Do people have a right to employment? By that, I mean if somebody says they would like a job is anybody obligated to employ them?
No, no one has a right to force someone else to hire them. However, also no one has a right to prevent someone else from hiring them (with possible exceptions for minors, since they cannot legally consent to contractial obligations). In the second sense,I would say yes, that is a 'right to employment.' But in the sense posed in the OP- no.
'You must hire/employ this person'- not legit. 'You may not hire/employ this person'- also not legit.
The second one is not quite correct. Some people have to be bonded or bondable so you may not hire people who are not. Usually that means no felons but in some places that also extends to people with crappy credit as well. Those jobs tend to be ones where they are going to be around other people's money and/or secrets.
Yes those requirements exist. No they are not legit. If you want to require a bond for work to be done, that's probably wise. But that should have no bearing on whom I may or may not hire if I am willing to take on greater risk.
Sometimes the requirement is not by choice. There are situations where it is required by law. Those are pretty common with legal services, union officers, banks, etc because you are dealing with other people's money.
It is a politically and ideologically controversial question. A little bit morally controversial and complicated as well. Probably most would agree the answer is yes, in some sense, but only to a very limited extent and to a small degree, being it is not entirely a yes or no question, and probably most people would not be entirely sure.
That does not make any sense; it is a totally senseless statement. Perhaps what you were actually subconsciously intending to imply was that you think everyone has the right to a fair chance at getting a job, if one becomes available, and that you think the law should get involved to try to prevent employers from choosing the individuals they want for certain reasons.
That is a 'yes, but...' statement. An employer can terminate anyone, and the person can collect unemployment (normally chargeable to the employer's SUI rate) if the employer cannot prove malfeasance or other employment violations. If the employer can prove just cause, the person is not eligible for unemployment chargeable to that employer. Meanwhile, as a side note, an employee can quit without notice and there is no penalty to the person, but the employer is usually scrambling to try and replace them.
I was talking about rights. Of course, unemployment insurance chargeable to the employer is a complete violation of their rights.
No. What I said is very simple, and I didn't say anything about the need for any new law. 1. You have the right to apply for an open job 2. Employers have the right to decide whether or not to hire you They can reject your application if they don't think you are qualified, or because you are an ex felon, or because they don't like the sound of your voice, or how you dress, or any other reason. How does that not make sense to you?
How is is unemployment insurance chargeable to the employer a violation of their rights? If an employer terminates an employee by no fault of the employee, why would they not be responsible for the unemployment paid to that person?
Because the person is no longer an employee. The relationship is over, and the employer should not be forced to pay someone who is not supplying them labor.
Yes. There are private unemployment insurance policies , which are good idea in places like Florida, where the State pays next to nothing when you lose your job.
