Right to work benefit's who? (Phoenix: unemployment rate, high school, inspectors)

[nitram]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Right to work has nothing to do with the things you mention. It means, and only means, that an employee can not be required to join a union either before or after being hired. Nothing else. The practical effect of the law, though, is that unions have a hard time gaining any traction in right-to-work states. As a consequence, workers do not enjoy the protections they might have with a union standing between them and the employer.

Ponderosa information is the correct information about RTW. It only deals with unions.
AZ is a 'employment at will state' meaning you can be let go for any reason, no explanation.
For further information on 'employment at will' ...At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Finger Laker]

also office gossip isn't restricted to just AZ

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by nitram

Ponderosa information is the correct information about RTW. It only deals with unions.
AZ is a 'employment at will state' meaning you can be let go for any reason, no explanation.
For further information on 'employment at will' ...At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wiki article is interesting. It shows Arizona to be one of the most progressive states when it comes to protecting workers from unfair firing.

[zenkonami]

I worked for an inbound (non-sales) directory assistance call center in the Valley many years back. One of the crucial stats was call time, and our "team" in the center had an unbelievably low call time (I forget now what the exact name of the stat was.) We were courteous, efficient and good at our jobs. We were taking in great bonuses because of it.

The company decided to move the bar up for our team (and only our team) so that it was impossible to meet the call time (we scarcely had time to ask, "what city.") After a month or two of "poor performance" and "terrible numbers", our entire team (having earned more in bonuses, raises, and just by way of seniority with the company) was "let go." We received all the common "courtesies" (we got three warnings / write-ups, etc...) at which we put on record that the numbers they were asking for were physically impossible.

Our immediate supervisor (who tried to stick up for us) kept her job, and had her entire team replaced by new recruits the next week. I consulted with a lawyer about it, and he basically told me that unless there was some other circumstance or situation I could dig up, we didn't have much of a case.

That is "At-Will" in action. "Right To Work" would only come into play if there was a union for such employees to protect them from such contracts. As it is, "At-Will" in Arizona is boilerplate stuff.

In fairness, I don't think most employers want to exercise their powers via the "At-Will" clause of the employment contract unless they absolutely have to because it's just too much trouble, but this was a medium sized company that had some other clear ethics issues and seemed more concerned with squeezing out a few quick bucks for the cats on top than developing the company for the long term. That's their right, but it would have been nice to know before taking the job. I had the job for several years and it's tough to explain to some prospective employers now why I was "fired." Not necessarily a game changer, but first impressions are important and I have to word things quite delicately so as not to look like a troublemaker or a bitter ex-employee.

Just my li'l anecdote. Interpret as you will.

[Finger Laker]

actually that is not at will in the sense people think of it as they did build up cause and went through the trouble of doing warnings, etc - even if it was kind of flimsy and on the surface

they could of fired you without building a case for cause and would of been within their rights to do so - however, you would of also of been within your rights to make things uncomfortable for them

either way it doesn't sound like a well run company or a place you should want to work - but call centers always have that tough kind of vibe to them where employee replacement cost is relatively low

for many businesses it just isn't worth it to make up a reason to fire someone only to pay a ransom in recruiting, training, etc and still potentially end up with an unknown

[Valley Native]

I'm curious as to why so many people who dislike our right to work system decided to move here. Probably because it's warm & sunny all the time, huh?
()

There are very good reasons why Arizona is basically a non union state. People here do not wish to have their services disrupted by overbearing strikers demanding more money & perks just for showing up & being mediocre performers. We don't want to be forced to walk off the job & picket when there is work to be done ... nor do we want to be threatened, harassed, or have things thrown at us for going to work when others are out picketing. We don't want to see prices of goods skyrocket, or businesses being forced to pay people who do monkey work more than what they're worth, plus all the extra benefits.

Contrary to what some say, most employers will not fire you simply for no reason. I've never known a large corporation to do that. The smaller businesses might ... but they still risk lawsuits if they fired people without telling them why. As was mentioned, there are many protections that workers have even without unions. And furthermore, those who moved here and are griping about the Valley being a right to work area, you should have done your research before you moved here!

[NCN]

Originally Posted by JillBoBill

NC is a right to work state as well. I hate it, but what can you do?

I have to agree, it benefits the employers completely. They can fire you without an ounce of warning because, for example, they don't like your face. Leaving you without a penny of income at all -- and then they can tie up your unemployment forever, too. That's not very fair at all.

The other side of the same token, unions tend to push employers around and just act like big poops about a lot of things. Someone told me you don't even get paid by the employer - all your money goes to the union who then decides how much you get paid? I don't know the validity of that, but it sounds jacked up.

One boss is enough. Having a union is like having two bosses, or so my husband said when he left a union job. Unions were started for a good reason, but they have become so greedy that they hurt the worker rather than help it. I am for the right to work without belonging to the union and the right to vote for or against the union without big brother looking while you do it.

Do you think the right to work is why we have so many people moving to North Carolina too.

[Huckleberry3911948]

right to work is another disguised marie antoinette law, laws for the rich to keep the poor man down. we need unions, the corporations and government are not looking out for the little guy.
somewhere somehow along the way, john wayne became marie antoinette.

[Finger Laker]

i can look out for myself

ask yourself this - do unions really benefit by giving the employees the world? - don't you think that they need to build in room for improvement or else they negotiate away the need for them in the first place?

to the little guy lawsuits are a lot more lucrative for employment ills than union dictated collective bargaining

[Greatday]

The Unions are a large part of why this nation has lost jobs to other countries -