Right-to-Work Laws don't mean your employer can fire you at any time for any reason (US Law)
Right-to-Work Laws don't mean your employer can fire you at any time for any reason (US Law)
"I live in a right-to-work state, so my employer can shitcan me for any reason".
-Linus K. Lemming
Sorry friends, that's at-will employment, *and you still can't be terminated for any reasons that are protected by law, but we're not here to discuss that. Right-to-work laws mean one thing: that non-union employees cannot be required to contribute to the cost of union representation.
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibits "closed shops", where union membership is a condition of employment; however, union represented positions can still be required to contribute to the cost of that representation. Right-to-work laws prohibit that requirement, allowing employees in union represented positions who choose not to join the union to also choose whether or not they contribute to the union's costs, i.e., if they pay dues or not.
I see this mistake frequently and thought folks might want to know the correct information so they don't unintentionally perpetuate it.
Edit: updated to include link to info about at-will employment.
You're viewing a single thread.
Who is down voting this info?
If you believe this is incorrect, please state it lol
I downvoted because it doesn't give a good description of right-to-work and/or at-will employment, or include differences or the way the law applies in different areas. It's too broad of a post without enough specific relevant application to local law scenarios. It's opening a can of worms and could be misunderstood.
You're got to be kidding. The post is about right to work laws. It includes a summary of what that means, plus links for more information. So you downvoted because OP didn't compare and contrast two unrelated laws or write a dissertation on how right to work laws vary by state/county/city. Laws that by definition literally only do one thing. This shit is why people don't post more.
To highlight how ridiculous your comment is, I'll help OP out and provide what you found to be so lacking. I know this is going to make OP look pretty bad, so I'm sure they'll provide at least a partial refund of what you paid for their post.
At-will employment: you can be fired for anything not protected by law.
Right to work laws: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues.
Compare: they are applied to employees Contrast: neither does anything similar
For my next trick, I'll provide specific relevant application for local law scenarios by state.
Alabama: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Arkansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Georgia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Idaho: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Indiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Iowa: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Kansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Kentucky: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Louisiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Michigan: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Mississippi: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Nebraska: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
North Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
North Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Oklahoma: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
South Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
South Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Tennessee: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Texas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Utah: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Washington: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
West Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Wisconsin: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Wyoming: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues
Thank you for your service.
So far we have yet to ID what is wrong with OP beyond that tdownvoters did not like the message or how it was delivered.
What if you contribute instead of or in addition to downvoting? That way, people understand the downvote and/or get more information and clarity.
GTFO of here, this is
RedditLemmy. Anyone providing anything useful for free must be subjected to intensely unfair scrutiny or the whole system falls apart./s
But really, this place is increasingly turning into Reddit and it's depressing.
I appreciate the intent but this is just what happens when you put yourself out on the Internet. Hell, on an old account I made a post about how to use a waffle sandwich maker with cheddar biscuit mix and it was 10% downvoted. I think it's some combination of valid (if unstated) criticism, accidental downvotes, and some people just being assholes.
I don't care, I'm just trying to provide what I think is useful information. If people have a problem but don't speak up about it, I can't do anything so I'm not going to worry about it. As another poster mentioned below, they're welcome to a full refund. I'll even triple it. Triple refund!
All fair points, i like the vibe.
I look at down vote ratio for sentiment and to ID who else is commenting. With bot nets, paid shills and shit nowadays, got to keep an eye on what is going beyond what people are saying was more of my point about it.
Tinfoil on: for example anti labor positioned actor would down voted factually correct post like this merely because it benefits some wage slave. They act like this when they can't engage on the topic honestly.
tankie litmus test: Did Mao and Stalin do anything wrong... watch them work that one 🤣
Why worry about the downvoters. This isn't reddit yet.
on reddit you don't get to see the ratio and spytube removed downvote all together, i think you need an extension to view?
wonder why?
Seeing the ratio can be useful
I'm on blahaj so I don't see downvotes. I'm guessing people who (incorrectly) think my statement of the details of the law is my support for it.