Discussion Main / UltimateJobSecurity

Hawkeye Pierce Job Security should be the trope; and Hawkeye, the trope namer. As far as job security goes, Hawkeye is the polar opposite of George Jetson (who is fired and rehired daily).

In M*A*S*H, there's a seemingly endless supply of wounded people who need surgery. Hawkeye, a draftee, has a job forever — or at least until the end of the war. As we've seen in the book, movie, and TV series, Hawkeye has near-total immunity for shenanigans such as stealing Jeeps, poking superior officers in the chest with golf clubs, and distilling ETOH in his tent. It would take seriously felonious conduct for Hawkeye to get "fired" (i.e. sent to the stockade).

I suggest narrowing the scope of this trope so that it's characters who are explicitly stated to be able to keep their jobs due to being incredibly good at them, not just "people who are never fired even though they should be". Currently, this page is more of a YMMV than a trope.

In the Real Life section the two examples about the teachers (in NY and in LA) really seem like the same one example (7 years, 2mill dollars). Would somebody, who knows the actual story, clean up?

Moved the discussion of U.S. government, legal system and history off the article page since it is not about job security.

• Congress can also override decisions made by the Supreme Court...
  • ...by amending the Constitution, which requires Congress to propose an amendment, and the legislatures of three-quarters of the states to ratify. However, Andrew Jackson once ignored a Supreme Court decision in order to kick the Cherokee off of their land.
    • But Andrew Jackson was a dick.
    • Technically, it was the state of Georgia that kicked the Cherokees off their land. What Jackson did was stand by and let it happen rather than attempt to enforce the Court's decision. He soon learned that was a bad idea when other decisions started to be ignored by the states...
  • A Constitutional amendment is necessary if the decision is based on the Constitution, but if the decision is based on laws passed by Congress or treaties, Congress can pass new bills that "clarify" the intent of the interpreted statute/treaty.
  • Which can then be further adjudicated by the courts to bring them back into line with the original ruling (if Congress isn't VERY careful to eliminate any possible alternate interpretations the Court can make. Historically, the Supreme Court has taken a dim view of Congress bypassing its rulings via rewriting statues to make them do the exact same thing the Court just overruled).
  • Of course, their is another check on the Court. It's much overlooked, because it hasn't been tried since the '30s, but it could work in a serious crisis. After all, there Aint No Law that says Congress can't expand the Court. They could make the Court as big as they want. They could also shrink the Court, but they'd have to wait for a current Justice to retire or die (since they do have job security...their decisions are another story).