|
Government Stranglehold
Over Employers
by Glenn Woiceshyn
Dear Editor,
Re: "How Court Ruling Undercuts Hardball Firing Tactics"--by Margot Gibb-Clark--Nov/03/97--The
Globe and Mail (ROB)
If a company hires someone on the mutual agreement that he can be fired on short
notice, then the company should legally be free to do so, since nobody's rights are
violated. Not any more, according to a report by Margot Gibb-Clark.
A recent Supreme Court decision indicates that the government can retroactively punish
employers (beyond employer-employee contract) for "bullying," and for vague,
elastic criteria such as not being "candid, reasonable, honest and forthright."
Why hand such omnipotent power to the government at the expense of individual rights?
Because "the employees' self-esteem is tied up in their work." While true,
the law shouldn't be based on emotional/subjective standards. Having a friend break
off his relationship with you causes suffering, but is not a violation of your individual
rights. Just as one doesn't own one's friend, one doesn't own one's job--whereas
the employer owns his (or its) money.
If an employee is a poor performer and undermines morale, the employer can no longer
fire him without the ominous threat of litigation. Poor performers (and their lawyers)
can and will exploit this at great expense to the company and its good performers.
If self-esteem were the real motive, then what about the self-esteem of good performers
and employers who are harmed by poor performers?
The Supreme Court decision is an ominous assault on individual rights and pay-for-performance.
Best premises,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1997 Glenn Woiceshyn. All rights reserved.
This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
