Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s often not that easy. Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children? What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers?



? Yes it's not easy and so what ? If it's too hard don't employ people ...

But in this case I believe things should be easier since IMO a violation of this level of safety standard should risk bankrupting your company.

So your choice become to keep employing someone who can't follow basic regulation to save his life and risk the job of everyone else or just fire him (not as hard no ?). And I might be a bit optimistic but in this scenario I would expect that the union might not support him as much.

And I made only a quick search but the scenario where union would protect safety violation appear to be less probable. Since at least regarding OSHA violations : https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-union...

> based on publicly reported OSHA data found that union worksites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation and had 34% fewer violations per OSHA inspection than non-union worksites.


> Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children?

People make their own decisions how to behave and need to own them. Allowing important things to slide like health and safety matters is unacceptable.

> What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers?

Start a new company and wind down the old one, transferring over existing customers.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: