It's WAY too EASY to get FIRED

I thank you for a quick reply. It's always nice to keep the debate at a steady pace =). Before I state my argument, I'd like to make a polite recommendation. It's quite hard to read your argument when it's just one blob of text. Try spacing it out according to topic (sort of how the body of an essay is written). I will be quoting sections from your argument for personal reference when typing up my argument. --"unfortunately the employees Supervisor or Manager wanted them GONE, so even though there was NO just cause to fire them, they were let go anyway. In some cases the employee recognizes it and asks for a PAYOUT because they know something ILLEGAL is going on, and we APPROVE giving them a Payout of several months of their pay to have them "Go Away". Does THAT sound like something our employers "should" be able to do"-- In regards to just letting go of employees without an actual cause, isn't it possible that they are being laid off due to a more promising worker has come by and/or it's getting difficult to pay the worker due to low funds circulating in the company itself? If something illegal is going on, I'm sure the employee would be smart enough to recognize such actions and report it to the authorities unless you're mentioning the possibility of them being illegally fired? The employers should be paying at least a month of the worker's pay if they are let go of, even if it's to make them go away. If they were illegally fired, the court should be on the case anyway, or at least the employee should be informing the authorities and/or getting a court hearing organized. It is the employee's fault if they do not alert the authorities of illegal actions in the workplace or of an illegal lay-off, as the authorities have no way of knowing in the first place. If the worker doesn't take action, then it can be assumed that they did not care to begin with. --"As far as I'm aware "ticking off the boss" is NOT in the employee handbook. That's another thing we COULD discuss, SHOULD supervisors and manager have ALL the power while the employees have NONE? THAT is one of the MAIN purposes of Unions, that give employees PROTECTIONS from supervisors, managers and hrs who ABUSE all the Power they are given"-- I do in fact have a part time job (I am still a minor, so my apologies if my lack of work makes me seem uneducated). Speaking from experience, "ticking off the boss" is in fact in the handbook, at least where I work, however is not written in those exact words. My apologies for my vagueness. Please allow me to reword it to 'insubordination, intimidation, and/or verbal/physical harassment'. Harassing the boss physically/verbally should be and usually is a valid reason to be laid off, as nobody deserves to be treated in such amount of disrespect. Insubordination is also considered, again in most cases, a valid reason to be laid off. The employee should follow /most of/ the employer's instructions if it means getting the task at hand accomplished, otherwise you're not doing your job, correct? In regards to your question, bosses should not have all the power, and in most cases, they don't. Employees are allowed to argue with their bosses if the situation deems it necessary. In the case where the boss doesn't listen, as you stated, the union steps in. If the boss is doing something illegally or unlawfully, again, they should be reported to the authorities. --"My point mostly focuses on how EASY it is to get fired, whether you're Tardy or Absent as little as ONCE or because you happen to be the person with the least "sales" this month or whatever the case may be"-- Depending on the job, such lay offs can be considered acceptable. If you're absent or late just once or twice, the lay off should be considered unacceptable unless (using your example) the absence caused the worker to be below the quota of sales for the month. Each boss is different, and some bosses are uptight and expect each worker to meet a quota, and if they don't, they get replaced. Such rules and expectations are to be explained before the person or when the person gets the job, so unless they were sick or something more serious, the worker should know what the boss expects and their punishment if they so happen to not meet up with expectations. Again, they can easily be replaced, and I'm sure you know why (if you don't. I have no problems explaining). --"Regarding paperwork, some employer actually do everything in their power to NOT provide the employees with written proof of their termination. And even for the employees who DO have that paperwork, MOST Americans recognize employees are POOR or VERY LOW income (NO income after you FIRE them!) HOW are they supposed to AFFORD a lawyer? Yes, we happen to know there MAY be SOME "pro bono" lawyers out there, but MANY Americans do NOT know that, and guess what? Unless you have an OBVIOUS "win", the "free" lawyers are VERY unlikely to take your case"-- I'd just like to point out that you do not need a lawyer in small cases, and sometimes larger depending on the situation. It's always good to have a lawyer, however. --"I really want to impress upon you that the way you express yourself on this issue is VERY inaccurate IN the sense that you make it sound "EASY" to fight your employer, when it's the POLAR opposite. IT's VERY difficult and don't forget, business and corporations have MILLIONS even BILLIONS of dollars, MOST employees I'm talking about are POOR or have NO assets or resources, again, i'm talking about the bottom 50% of Americans, they only make between 5 to 15$/hour!"-- I do not aim to make it sound easy, so I apologize for my naive wordplay. To reiterate, an employee can fight their boss, however preparations should be made beforehand as to give a decent argument in order to have at least a small chance of getting the point across. Corporations with that much money will probably not lay off workers in such an unlawful manner, as the media will latch onto such information and therefore bring expenses down that are flowing to the company due to the bad name made for the company. If the corporation does lay off someone in an unlawful manner and the media catches on, they'd most likely do anything to get their name better. --" Here is something else I most people don't know. Corporations and Big Business who do NOT have Unions, not only do NOT allow the employee to bring a "witness" to corrective action meetings, but they FORBID ANY type of Recording Device! So HOW on EARTH are they supposed to have PROOF that their employer has SAID something or DONE something ILLEGAL if they are NOT allowed to acquire the EVIDENCE?"-- You make a good point there, migmag. However, is it possible that the employee could ask for the employer to sign something, like a sheet of paper with details of the meeting? I would think it would depend on the boss, however. --"Also, employers do NOT provide the employees with the DATA they NEED to be able to PROVE that they are performing as GOOD if not BETTER than many of their coworkers."-- When giving out warnings, I would assume that many employers print out some sort of sheet that shows just that. Speaking from experience, my employer did that for me when I started slacking off as to issue a warning for not meeting standards given to me. I would take a photo of the sheet and send it to you if possible, however I do not know of a way to do that on this website as I am still relatively new. --"Regarding your last 2 comments, one, it's EXTREMELY rare that employees get "some sort of compensation EVEN when the employers KNOWS they are getting rid of them for an UNJUST cause."-- When it is taken to court, the employee can demand compensation. I was talking about when the employer is proven guilty. --"Lastly, EVEN for those employees who WERE fired due to their "own actions" does NOT mean that the ONE chance to prove themselves was enough. Most people feel that Firing should be the LAST possible option! After all, we're talking about the possibility of making the employee involved BANKRUPT, HOMELESS and HUNGRY! "-- Again, the employee should have been given at least a warning before being fired, yet they continued to act unaccordimgly. Why should such an individual be kept in the workplace if they are just a burden? Again, thanks for the quick reply. I await my opponent's argument.