Debate Mansion

   

Should Employers be held accountable

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 3

Page 1
Page   of 3
Page 2 Page 3

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20975

Posted: 21 February 2008 at 1:07pm | IP Logged

There is a topic on two weeks notice

But what about the responsibility of employer the otherway around when they choose to dismiss, lay off  or not hire people.

Most employers by law are expected to give valid legal reason like performance, misconduct, ethics violations, attendance - while firing an employee. If there is no good reason employers are legally accountable.

Considering the high amount of lay offs taking place as jobs are taken overseas - Should employers present comprehensive report of their cost saving decision to support their decision? Should they provide reliable guarantee that their overseas operations are not sweatshops? Should the government hold the company legally viable if they do not produce justified business reason?

Another situation I have seen is the generic rejection letter for job applicants that just states - we picked someone else. I have seen two people with exact same qualifications apply and one gets interview and the other is rejected. Should employers be expected to be more transparent in their hiring process and prove that they have fair hiring practicies? Should employers be obligated to cite specific reason on why an applicant was rejected "Lacked so and so experience" "Did not have so and so degree" "Poor interview" "Lied on resume" "Mistakes on Resume" "Lacks so and so skill". This serves two purposes employer justifies their decision and shows fair hiring practices, applicant knows what they lack and can work on it.

Considering the tight job market and increasing unemployment rates would more stringent controls on hiring and firing bring about a slight sense of ethical performance in businesses?

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Should Employers be held accountable" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

PiyaBawri

IF-Rockerz

PiyaBawri

Joined: 25 January 2006

Posts: 5816

Posted: 21 February 2008 at 1:39pm | IP Logged
In a perfect world, this would be great to have all the employers do this however, imo, we are never going to get to this where they will spell out why exactly they chose to hire the other qualified person over you. In many cases it is something as little as the other person had a more compatible personality than you with the hiring manager and they hit it off.
Unfortunately, in this job market, the employees need the job and not vice versa and since there are plenty of fishes to pick from, the employers dont feel the need to explain in detail why they dont want to move forward with you.

lighthouse

IF-Dazzler

lighthouse

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 2842

Posted: 21 February 2008 at 7:53pm | IP Logged

 Why only rejected interviewes? Vendors, banks, insurance agencies, mastercard and Amex, commercial landlords, towns, states, health insurance companies,  office supply stores, microsoft and apple, dell, IBM, HP, limo service, airlines, janitorial services, pizza delivery shop and everyone and anyone who does business with the employer and is competative in pricing and services with others in their field have a right to demand the reason for being rejected over another company this employer choses to do business with.Wink



Edited by lighthouse - 21 February 2008 at 7:57pm

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20975

Posted: 21 February 2008 at 9:13pm | IP Logged
Lol it does sound extreme to expect justification for everything. Sometimes it is tough for employers too.

The reason I started thinking of it because recently I have seen some people get shafted by some very shifty hiring practices, and saw a person promote his clueless brother in law to a management position.

You know Lighthouse sometimes that kind of accountability you mention is not too far from reality. Many businesses have faced problems with their executives buying/selling/partnering with only those firms that offer them 'perks'.

It is really a tough situation - there are some companies that employ very unethical practices and conduct things in a shady manner. However, at the same time keeping tabs could be extreme - but I would not be surprised if someday Sarbanes Oxley like laws would govern everything a business did.

raj5000

Moderator

raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006

Posts: 11737

Posted: 21 February 2008 at 10:02pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

There is a topic on two weeks notice

But what about the responsibility of employer the otherway around when they choose to dismiss, lay off  or not hire people.

Employers with thier big fat lawyers and bundles of papers to sign at time of joing has most of the stuff covered in thier favor. Reason why it is asked for employee to follow some norms that employers don't...

Most employers by law are expected to give valid legal reason like performance, misconduct, ethics violations, attendance - while firing an employee. If there is no good reason employers are legally accountable.

Depends on constract...some can just kick you off with same day notice...Otherwise on longer contract they need to give notice ...in case of big shots who fear being sued by employee..if they really wanna kick yaa off....but they cover thier ground..like net for personal use in office hours is not allowed...and if  by mistake in order to safe credit dent....paid a bill from office network..u are gone for good...If no fault they would frustrate the employee ot leave...

Considering the high amount of lay offs taking place as jobs are taken overseas - Should employers present comprehensive report of their cost saving decision to support their decision? Should they provide reliable guarantee that their overseas operations are not sweatshops? Should the government hold the company legally viable if they do not produce justified business reason?

I so will vote and love that... first justify why u hired and justify why you are firing... if obvious reasons presented for firing then why on earth did he hire..lolsss

Another situation I have seen is the generic rejection letter for job applicants that just states - we picked someone else. I have seen two people with exact same qualifications apply and one gets interview and the other is rejected. Should employers be expected to be more transparent in their hiring process and prove that they have fair hiring practicies? Should employers be obligated to cite specific reason on why an applicant was rejected "Lacked so and so experience" "Did not have so and so degree" "Poor interview" "Lied on resume" "Mistakes on Resume" "Lacks so and so skill". This serves two purposes employer justifies their decision and shows fair hiring practices, applicant knows what they lack and can work on it.

Diff topic...So much to say on this one...but dreams are calling without notice, ethical or unethical idc lolss right now don't know..am already zzingLOL ...would add more if time premits tomorrow...

Considering the tight job market and increasing unemployment rates would more stringent controls on hiring and firing bring about a slight sense of ethical performance in businesses?

Yes it will...some conroll would definetely help in exploitation from either parties...i.e emploer and employee

lighthouse

IF-Dazzler

lighthouse

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 2842

Posted: 22 February 2008 at 11:31am | IP Logged

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Lol it does sound extreme to expect justification for everything. Sometimes it is tough for employers too.

The reason I started thinking of it because recently I have seen some people get shafted by some very shifty hiring practices, and saw a person promote his clueless brother in law to a management position.

You know Lighthouse sometimes that kind of accountability you mention is not too far from reality. Many businesses have faced problems with their executives buying/selling/partnering with only those firms that offer them 'perks'.

It is really a tough situation - there are some companies that employ very unethical practices and conduct things in a shady manner. However, at the same time keeping tabs could be extreme - but I would not be surprised if someday Sarbanes Oxley like laws would govern everything a business did.

 Oh but they do.. It's called EEO laws... discrimination in hiring is illegal as far as I know.Smile

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 22 February 2008 at 5:29pm | IP Logged

yes, they should be held accountable. for everything. let's shackle them with every single trick on the books and put them out of business. that should be good for employees, no? Tongue Wink LOL

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 22 February 2008 at 7:59pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Fate Accountable for Everything?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

raj5000 57 1583 27 June 2007 at 5:47pm
By qwertyesque
Why are women held responsible?

2 3

amy22 19 673 20 November 2006 at 2:46am
By kabhi_21
Accountable Bloggers? Athena90 4 249 24 August 2006 at 8:57pm
By mist

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.