Job Security in the United States

As compared to the strong job security laws in the European nations, the United States lack very strong national laws that require the private sector to incur huge costs of lying off employees. This has however not reduced unemployment rates in the United States. Labor unions in the United States have continued to promote job security for the employees . For example, teacher unions in the country have in the past been successful in protecting jobs by making it very costly for school districts to fire a teacher. A school district could spend tens of thousands of dollars for firing a teacher.

In a modern industrial society that is effective and efficient in raising the peoples’ living standards, there is always the quest for better ways of working and producing more goods . Because this makes it impossible to have the same workers do the same job for a long time, the need to employ more people discourages very strong job security laws that can hinder high employment rates. For instance, the growth in agriculture in the United States since the early twentieth century has been attributed to the lack of strong job security laws.

Instead, the laws allowed more workers into the industry since the employers did not find it costly to hire workers. This contributed greatly to the US national output. Between 1990 and 1995, about 17 million workers lost their jobs not because there was no employment but because the country’s employment laws encouraged the Americans to move from one job to another . Research findings show that lack of strong job security laws in the US have had an average American of between 18 and 34 acquire about nine jobs. Lack of strong job security laws in the United States in the 1990s made it easy for the citizens to acquire employment.

Between 1990 and 2000, the United States managed to create jobs that tripled the rate of some European industrialized nations. This is because there was a high demand for labor that was promoted by the employment policies or laws that were favorable to the high demand for labor . Employment laws in the United States encouraged wealth production that has created new jobs for the unemployed. The federal laws determine how the workers’ rights in the private sector are governed. The federal laws have a responsibility to establish the workers overtime rights and the minimum wages in both the public as well as the private sectors.

In addition, the US federal law allows states to provide job standards that are more stringent when it is necessary. These job standards determine whether they promote job security for the employees working in the states. One of the ways through which the US government protects the employees’ jobs is by preventing employment discrimination . The federal law does this by allowing the states to enact statutes that prevent job loss which may result from discrimination that may be based on origin, gender, religion, or race. In the United States, the at-will employment law influences job security.

Based on this law, an employer or an employee is allowed to terminate an employment relationship for a particular reason at any time. The at-will employment is still applicable in some American states. Discriminatory firing in the United States was prohibited at the beginning of the 1940s. To address this problem, laws that would prevent discrimination were put into place. Examples of laws in the US that have promoted job security by preventing discrimination include the 1941 Executive order 8802, the Civil rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disability 1990 (1) Act (Title 1), and the 1993 (2) Family and Medical Leave Act.

The US commission that is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination is referred to as the Equal Employment Commission . Although the at-will job laws makes it easy for the employees to be fired, the federal and state laws have stepped in to protect employees from losing their jobs based on grounds that go against the law. Several states in the United States have job security by promoting contract rights that demand for fair treatment of the workers. This has reduced loss of jobs for employees in the private sector. Unjust discharge of employees is prevented by the state and federal government laws .

In case a company or an employer plans any large scale lay off of employees or the plant closure, private sector employees are required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to provide a sixty days notice to the employees. This enables employees to receive lay off notices in case of unforeseen emergences. This provides employees with adequate time to search for an alternative source of employment. The US government has shown its commitment in promoting job security by strengthening the employment discrimination laws .

By avoiding high limitations to employer discretion when it comes to terminating an employee, the government has managed to prevent job loss that results from discriminatory tendencies in employment. The employment discrimination law promotes job security by preventing job loss due to discrimination in employment. The title VII of the civil rights act promotes equal employment opportunities. This has played an important role in promoting the acquisition and retaining of jobs by members of the excluded or minority group.

The Title VII encourages job security by prohibiting the firing of an employee based on the religion, sex, or national origin. The law also hinders an employer to terminate an employment relationship due to the union membership of an employee .The United States National Labor Relations Act enables employees to maintain their jobs even when they speak out against the employers’ involvement in illegal activities. Many state courts promote job security by either invalidating wrongful termination or providing remedy to the termination if it goes against the public policy.

For example, employers are not allowed to fire an employee as retaliation for an employee participation in reporting crime. The minimum wage law in the United States can be considered to be one of the strategies of ensuring employees do not lose their jobs if they were to be paid a wage below the minimum wage . Despite the protection of jobs that the 1964 Civil Rights Acts offers to employees, the employers have still retained broad firing discretion. This has made it easy for an employer to fire an employee for going against the personal preferences of the employer.

For instance, if one develops an unfriendly relationship with the employer, then one may loose a job. An example of a state that has enacted laws that promote job security is California. The 1980 Fair Employment and Housing Act continue to play an important role in protecting American citizens against discrimination and harassment at work that may result to job loss. Another law that protects workers from losing their jobs is the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. As compared to European workers, American workers have less job security hence companies find it easy to lay off workers than in Europe .

The European companies instead of lying off workers rely on alternatives such as attrition and work sharing. Due to the strong job security laws, a healthy American economy in the past has been at the expense of weak job security and frequent workers lay offs. .According to the 2007 the minimum wage is $6. 55 in accordance with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Minimum wages are considered to reduce job security when they increase unemployment in the young and unskilled workers . Conclusion Labor and employment laws are expected to promote job security by minimizing the risk of unemployment.

However, employment laws in the past have proved that they can have a marginal contribution to individuals’ job security. France has stronger job security laws than the United States. The result of French job security laws is seen by many as lessons that limiting an employer’s discretion when it comes to terminating employee contract can lead to unemployment or exacerbate certain discriminatory tendencies in the recruitment of workers. Some analysts attribute Europe’s strong job security laws to the reduced labor market flexibility and obstruct change.

However, job security is vital for protecting jobs of the existing employees. Bibliography Alberto, A. , and Francesco, G. 2006. The future of Europe: reform or decline. IT Press Charles, H. 1996. Gods of Management: The Changing Work of Organizations Oxford University Press US Daniel, P. , and Daniel H. 1999. “Has Job Stability Declined Yet? New Evidence for the 1990s,” Journal of Labor Economics. 17:4, part 2, October 1999 Diebold, X. , David, N. , and Daniel, P. 1994. “Job Stability in the United States,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 4859, September Farber, S.

2004. “Job Loss in the United States, 1981-2001,” Research in Labor Economics 23 (2004), pp. 69-117. Gary, F. 1994. “The Unemployment Effects of Minimum Wages,” International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 15, issue 2 (1994) Hacker, S. 2006. The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, New York: Oxford University Press Katharine, A. , Susan, H . 1993. Job security in America: lessons from Germany. Brookings Institution Press Keshawn, W. , and Arn, M. 2005. “Labor and Employment: Workplace War zone”, Georgetown University Thesis Neumark, D. 2000.

On the Job: Is Long-Term Employment a Thing of the Past? New York: Russel Sage Foundation O’Keefe, K. 2005. The Average American. New York: PublicAffairs Scheb, M . 2002. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Florence, KY: Delmar Simon, D. , and Gillian, M. 2005. Labour Law. Hart Publishing Suk, J. 2007. Discrimination at will: job security protections and equal employment opportunity in conflict. Stanford Law Review. October 1, 2007 Stevens, H. 2005. “The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same: Trends in Long-term Employment in the United States, 1969-2002. ” NBER Working Paper No.

11878, December 2005. Stewart, J. 2002. “Recent Trends in Job Stability and Job Security: Evidence from the March CPS,” Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper No. 356, March 2002. Thomas, L. 2000. “The Very Idea of Applying Economics: The Modern Minimum-Wage Controversy and its Antecedents,” History of Political Economy 32 (1), (2000). Thomas, S. 2007. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy Basic Books Thompson, W. , and Joseph, H. 2005. Society in Focus. Boston: Pearson Zweig, M. 2004. What’s Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the Twenty-First Century? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press