. A company does not owe anything to the workers that they layoff. Once they are fired from their job working for you they are on their own, and that’s how it works. The only way a company should be responsible when an employee leaves is a pension, depending on how that person did their job. Think about it there are billions of people in the world, and to think that anyone owes you anything is insane! There could be 50 people applying for one job, and all of them are qualified and have worked hard to get this job. Only one person will get the job. So 49 people will be unemployed, so if society owed everyone a job then they all would be hired! And then everyone would have a job of their choice which is un realistic.
1. Personally i do not think a worker has a right to his or her job. Just because if I have worked a job for so long doesn’t mean it is “my” job. It does not matter if I am a boy or a girl old or young. All that really matters it the level or skill at which you can do the job. If I am working a job for a very long time and doing a half good job, and then there is someone new who can do it better, then they should have the job. In all honesty the job should go to whoever works hardest not who got it first, and not who needs the money. Personally I also think that outside such as sex, origin and wealth should not affect if u get a job or not. Also It doesn’t matter if I had it before them, it just matters how well you can do it. Like think about it if there is two people the same age a boy and a girl then who should get the job? Obviously the more skilled worker. So overall i don’t think it is a right but a privilege that everyone has to work for.
3. I think a company does have a few responsibilities to its workers. The first responsibility a company has is to its workers is to at least give a warning that people may be lets off, rather than have it be a sudden occurance. Also I think company’s should try to help out the people who work hard my maybe recommending them to other company’s and other employers to help out.
1.I don’t think that a job is a civil right. I believe that if we made jobs a civil right, the economy would go down to trash. Sure, everyone would have a job, but eventually the businesses would have to keep hiring people, and then they would run out of money. When the business had no money, then the business would shut down, and even more people wouldn’t have jobs. Eventually there wouldn’t be any jobs available because every time your business failed, you would go to another one, but that business would already by over filled, and that business would shut down soon too.
3.I think the company, if it lays off its works should give their workers a 2 week – one month notice, and the employee could take their layoff anytime from when they are told, until the one month is up. That way the workers would have time to find another job and save some extra money. Also, if the worker can show proof that he is trying to get another job, – polished résumé, scheduled interviews – the company should give their former employees a small percentage of their former pay for a certain amount of time after they are laid off (maybe 1 week), so they can be stable until they find another job. It can be really hard to find a job, but the harder you try, the more likely you are to find one. The added security of the after layoff pay can motive someone to try harder to get a new job.
No, I do not believe a worker has the right to his or her job. If everyone is guaranteed a job, then people won’t have an incentive to work because they will have a job no matter what. This is what happened in Soviet Russia, everyone was guaranteed a job with equal pay. As a result there was no real incentive to work hard. While I don’t think age should be a factor, I do think that how long you have loyally served your company should give you extra consideration for not being laid off. Though seniority still shouldn’t make you exempt from getting fired. Working full or part time shouldn’t be a factor because part time worker already get paid less. Being married or single also shouldn’t be a factor because it’s you choice how and who you choose to live your live with. There shouldn’t be discrimination between married and single people. Although in this age many but definitely not all women work in America. They at least have the ability to get a job, unlike children. I think the situation is a little different when you have children because you have to support someone, or several little someones who can’t fend for them selves. Like seniority, I don’t think having children should make you exempt from getting fired, but it should give you extra consideration for not getting laid off.
I think if a company lays off a worker, they should get some sort of compensation. I think the company owes the newly laid off worker enough money to live off of for one to two months as they are looking for a new job.
Ben Hafen, 4th Hour
1.) Jenny Richter brings up an excellent point. The government at present doesn’t have nearly enough money to guarantee that every U.S. citizen is able to get a job, nor do they have the ability, money, or manpower to try and figure out who’s a U.S. citizen and who isn’t. Economically speaking, it’s past impossible to even try to do this without immediate and severe repercussions.
That being said, I think I should move on to answering the question myself.
I don’t personally know about having a job, per se, so it’s not easy to say for myself. However, one thing I do know is theatre.
Is that an analogy you sense coming on? You can bet your bottom dollar it is.
Many people in class today stated that having a job is not a civil right; one has to earn the privilege of having a job. Likewise, one has to audition to be able to get a role in a theatrical production of any sort. People prepare weeks in advance for the highly competitive GPAC musicals’ lead role auditions, picking songs and memorizing monologues. Put simply, it wouldn’t be fair to give said coveted lead roles to any idiot who walks into the auditorium.
Ergo, I say that having a job is not a civil right under any circumstances.
3.) Technically, the employers don’t have to do anything for any laid off workers. However, I feel that they should be obligated in some way, shape, or form to help those workers to be able to find new employment. Perhaps by notifying those workers with other job opportunities in the area, or something like that?
I don’t think a worker has the right to his or her job. A job is something borrowed at best. It can’t just be yours forever and ever. Eventually you die. So what then? If the job is yours then does your heir get it or does it go back to the company or can you sell it? That would just be unfair to the company and prospective workers. I think everyone has the right to work hard to get a job. You have the right to go to school, work hard and to go to interviews. The rest is left to chance. If you work hard, go to school, and seek out interviews you will probably eventually get a job somewhere. If you don’t go to school, don’t work hard and don’t really seek interviews you probably won’t get a job anywhere. If you own your job people could work hard until they secure a job and then slack off for the rest of their life but still bring in an income. This isn’t fair to people who genuinely want to work hard and do a good job at what they do. This also leaves the company with useless workers and a low productivity rate. I think if you work hard at your job and do a good job employers should have respect for you when you get older and make sure you are going to be okay income wise after they need to replace you due to age. People need to work for their jobs. If they didn’t where would that leave everybody? It would leave us in a lazy, useless, unhelpful society. Nothing would ever get done.
I don’t think companies have any real responsibilities regarding helping the workers they lay off. The company that is seeking budget cuts needs to look after it’s self before anyone else. If it didn’t then the company would be in trouble due to debt, legal problems and other things. I think that the company morally should provide some kind of payment after the lay off for when the ex-workers are searching for jobs and some kind of help in finding a job. But I don’t think it’s a necessity. Workers look after themselves before the company so why shouldn’t the company look after it’s self before the workers? If the workers were looking after the company they would accept a pay cut and longer hours. If I were a worker I wouldn’t accept that. But that’s not a bad thing, I mean why should someone accept that? But if a company needs to cut costs or suffer dramatically why should they make sure their workers keep their jobs and keep receiving a pay check? If I were a company I would lay the workers off and seek workers I could pay less some where else. If a company needs to make those kinds of changes then they should do so as long as it is absolutely necessary and they give an adequate warning. As long as they do these things I don’t see a reason that they should be burdened with responsibilities regarding helping the workers after the lay off.
1. No, people do not have a right to job, people should have a job, but no one is entitled to anything. When it comes to getting a job you send in your resume, you interview, business go to great lengths to make sure their getting the right people for the right job, you can get as much education as you want you could qualified to highest degree, but until you get that job offer you are at the mercy of the person who is hiring you. I do think that once you have a job depending on the persons income, martial status and things such as children workers have a right to specific benefits, and they can have these benefits for about a year after losing the job because if you have to provide and you are married and you lose your job it effects a whole family.
3. If you lay off your workers, especially in mass numbers you have become responsible for them. You hired them and they worked for you and help the company run efficiently, now you have taken away their means of supporting themselves, and their families. The need to cut them has nothing to do with them individually, so they have to give them advanced notice, of two months or more, they have need to provide them with money for at least 9 months or so. It is wrong to suddenly put someone in a position where they are suddenly fending for themselves, also if theres such little money don’t cut just cut the people on the bottom. Cut the people in management positions, because people with that kind of qualification are more likely to be able to get another job, and with higher pay they are more expensive to the company.
A worker does not have a right to his/her job. Most jobs aren’t created specifically for one person, but made to fit a certain person with the correct qualifications, and in many cases there are multiple candidates that could be chosen. A right is something that you shouldn’t have to work for as it is given to you by the country you were born in. If a worker feels his job is “his” because of his hard work leading up to the beginning of his work, then he may slack off and not strive excellence in his work. When a worker is laid off, the company doesn’t have any major responsibilities that they need to carry out. They need to pay the worker they laid off a buyout fee to allow the worker to at least survive for a few years, or to move to a different city to find a new job. The company should give all the workers they laid off an opportunity to either wait out the economic hardships that the company faces, and once the company stabilizes they could get their jobs back, or immediately take the buyout fee and have nothing to do with the company anymore. If the worker decides to wait out the troubles, there should be a 2 year wait period where the worker receives 25% of the buyout fee to live on, and if he does not return to work, he would be given 60% more to leave with.
1. In my personal opinion, a worker does not have a right to his job. Everyone gets to vote, but who’s to say that everyone gets a job? To get a job a person must be qualified, experienced or both. This may or may not be related to that person’s status. For instance: a person may be less likely to qualify for a certain number of hours and a teenager may not have the experience that another possible recruit has. People work every day to earn their salary and continue working towards keeping their positions. But a worker should not have a so-called right to his or her job. While discrimination or firing of a worker based on sex, race, religion or orientation should be illegal without question; marriage or age could play a role in how well a worker does his or her job and seeing as the boss is the “hirer”, the boss must be the “firer” too. Making every firing call for a “good” reason would fill courts to the brim in one day. As long as the firing is not discrimination, it’s okay with me.
3. If a company lays off its workers, the company should be required to have a reason. The company should also be responsible for giving the workers some form of advance notice. The terms for being laid off should be sorted out and agreed upon when the work begins so that there is a point of reference. Finally, if the layoff has to do with moving the work elsewhere, that work should be offered to the workers or, at the very least, the company should be responsible for offering the worker other work if it’s available.
I believe that people should not have a civil right to a job. A job isn’t something that should be granted a civil right because of the limitations you would have to put on it if you made it such civil right. You would literally be making it a civil right for some people, and saying, “oh you can’t have this job due to the unneeded personal in this work field” Then you would have to take into consideration the people who would qualify for the said right, because the government just can’t go around handing out free work to unskilled people. You would have to make sure the person had the right qualifications. You would also have to look at the persons financials. Does this person do generally financially well? Or have they lost everything in an attempt to start their own business? Well if somebody is homeless, then yes, I think they would deserve a shot at a civil right produced job, but on the other hand, that would be making the right exclusive to only those who are in the toilet. It would even be difficult to conduct for the government, officials would have to make feasible jobs in an unstable economy with the unemployment rate at an all time high, not to easy. Creating jobs in an environment were they are very little to begin with, and a lot of positions to fill would be an extremely difficult if not impossible task. Overall, I strongly believe that one, in a successful government, shouldn’t have the civil right to there own job.
1) No, I don’t think that a job should be a civil right. I think that it is a person’s responsibility to do what they need to do to provide for their family. Also, there wouldn’t be enough jobs for the government to provide everyone with a job. One option would be splitting already existing jobs over more people, because there are people who believe that they have too much on their plate now. However the problem with that would be the people that have the jobs now wouldn’t make as much money because the company would have to pay for the other worker(s), and the company would have to spend more money paying for things like insurance. The companies would be reluctant to do this so the government would have to offer some sort of incentive to get companies to offer more jobs. If it were to exist there would have to be parameters limiting who was entitled to what job, which would upset people who were given jobs that they believe were beneath them.
2) I think that a company has the right to look out for itself. In hard times when everyone is in need of money and the company truly believes downsizing and moving factories out of the countries is in its best interest then it should be able to. Personally I wouldn’t want to cause hardship for my employees, but I can understand why someone would do it if the survival of their company was in danger and it was necessary to take extreme measures in order to save the company and make money.
1. A worker does not have any kind of civil right to that job that they work. It is just not plausible in America, at any time, to have this system work correctly. A worker has the ability to secure a job by showing quality work ethic, being loyal to the company, and being a stable employee overall. No one in this country should be able to just turn a certain age and have a job waiting for them, without truly working for it. Unless the economy fails, the better, more qualified worker should retain the job over a newcomer, but a private company has its own policies and can lay a person off, by contract, meaning that that job is not a right that a person is entitled to, but a position that can be secure and unsecure. It does not matter what demographic the person is grouped in, when push comes to shove, and companies need to lay-off employees, we see that no one has a “right” to their job and it can be easily taken away without any warning. Even if a person’s job is their only income and they need it to survive, they do not have a right to it. Just because a person is needy, doesn’t give them the right to just walk into a place of business and be handed a job, no questions asked. Everyone needs to work hard at their job to gain more job security, to make sure they have the best chance of retaining that job.
2. If a company lays off its workers, it has a lot of responsibilities to those workers. The company needs to give some sort of severance to these people so they don’t go bankrupt right away. They need to help them refinance their life plan for retirement and such because their income will now be next to nothing.