Idaho Employment Laws Are Really Bad! (jobs, home, diversity)

[Niners fan]

Thanks for the clarification, Sage. I had the same question that Anchorless did.

[Anchorless]

Thank you for answering my question.

The way I read the post, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, is that California (being primarily Democratic) encourages a "Karl Marx (gives you a big hug and a free lunch and everyone has a "right" to something, and everyone gets to be poor together)", whereas Idaho, notably being a Republican stronghold, fosters the "Adam Smith (perhaps less "friendly" but definitely free market, where good employers still pull the best people away from bad employers)" atmosphere.

I also note that most often economics and politics are bedfellows, interrelated and interdependent. I don't see how it behooves anyone to disassociate the two, especially when the association is very relevant.

If you're going to take the stance that certain parties do not have and promote certain economic and labor theories, and that those associations are not obvious and apparent, I suppose you're free to do so, but it's a rather curious position.

Point being, your post was not value-neutral. You say "business friendly," and use "good" and "best" in your description of the Adam Smith/Idaho labor atmosphere, and a rather condescending, happy, touchey-feeley "big hug" description of the Karl Marx/California labor atmosphere (both descriptions that I think are weak, hackneyed, and rather misguided, but whatever).

As you are well aware, there is a rather vibrant vocabulary in what is unsaid, by connotation, denotation, implication, tone, and otherwise. It's certainly not a stretch to derive your implicit approval of Idaho's strongly Republican economic theory, and your disapproval of California's strongly Democratic economic theory, even if not said in so many words.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what is or isn't allowed. The sense I'm getting is that implication and insinuation is okay, but explicitly stating "Republicans...." or "Democrats..." is not. And if that's the metric, then fine.

[Sage of Sagle]

My post, and this one of yours which attacks my position, without either of us starting to go into party politics or take party-line political positions, is allowed to remain in the state forums.

I THOUGHT my WAY oversimplified comparison was tongue in cheek enough that nobody would have become that overwrought at the post...I was wrong and I apologize. I should have put about a dozen smilies in there or something.

I agree with you that economics OFTEN reflect the political bent of a state or region...my point was that it's not inexorably tied in that regard and to claim such is another massive generality, and there are some states that would otherwise swing left that still have fairly free market practices. There are also some right-leaning states that have fairly restrictive economic environments. So while I think your generalizations are roughly correct, I also think that my generalization was roughly correct especially if you view it as me at least taking a lighter view of economic philosophy. Obviously it went over like a lead balloon.

I can separate this from being a moderator because I'm not going after either party, a party's position, or candidate, nor am I attacking one of you posting here for any political view.

So yes, implication and insinuation that stays WITHIN the theme of a thread is OK, but going beyond to the things I noted above step across the boundary of the forum rules.

[boiseguy]

sorry if I strayed the converstation off course with mentioning a political party... the person who started the thread seemed shocked and amazed and couldn't understand why the labor laws were the way they are in idaho... providing an answer was all I was trying to do... its not a matter of politics.. its facts.. take it or leave it...sometimes answers regarding local places have political answers... silencing that or telling people to take it to the politics section is great and all.. but thats a national stage... and does not address the question at hand... IDAHO labour laws... people want to know why and how... its gonna come down to a big red elephant....

[Hayduke777]

Right to work sounds great on paper. Too bad so many humans don't have the capacity to actually make it work as intended.

One thing I find confusing about this right to work state - nearly all employers here use the 90 day or 60 day "probationary period" when hiring new employees. This policy is a joke since it implies by its very existence that the employee will be offered a "permanent" position if they do well during this time. There is not one bit of difference between your status before and after that period. You can still be fired anytime your manager wakes up with a hangover and feels like firing someone. Or if they just don't like your shoes or perfume or the car you drive. There is NO level of seniority or skills and experience that will guarantee you will still have a job next week or next year in Idaho. Just ask all the people who have been laid off or fired from the INL over the past 20 years. They were NOT all lazy or under performing workers. Many of them were very good employees with very bad managers. It is NOT better employers attracting better employees, it's lousy employers driving off their own best employees due to incompetence. This is happening at an increasing pace at the INL since the recent takeover. They can barely hire people fast enough with the massive outflow of talent who are so disgusted with the way the company does business.

[Pippi333]

Originally Posted by OnOurWay2MO

I am just curious if you live in northern or southern Idaho? I have lived here, (northern), pretty much my whole life and I agree the practices here are laughable.

Oh and I commend your daughter for attempting to get a job. There are so many spoiled bratts around here they think they are too good to get a job. Surely daddy bought them that new Mercedes

Hello - To answer your question, we live in Boise. Lol, I kind of know what you mean about many of the kids seemingly being given so much without working. However, my daughter has quite a few friends here who do work, too.

Good luck in Missouri...I've never been there myself but have a good friend who lives there an she seems to love it. A little too far East for me! I'm going back to the beach ASAP, lol!

Take care!

[Pippi333]

Originally Posted by Lacerta

IDAHO LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE
1. vacation, holiday, severance or sick pay;
2. a discharge notice or a reason for discharge;
3. rest periods, breaks, lunch breaks, holidays off or vacations;
4. premium pay rates for weekends or holidays worked;
5. pay raises or fringe benefits; or
6. a limit on the number of hours an employee can work per day or week for employees 16 years of age or older

The above is a direct quote from The Guide To Idaho Labor Laws, distributed by the Idaho Department of Labor. In addition, Idaho is a Right To Work state, meaning there is no obligation to be part of any union, and you can not be discriminated against for belonging to/not belonging to a union. You can read more about this at Right to Work States: Idaho | NRTW which quotes the appropriate section of the Idaho Code.

And I would think it would be fairly obvious, if you intend to work in the state you are moving to, it is a good idea to research ahead of time and know what the rules are. Have you looked to see how the labor laws compare to both Idaho and California for the next state you are moving to?

I understand the frustration you must be feeling, but I honestly can't see the story, as listed above, being the whole backstory. I'm sure your daughter is honest about the story from her point of view. However, two things: it is human nature to (even subconciously) put the best face on things, and there is almost always more than one point of view for any situation. I would bet there was more going on behind the scenes, and that this was probably not the first confrontation that took place involving your daughter and the other employee. Also, was the other employee caught with the stolen goods? You said they were expensive. That's a matter for the police, especially if they were of higher value, which might even fall under the "grand theft" category. How did your daughter discover the theft and determine the culprit? How did she respond? These might have been contributing factors to the termination.

Anyway, it sounds like your daughter's ex-employer might be not very nice, but did not break any laws. He could have been needing to cut back on number of employees and just used this as a (poor) excuse. No excuse is needed in Idaho, nor is notice required.

My daughter's response? Well, she had just turned 16 a week before, and this woman is in her 30's. My daughter felt quite intimidated. This individual has pushed her to tears at work before, and has pushed other employees to tears as well. It's all really silly, the manager, also in her 30's (possibly 40's?) is just chickensh*t, and won't stand up to her.

Anyway, we're beyond it and moving on, just another life lesson, that's all. The property was given back, we did not press charges (who in their right mind would put themselves in a position of having further dealings with this mental freak? not me, thanks...). And my daughter was terminated for exactly the reason I stated. It's what she was told when she found out she was losing her job.

Lol, and yes, I know the labor laws of the state I'm moving to. What's funny, is that my husband transferred here with his company. He is given normal meal periods etc., after so many hours worked. We also noticed this at a local Albertson's. When my husband asked an acquaintance he has there (who I think might actually be the store manager?), this acquaintance told him that they also gave normal meal breaks, etc., because it is a federal guideline.

Apparently, Idaho employers (maybe some, but not all? I don't know. Maybe those that have locations in other states follow the same guidelines as the other locations?) just have the option of whether to adhere to it or not.

The whole thing just sounds totally screwy to me. What kind of place doesn't give an employee even a half hour meal break during an 8 hour shift? It's just bad practice. I wonder though, how common it is here in Idaho? Maybe it isn't all that common. Having been here only 3 years, I don't really know enough to say. Clearly there are companies here who handle it differently from each other. If it's the norm, I feel badly for the people who must work in those conditions.

What's funny, is that a few people have made comments about California that imply that companies there "spoil" their employees or something. Now, granted, I worked for a major corporation there who treated it's employees very, very well, and I absolutely felt "spoiled". But that's because our CEO gave us extra paid days off at Christmas. I certainly wouldn't have felt spoiled just for getting an opportunity to eat lunch during the day! I mean crap, everyone's entitled time to eat. This is the richest nation in the world, why would anyone think it was acceptable for our citizens to go without something so menial and basic as a meal break during their work day?

[sheri257]

Originally Posted by Pippi333

In California, there's no WAY this kind of thing would fly. Not unless the business owner wanted a lawsuit on their hands.

But that's okay, you guys continue to defend this place all you want. More power to you. The laughable practices here won't be my problem after June.

And again, I didn't post this info for people who live here who just want to argue...I posted it for individuals considering moving here, just as a heads up.

I totally agree with you and have posted the same warning many times in the California forum. Nevertheless, people don't seem to understand the implications of moving to a right to work state until they actually get there and, by then, it's too late.

They're so preoccupied with the cheaper cost of living that they fail to realize WHY it's so cheap ... everything favors the employer at the expense of the worker ...

Maybe this works for Idaho residents who've never actually had any worker rights but, for a lot of us Californians ... we just can't go back to the dark ages where employers aren't even required to give you a lunch break.

[Niners fan]

Originally Posted by Pippi333

Anyway, we're beyond it and moving on, just another life lesson, that's all. The property was given back, we did not press charges (who in their right mind would put themselves in a position of having further dealings with this mental freak? not me, thanks...)...

The whole thing just sounds totally screwy to me. What kind of place doesn't give an employee even a half hour meal break during an 8 hour shift? It's just bad practice. I wonder though, how common it is here in Idaho? Maybe it isn't all that common. Having been here only 3 years, I don't really know enough to say. Clearly there are companies here who handle it differently from each other. If it's the norm, I feel badly for the people who must work in those conditions.

Good attitude, Pippi333. I would have done the same thing, namely, tell my daughter to live and learn and move on. Employers who mistreat their employees are generally hurting their company more than they hurt the employee.

The only thing I would add is that employees don't have to stay at a job where the conditions aren't good. I know that is somewhat simplistic, especially if you have been at a company for a long time and the work environment suddenly takes a dive, but employees are free to move on. And when good employees leave it hurts a company, particularly if they go to a competitor who will treat them better!

[twinprism]

I've worked a variety of jobs in Idaho and without an exception been offered a lunch break in an eight hour shift, not always a paid lunch break, but always a lunch break. Maybe it isn't state law but it is a federal guideline and good practice that most employers follow in my experience.