Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is because some believe "right to work state means they can fire you at anytime without just cause.
...but that's essentially what it is. I'm not going to get into a political debate here, but "Right to Work" means RTW without joining a union. When you're a union member you have to be fired for "just cause". If you are not a union member, you can be fired for any reason or no reason, aka fired "without cause". "At will" and "Right to Work" are two sides of the same coin. Sure, most employers have policies in place for termination, but only so they can minimize lawsuits. That's it. There is no other reason. You all are politicizing this when there is no fundamental difference between "at will" and "Right to Work" employment.
Question: Why should an employer, have to keep an employee that they were unhappy with, or uncomfortable about that person working for them?
Because you are paid to do a job. You aren't paid to make your employer happy or comfortable. That's the problem with many mangers today. They don't know how to leave their personal feelings out of a business relationship.
Because you are paid to do a job. You aren't paid to make your employer happy or comfortable. That's the problem with many mangers today. They don't know how to leave their personal feelings out of a business relationship.
A good employer works to keep employees happy with their job and where they work. A good employee works to do his job, and that keeps the employer happy.
When either one becomes unhappy with the other, it is time for them to separate and each go their own way without the other.
Employers are and should be held to a higher standard because there is a power imbalance. It's ridiculous to think an employee should make an employer "happy". For one, happiness is subjective. How do you measure that? You are opening the door to discrimination. Second, an employer is an entity--not a person. An entity doesn't have feelings. Again, managers need to leave their personal views out of the business relationship.
Employers are and should be held to a higher standard because there is a power imbalance. It's ridiculous to think an employee should make an employer "happy". For one, happiness is subjective. How do you measure that? You are opening the door to discrimination. Second, an employer is an entity--not a person. An entity doesn't have feelings. Again, managers need to leave their personal views out of the business relationship.
Discrimination has nothing to do with it. The employee working with other employees, and management, can either fit in and do their job, or they are disruptive influence in their workplace. It is not fair to other employees, to have someone that makes the work lives of other employees miserable. A happy person, just the opposite effect on rel life.)
Never understood why people think right to work is the same as right to fire
All right to work means is that you can work without being part of a union
So how does right to work mean anything in the case of this firing? Nothing really.
Maybe if you had joined a union, they would have lawyer take your case, but that isn't a right to work issue either since you would be free to join the union when employed
But if you didn't have a union, what difference is it?
This. It's crazy how many people consider right to work with at will employment.
Discrimination has nothing to do with it. The employee working with other employees, and management, can either fit in and do their job, or they are disruptive influence in their workplace. It is not fair to other employees, to have someone that makes the work lives of other employees miserable.
Describe being "disruptive" to the workplace. If the employee is not actively antagonizing other employees, how can he or she be disruptive? If one line employee is allowed to "disrupt" the workplace, it sounds like poor management.
...but that's essentially what it is. I'm not going to get into a political debate here, but "Right to Work" means RTW without joining a union. When you're a union member you have to be fired for "just cause". If you are not a union member, you can be fired for any reason or no reason, aka fired "without cause". "At will" and "Right to Work" are two sides of the same coin. Sure, most employers have policies in place for termination, but only so they can minimize lawsuits. That's it. There is no other reason. You all are politicizing this when there is no fundamental difference between "at will" and "Right to Work" employment.
In my 43 years in the work force I never was a member of a union nor was I ever employed where a union existed. In those 43 years I never once saw any one fired "for no reason". People who came in late 3 or 4 times a week, people who had performance issues, people who could not follow simple rules, people who committed sexual harrasment, stole company property, mis-used or embezzled company money, but never did I see someone fired for no reason at all.
If you really believe that a union can control who an employer keeps or does not keep on the payroll you are seriously uninformed. If an employer who's employees are union members can simply state the employee lacks the necessary skills to properly perform the job duties they were hired to do the union has no grounds to dispute the termination. Simple as that. If someone did any of the things listed in my previous paragraph there again is no way a union is going to be able to do anything.
At will employment and right to work are two completely different subjects. One is a law and the other is a doctrine.
If you don't believe it's harder to fire an employee in a union environment then you are seriously uninformed. The whole reason the RTW law exists is to make it easier for employers to fire employees at-will. Most employers in at-will states will follow a procedure before getting rid of someone to minimize the likelihood of a lawsuit. That's the ONLY reason. As I said before, RTW and "at-will" lead to the same goal--easier termination procedures for the employer.
People who came in late 3 or 4 times a week, people who had performance issues, people who could not follow simple rules
Just to add...in a union environment, the employer would be required to show it followed proper procedure before terminating an employee for attendance. A union contract will usually spell out these procedures, which may require more steps than if the employer created the rule. An employee who had performance issues would need to be PIP'd...and in a union environment, the employer would probably have to go through multiple steps before arriving at that point. A employer would need to prove the employee "could not follow simple rules", and if the union is any good, it will have dealt with the issue before to ensure the employer is being fair in its application of the rule. Without the union there to ensure the employer is following proper procedure, the employer could do whatever it wants. A contract is just a legal document. It doesn't stop either party breaking it. Someone has to be there to enforce it. In a RTW or "at-will" situation, who is going to ensure the employer follows procedure? The employee? Good luck with that. An attorney? Yeah, for a lot of money, and after the employee has already lost his/her job. I think the point the OP was trying to get at is that the "unjust" firing was in part because he works in a state that affords workers little protection. I don't see how anyone can argue against that. People are allowing their personal politics get in the way of objectivity. It is a fact that RTW states offer less employee protections.
Your other examples are gross misconduct which would get someone fired quickly, union or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
