> If a company feels an employee is not being productive, they should be allowed to let them go.
Even if they feel they ARE being productive, they should be allowed to let them go. The ultimate point of a job is not to get paid, it is to produce work that accomplishes a goal set by the employers. So if they change those goals for some reason, then the letting-go should be allowed.
I really wish there was some sort of UBI to disincentivize clinging to a near-useless (in terms of ultimate goals) job. Heck, just making unemployment not contingent on getting fired (another perverse incentive) would be an improvement.
Decoupling healthcare from employment would also be an improvement. My mom would have retired several years earlier if it weren't for my parents relying on the county government for healthcare. We don't have UBI, and unemployment is very limited. Getting laid off on a whim with no warning can literally be a death sentence.
I know I post Star Trek analogies a lot, but if Chief O'brien got laid off from Deep Space Nine because of cost cutting, he would be fine. (actually, he'd probably be much better off). We don't live in this world. We live in a world where losing your job can kill you.
Even if they feel they ARE being productive, they should be allowed to let them go. The ultimate point of a job is not to get paid, it is to produce work that accomplishes a goal set by the employers. So if they change those goals for some reason, then the letting-go should be allowed.
I really wish there was some sort of UBI to disincentivize clinging to a near-useless (in terms of ultimate goals) job. Heck, just making unemployment not contingent on getting fired (another perverse incentive) would be an improvement.