Right to work

Ghoulish Delight · 12-09-2008, 08:24 AM

We were watching the new season of Robot Chicken last night (source of all of my employment legality knowledge) and the term "Right to Work State" was used in a bit where someone was fired.

It was used in the sense that I've always heard it used in, to mean that in a "Right to Work State", employers have the right to terminate an employee without cause.

I've always thought it was a strange, Brave New World-ish term. "Right to Work" means I can be fired for no reason? WTF?

So I looked it up. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that you can't be required to join a union as a condition of employment.

I have NEVER heard it used like that. What gives? How has that been corrupted so badly?

And I've always heard that California is a Right to Work state. But now that I know the actual definition, I wondered how the grocery workers' union got around it and required my sister and brother-in-law to join. So I looked, and no, California is not. Man, people have NO idea what they're talking about on this subject, do they?

Alex · 12-09-2008, 08:32 AM

California is not a right to work state (none of the west coast states are, so it is probably a familiarity that bled over from Nevada and Arizona which are), so that is how they got around it.

Second, I don't know if I'm the exception or you are, but I've always properly understood what right to work meant. However, to labor, it is essentially just the right for employers to fire at will since preventing that is what, in their eyes, union representation gets you. Much less visible than the pro-choice vs. pro-abortion terminology war but you will see attempts by unions to label these laws not as "right to work" but rather "right to fire."

Betty · 12-09-2008, 09:08 AM

California has what's called "at will" employment. That's the one where you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

Quote:

At Will

In California, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal.

Ghoulish Delight · 12-09-2008, 09:28 AM

Oh yeah, At Will. Now that you say it, I have heard that used before. Bizarre.

I did a google search for "right to work" and "without cause" and got a lot of hits saying, "many people mistakenly think..." so I'm not alone.

CoasterMatt · 12-09-2008, 10:32 AM

This will be something especially interesting to watch, as the last 8 years has been a very anti-union administration, and Obama/Biden has several changes related to labor listed in their plans.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 12-09-2008, 11:34 AM

I don't have a personal beef with "at will" employment. Someone hires you to perform a service at their expense - be it company or individual - based on your merits,experience, qualifications and maybe personality fit. Every company where I have worked, east and west coast, had a trial period of some sort where one is excluded from company benefits. It doesn't really benefit a company to fire you without cause after they invest time and money into you, nor does it benefit an individual to quit and walk out in anger someday over something small. I am fortunate to work for a company that has mostly terminated with advance notice, or at least let them go that day with 2 weeks severance out of care and politeness.

I know someone who lost her job to a woman with whom the boss was having an affair. So "at will" isn't perfect. I do worry about employees fired during times of illness, which happens. But I rather like that I am free to leave today if I wanted or needed to, and feel my employer has the right to let me go if I'm no longer wanted or needed, whatever the reason.

12-09-2008, 08:24 AM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Right to work We were watching the new season of Robot Chicken last night (source of all of my employment legality knowledge) and the term "Right to Work State" was used in a bit where someone was fired. It was used in the sense that I've always heard it used in, to mean that in a "Right to Work State", employers have the right to terminate an employee without cause. I've always thought it was a strange, Brave New World-ish term. "Right to Work" means I can be fired for no reason? WTF? So I looked it up. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that you can't be required to join a union as a condition of employment. I have NEVER heard it used like that. What gives? How has that been corrupted so badly? And I've always heard that California is a Right to Work state. But now that I know the actual definition, I wondered how the grocery workers' union got around it and required my sister and brother-in-law to join. So I looked, and no, California is not. Man, people have NO idea what they're talking about on this subject, do they? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2008, 08:32 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	California is not a right to work state (none of the west coast states are, so it is probably a familiarity that bled over from Nevada and Arizona which are), so that is how they got around it. Second, I don't know if I'm the exception or you are, but I've always properly understood what right to work meant. However, to labor, it is essentially just the right for employers to fire at will since preventing that is what, in their eyes, union representation gets you. Much less visible than the pro-choice vs. pro-abortion terminology war but you will see attempts by unions to label these laws not as "right to work" but rather "right to fire."
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2008, 09:28 AM	#4
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Oh yeah, At Will. Now that you say it, I have heard that used before. Bizarre. I did a google search for "right to work" and "without cause" and got a lot of hits saying, "many people mistakenly think..." so I'm not alone. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2008, 10:32 AM	#5
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	This will be something especially interesting to watch, as the last 8 years has been a very anti-union administration, and Obama/Biden has several changes related to labor listed in their plans. __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2008, 11:34 AM	#6
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	I don't have a personal beef with "at will" employment. Someone hires you to perform a service at their expense - be it company or individual - based on your merits,experience, qualifications and maybe personality fit. Every company where I have worked, east and west coast, had a trial period of some sort where one is excluded from company benefits. It doesn't really benefit a company to fire you without cause after they invest time and money into you, nor does it benefit an individual to quit and walk out in anger someday over something small. I am fortunate to work for a company that has mostly terminated with advance notice, or at least let them go that day with 2 weeks severance out of care and politeness. I know someone who lost her job to a woman with whom the boss was having an affair. So "at will" isn't perfect. I do worry about employees fired during times of illness, which happens. But I rather like that I am free to leave today if I wanted or needed to, and feel my employer has the right to let me go if I'm no longer wanted or needed, whatever the reason.
	Submit to Quotes