The employer may be the most oppressed, abused, and mistreated individual in America today. When the society decided to correct the discriminations against minorities, it was the employer who shouldered the load, forced to hire incompetent, unqualified, and lazy persons based on their race or sex. Whenever Congress decides to drum up some more votes from the lower classes, it's the employer who is forced to pay a higher minimum wage than the job is worth. And when President Hillary decided that everyone had a "right" to wonderful health care at no cost to themselves, it was the employer who was lined up to take another hit!

All of this seems to make some sense to voters, who commonly think of employers as big, faceless conglomerates. But an employer may be the guy next door. Legally, whether an individual, partnership, or a corporation, the employer is generally considered to be a citizen or group of citizens.

As a citizen, how would you feel if the government told you that even though shoes could be sold for $25 per pair, we were gonna require you to pay at least $100? Or, despite the fact that there's a perfectly good grocery store down the block, you will be required to shop at a different one on the other side of town? Or, when your newspaper boy gets ill, that you will have to may his medical bills?

Yeah, none of those examples make sense. But they are precisely the type of thing the employer is subjected to.

When an employer hires an employee, a contract is agreed to between them. The employee agrees to perform certain duties asked of him, and the employer agrees to compensate the employee at an established rate in exchange for those services. In effect, the employer is agreeing to buy the employee's time. As long as both are in agreement, there is no problem, and whenever either feels he is not getting a fair deal, he is welcome to terminate the relationship. There is no inherent obligation on the employer's part to become parent, guardian, godfather or caretaker to that employee.

So, what logic is there in the government meddling in this relationship? Well, in the past, the employer tended to abuse this relationship. Since there has always been a buyer's market in this area, employers found they could insist on long hours and bad working conditions at low pay from the employee, who accepted those terms or faced starvation. This truly was abusive, and the government was justified in stepping in. But the precedent that was set was inherently wrong, and the idea that the employer is somehow liable for whatever requirements the government wishes to saddle him with is incorrect.

What needs to be done? Overall, I really am not sure; I know of a few specific corrections that should be made, but how to tie it all into one consistent policy is unclear. Among the specific changes:

1. An employer should have the right to hire whomever he pleases, at whatever pay rate the two can agree upon. Note: this freedom should not apply to any organization spending taxpayer's money! If taxpayer funding is involved, then it is reasonable that the taxpayers should have a say in how it is spent, and I believe the majority of taxpayers would like to see fair and nondiscriminatory hiring practices by the government and its contractors. The freedom described applies to those spending their own money, not that of taxpayers.

2. An employer should have the right to fire whomever he pleases, for whatever reason he wishes or no reason at all, subject to one restriction: If the employment is terminated at the employer's discretion, the employer must continue to pay the employee at the same rate for a period equal to three months or the number of days the employee worked, whichever is less, starting the day the employee ceases working. Once again, more restrictions apply when the employer is spending taxpayer's money.

This requirement to pay the employee beyond termination accomplishes several things. First, it eliminates the need for a government-run unemployment compensation program. Second, it discourages the employer from hiring and firing willy-nilly, since it will cost him to do so. Obviously, if the employee chooses to leave, the employer is under no obligation to pay him beyond his last day of work; hence, the employee is also encouraged to remain with a single firm rather than job-hopping.

On the other hand, if the employee is truly worthless, the employer can fire him at any time, and knows exactly how much it will cost him to do so. He no longer has to be intimidated by the threat of lawsuits or prosecution for wrongful termination.

As far as benefits, retirement programs, and other things that the employer generally provides, these should be clearly agreed upon by the employer and the employee at the time of hiring as part of the compensation package. If the employee wishes to work for cash with no benefits, so be it. There is no reason for the government to be requiring anything here.

Return to Kirby Palm's opinions page.

Return to Kirby Palm's home page.

Of course, if you have questions or comments, you are welcome to send e-mail to me at  palmk@nettally.com.