A new casino is trying a new idea: “term limits” for workers. Every four to six years, the workers will have to reapply for their job. The idea seems to be something other employers are now considering. It is seen as a way to make sure employers get the “most” out of their workers. Watch this discussion from Fox:
Now, Steve Forbes seems to suggest this is one of the good things which comes out of right to work laws. Employers now have the option to fire much easier with little to no responsibility to the workers. Indeed, what is not brought up here is the ramification of this: employers will be free to tell employees they will not be rehired unless they take a cut in their wages. Don’t think that won’t happen: if you are reapplying for a job it suggests other applicants will be considered alongside you. Indeed, it might be required. So if you want to keep your job (and health benefits) you must accept lower wages.
It’s been said right to work wages are about breaking unions and making sure there is no protection for employees. Those supporting “term limits for workers” act like there are no other ways to encourage laborers to work for success. If the company doesn’t give merit based raises, perhaps that is true — but is that not a better way to motivate them than to make their very livelihood always at risk? If someone is really bad, are not annual reviews good enough without having to make someone reapply for their job (and take pay cuts to keep it)? How can you expect loyalty and a desire for the good of one’s employer if there is no sense of loyalty to the worker?
Hopefully this idea will not take off. I fear it will. If it does, we will be one step closer to the servile state.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In