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.
No, it's more accurate to say the two concepts are unrelated.
The employment at will doctrine means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, as long as that reason does not violate some legally adopted public policy, like prohibited discrimination. Although state laws vary, in some states with at will employment even an explicit statement from the employer, like an employee handbook, may not limit the employer's ability to fire an employee without cause.
A right to work for less law means that a union and an employer cannot adopt a collective bargaining agreement requiring all employees to pay agency fees for the services the union is legally obliged to provide (such as bargaining on wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions; and representation in employee grievance or disciplinary proceedings). Even in the so-called right to work states the union is required to provide, and does provide, representation for all members of the bargaining unit, and even nonmembers of the union can sue the union if the union fails to do so. This is known as the duty of fair representation.
Where you seem to be confused is that you keep talking about "if you are in a union", but the real operative factor is whether you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The reason this is important is that the collective bargaining agreement will generally set forth standards and procedures for employee discipline and termination, which means that the collective bargaining agreement takes that employment out of what would otherwise be at will employment.
The reason right to work for less laws are so pernicious is that all the things the unions are required to do for the workers, like negotiate contracts, represent the workers in grievances, etc., cost money, so if the union can't collect agency fees from the employees then the union loses the ability to represent the workers.
Of course, this is the entire point of these laws: they strengthen management and deprive the workers of a voice or any representation.
The union really should help union workers by helping the business maximize their profit. Only when the employer gets a good profit, they would have money to pay the workers. They should focus more on how to do the work more efficiently and effectively instead of just getting more benefits for union workers.
Today, we are all competing at a global level. Real protection of jobs is being highly competitive.
That's a horrible idea, a company maximizing their profit means kicking workers to the curb. A recent story about how the board of directors saved $100 million by canceling the life insurance for the employees only to turn around and give themselves a $100 million bonus comes to mind.
I see what you are going for but I can tell you in the real world it just isn't possible.
That's a horrible idea, a company maximizing their profit means kicking workers to the curb. A recent story about how the board of directors saved $100 million by canceling the life insurance for the employees only to turn around and give themselves a $100 million bonus comes to mind.
I see what you are going for but I can tell you in the real world it just isn't possible.
By maximizing profit, I didn't mean to cut benefits etc. Like I said, improve efficiency and effectiveness. Grow the company so that everybody can enjoy the benefit of profit.
Unless I am a shareholder, it's none of my business if the employers give themselves $100 millions bonus while running the company into the ground. I have no say in that matter because I am just an employee and I am already compensated through my salary.
The point of a business is to be sucessful and make the investors/owners money. NOT to employ as many people as possible.
If employee doesn't like his job or pay, he is free to quit at any time, if my employer isn't happy with my performance, they are free to let me go at any time. Sounds fair to me.
I bet those people working at Hostess thought they had secure jobs because they had a union. Hmm, how'd that work out?
The point of a business is to be sucessful and make the investors/owners money. NOT to employ as many people as possible.
If employee doesn't like his job or pay, he is free to quit at any time, if my employer isn't happy with my performance, they are free to let me go at any time. Sounds fair to me.
I bet those people working at Hostess thought they had secure jobs because they had a union. Hmm, how'd that work out?
Hostess was doomed. Those people knew the writing was on the wall years ago. Hostess had long been used as a cash cow, firms would buy it, take on debt and cash out selling to the next sucker. Your anger should be focused on the owners, past and present, of Hostess as they dumped the underfunded pensions on the US tax payer. They took bonuses instead of paying into the pension fund as legally obligated to.
By maximizing profit, I didn't mean to cut benefits etc. Like I said, improve efficiency and effectiveness. Grow the company so that everybody can enjoy the benefit of profit.
Unless I am a shareholder, it's none of my business if the employers give themselves $100 millions bonus while running the company into the ground. I have no say in that matter because I am just an employee and I am already compensated through my salary.
But by maximizing profits, that is what most companies do. Cut pay and benefits. Fire old workers and replace them with young ones hired on under a different pay scale, etc. This while they bring in record profits and issue record bonuses to the top 1%.
No, it is not the companies job to be an employment agency, but unions help prevent some of the crap profitable companies do.
I said this in another post - if you're posting on here chances are you aren't in the top 1% and aren't benefiting from the execs taking on bonuses while the corporation continues to whittle away at pay and benefits, so I don't really see where all the hate/jealously is coming from. I really just don't get it - wake up America. And by America I'm referring to the 99%, not the guys flying around in corporate jets.
IMO it comes from the general culture here in America of not wanting "the other guy" (ie your neighbor) to do better than you, we've come from becoming so ultra competitive to going beyond that - stepping on each other really - out of spite.
But by maximizing profits, that is what most companies do. Cut pay and benefits. Fire old workers and replace them with young ones hired on under a different pay scale, etc. This while they bring in record profits and issue record bonuses to the top 1%.
No, it is not the companies job to be an employment agency, but unions help prevent some of the crap profitable companies do.
I said this in another post - if you're posting on here chances are you aren't in the top 1% and aren't benefiting from the execs taking on bonuses while the corporation continues to whittle away at pay and benefits, so I don't really see where all the hate/jealously is coming from. I really just don't get it - wake up America. And by America I'm referring to the 99%, not the guys flying around in corporate jets.
IMO it comes from the general culture here in America of not wanting "the other guy" (ie your neighbor) to do better than you, we've come from becoming so ultra competitive to going beyond that - stepping on each other really - out of spite.
Please re-read my post. Cutting pay and benefit is not growth. A union needs to help the company to grow.
There's nothing wrong with executives flying corporate jets and getting bonus!
'At will" basically allows BOTH parties to terminate employment for any/or no reason. This is under the premise that you have no other contingent agreements (i.e. contracts).
Just some clarification here. In an 'At will' state, you can quit even if you have a contract. However, an employer may not fire you for no cause if there is a contract with a definite term. If they do, they would be in breach of contract, assuming the employee can prove such a contract exists.
...I don't really see where all the hate/jealously is coming from. I really just don't get it - wake up America. And by America I'm referring to the 99%, not the guys flying around in corporate jets.
No anger here. I simply don't understand the 'Need' for Unions. Unions are nearly non existant here in Texas, and we are doing just fine without them.
If it weren't for one of those Rich guys you speak about making sound business decisions to grow the company I work for, I wouldn't have a job. So I tend to be greatful to those 1% who wake up at 4AM and work 14 hour days making the tough calls and never see their familes so that I can provide for my family and my future.
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.
