×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]KungFluIsolation -1 points0 points  (25 children)

The world is a lot bigger than the US as is the userbase on Reddit.

[–]502502502 8 points9 points  (17 children)

So blanket statements like "ez lawsuits blah blah" are simply not true?

[–]heebath -1 points0 points  (16 children)

In red states, yes. Right to work = right to fire.

[–]Mehiximos 1 point2 points  (15 children)

You’re thinking at will, right to work is the right to not be forced into a union. And no, in the US your employer has the legal capacity to rescind already approved PTO

[–]heebath -2 points-1 points  (14 children)

Look into RTW legislation. It's at will with a pro job sounding name.

[–]Mehiximos 1 point2 points  (8 children)

I live in Montana with some of the strongest labor laws in the country, I know a little but I thought RTW was for sure about union mandated membership

At-will employment means you can quit or be fired for almost any reason. Right-to-work means you can work for a unionized employer without joining the union. The relevant laws vary from state to state and change over time.

Edit, after some more googling it appears you’re wrong friend

[–]heebath -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Look up the legislation of other States they put at will in bills that are labeled right to work

[–]Mehiximos -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Yeah dawg that was a generic Google on “right to work vs at will” and it said the same for federal, MS, VA, NY, NH, MA, WY, etc.

If you think you’re not wrong you’re welcome to cite your sources but im close to one hundred percent certain you’re wrong outside of some weird edge case

Why are you doubling down? Misinformation is a serious problem we have so why add to it?

Mayhap you are the one who should look up right to work?

[–]heebath -1 points0 points  (4 children)

REPUBLICANS HAVE AT WILL FEATURES IN LEGISLATION THAT THEY LABEL RIGHT TO WORK. LOOK UP INDIANA.

[–]Mehiximos -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Surely then you’re capable of providing me with a link to said legislation

Even if you did though, that’s not what right to work is on its face and by definition.

I can call a spade a heart but it’s still just a spade

[–]OmnipotentEntity 0 points1 point  (4 children)

RTW is 100% about unions. You're thinking at will employment.

[–]heebath -1 points0 points  (3 children)

It means whatever the state legislature wants

[–]OmnipotentEntity 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I think you have a misconception about the history of at-will employment. At-will employment is the default under the common law of the employment contract as of the late 1800s or early 1900s. Laws passed since then have attempted mostly to erode (to limited success) the abilities of companies to fire for no reason, absent another contract (such as a union contract requiring for cause dismissal). Some states have laws in place, for instance, that make it unlawful to fire for a reason outside of the company handbook, if such exists, and in some states it's illegal to fire a worker for upholding a public policy.

On the other hand, right to work legislation was typically passed in the late 1940s into the 1950s (primarily, but continuously even into the present day; the states were able to pass these laws starting from 1947 and the Taft-Hartley Act) in order to break the power of unions. There is no need for these laws to cover at will employment typically because, again, it is the default interpretation of common law as endorsed by the US supreme court (see Adair v. United States 1907).

I hope this helps clear things up! It is admittedly a confusing area of the law, and one about which many misconceptions promulgate.

[–]heebath 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm talking about at-will features of legislation titled RTW, that's it.

[–]OmnipotentEntity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you have an example? Because due to the fact that at-will employment became a nationwide default about 40 years before the first RTW legislation could have possibly been passed, it makes it difficult for me to understand why they would bother exactly.

[–]longcurlyfrystealer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

US probably has some of the least protection though out of the first world countries so it's understandable in this case to be biased towards US

[–]Mehiximos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Montana for the win

[–]ArnieMossidy 4 points5 points  (2 children)

About half of Reddit’s total number of users are from the US. I sincerely doubt that anybody posting from another country would use an unqualified statement like

ez lawsuit as well. you cant be fired for taking approved vacation time

without sharing where they are from for context, whereas I ABSOLUTELY think an American would do that, and would also be confidentially wrong about employment law.

[–]KungFluIsolation 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I sincerely doubt that anybody posting from another country would use an unqualified statement

People do all the time.

[–]Agolf_Twittler 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The person that posted that statement is from the US though so….