Blow Out, the Freedom to Fire, & the California Labor Code's Opinion

Watching Blow Out was not part of my plans for last evening, but since I screwed up and didn't set my VCR to record yesterday's West Wing episodes, I needed something to observe while burning MP3 CDs and cooking dinner. I've known of the show ever since Bravo started advertising it, but it didn't seem interesting enough for my time.

Anyway, the episode last night focused primarily on Jonathan Antin firing Brandon Martinez. Mr. Antin is the owner of the appropriately named Jonathan Salon in Beverly Hills, California and was not willing to put up with Mr. Martinez's antics any longer. So, in Episode 3 Jonathan dismissed Brandon on the spot, handed over his list of clients, and that was that.

I was somewhat taken aback by this. I had assumed that by now such freedom to fire had either been stamped out in California or was greatly restricted. Obviously, I also don't know the details of Brandon's contract to work, so that's a huge thing to consider. So I searched through the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, but didn't find relevant laws related to hiring and firing. I found a lot of other nasty statist shit, but that's something for another time.

I tried to access this site which allegedly has a searchable list of legislative activities, laws, and the California constitution, but the damn thing isn't consistently online. Searching for California Labor Code gets me a UC Berkeley website, and more than half of that points back to the government server mentioned above. Searching within that server for "fire" results in 19 different sections of the Labor Code, nearly all of them dealing with firefighters and none of them dealing with an employer firing an employee. So for now, I'll just sit contented that in at least one area of the law California businesses aren't grossly hamstrung.

I did, however, find this useless bit of opinion-mongering at the end of Contracts Against Public Policy, Section 923:

923. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, the public policy of this State is declared as follows:

Negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employees. Governmental authority has permitted and encouraged employers to organize in the corporate and other forms of capital control. In dealing with such employers, the individual unorganized worker is helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment. Therefore it is necessary that the individual workman have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

This passage has some good parts and one bad part. The good parts deal with the importance of an employee having the freedom to associate, organize, and assign representatives in labor discussions. I've no problem with that. The bad part is what I've bolded above.

I don't know who authored this legislation, but that sentence stinks. It stinks because it sends the wrong impression and is wholly unnecessary (much like the Code itself). I can exercise liberty of contract on my own. I can protect my freedom to work for whom on my own. I can obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment on my own. Do accomplish all this takes the simple decision to work or not to work; to sign or not sign a contract. If I don't like the terms of employment offered by a business, I can quite simply take my labor elsewhere and find someone else who has a more agreeable offer.

No, it's not likely that I can walk into an employment interview and bring my own contract and have the business agree to it. It's also not that likely that I'll be able to get some terms changed on their offer through negotiation. The majority of jobs won't be offered in negotiable terms unless there are special extenuating circumstances, such as disability. If I were hired and got my conditions of employment changed so that I could wear sandals any time I wanted, merely because I feel more comfortable doing so, it would likely upset a number of my coworkers. People prefer to be treated as equals and having small quirks get legalized into contract by some would create tension in some workplaces. Perhaps that tension isn't justified, but it would exist.

Not any less important is the business's desire to have a smoothly functioning workplace. This means most businesses will have a standard of behavior, dress, and work ethic to which they want their employees to adhere.

So while it may seem unfair that companies basically get to set the terms of most employment, there are valid reasons they should be allowed to do so. More importantly, of course, is the fact that no employee "owns" the job the employee works and the property being used by that employee is owned by the business. The business gets to dictate the terms because it owns its property.

The employee owns his or her labor and therefore has absolute veto power over how it's used. Describing them as "helpless" is completely wrong.

Posted by Drizzten at June 30, 2004 09:34 AM