RkyMtnHigh 0 #1 November 26, 2007 Some states such as GA and FL are considered to be "employment at will" states while others are not. As I read the attached, it appears that the employer or employee can terminate the employment without reason at any time. http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/laborlaws/l/aa092402.htm Does anyone know why this law was implemented in certain states and not in others? _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #2 November 26, 2007 Because of the mob and the crooks in the unions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 0 #3 November 26, 2007 QuoteBecause of the mob and the crooks in the unions. This man is wise, listen to him.skydiveTaylorville.org [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 November 26, 2007 QuoteBecause of the mob and the crooks in the unions. Contrasted with the mob and the crooks in corporations! Essentially, whoever had the most political sway in that state at the time the law went into place came away the victor. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, simply who had the most power at the time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #5 November 26, 2007 In most cases, an "at will" state means you are not required to be a union member to work in certain jobs in that state. The employer/employee relationship is formed, continues, and ends at the choice of either party involved. A "union" state is the other side of the coin. If there is a union, the union can put in it's contracts with the employer that all employees must be union members. When the employer/employee relationship starts, there is also the formation of an employee/union/employer relationship. Usually, depending on the contract, the employer can't terminate the employee after a probationary period for anything but good cause. Like a previous poster said, it depends on who was in power... For example, California is a union state, and probably always will be because of the HUGE lobby from the Hollywood unions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #6 November 27, 2007 This will probably get moved to SC.Georgia is a "Right to work" State. Meaning that you are not required to be part of a Union. I spent many years working in Manufacturing Plants, Some Union, Others Non-Union. After working in a couple of Union Plants, I fought like hell against Unions coming into the Non-Union Plants I worked at. There was a Time along time ago when Unions were necessary, But that was before we had Labor laws to protect us. I much prefer the ability to negotiate my own employment contract than to depend on others to do it for me. If I dont like the deal my employer is offering, I can go elsewhere. If they dont like the Job I am doing, They can get rid of me. Pretty fair deal I think. It also means that if someone else is not carrying thier weight, The company is free to get rid of them too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdthomas 0 #7 November 27, 2007 Kansas is an at will state, it's funny that I once left a job at my will and was placed on non-rehirable status for failing to give a two week notice, I asked the guy who told me that I could not be rehired if the company gives two week notice if they are going to fire an employee.. he said no and there you have one of the many reasons why I am leaving was my reply. Go fwd 10 years later in life and the company called me to offer me my old job back. thanks but no thanks!www.greenboxphotography.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #8 November 27, 2007 However, "At Will" does not mean "At Leisure." http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdfNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #9 November 27, 2007 Your idea sounds good in theory and I used to think the same way. Make your choices with your $$$. The problem is the companies seem to get together and split things up amongst themselves and "normalize" their procedures, salaries, benefits, etc. These days the only way to get change is lawsuits or government laws. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #10 November 27, 2007 QuoteHowever, "At Will" does not mean "At Leisure." "At Leisure" would be Union.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RkyMtnHigh 0 #11 November 27, 2007 There's a difference between Employment at Will and Right to Work: http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm The Right to Work definition on the above attachment includes the affiliation with the union or not. I never knew the difference. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #12 November 27, 2007 Sorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RkyMtnHigh 0 #13 November 27, 2007 QuoteSorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. It's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #14 November 27, 2007 QuoteIt's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. It's really simple! Because some companies wanted it that way and they had more power at the time than the little guys.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #15 November 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteSorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. It's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. Because a valuable employee doesn't really need protection? I don't see working for a particular employer as a right... it's a privilege that an employee must earn, and if the employer decides the employee is no longer the right person for the job, the employer should be able to terminate the employer/employee relationship and find someone better. The employee also has the same freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #16 November 27, 2007 The only reason that some states are "at will" and others are not are that different states have different philosophies and laws. Look at the East coast - no marital "community property" states, though there are plenty on the west coast. Both just come from different perspectives. Different strokes for different folks - it's the way it should be, says I. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #17 November 27, 2007 QuoteThere isn't any protection for the employee at all. A coupl eof things. First, there is no protection for the employer, either. A valuable employee can quit and take a different job in the absence of an employment contract. Second - an employee can be fired for no reason at all, but employers get in trouble for firing people for bad reasons. Take California, for example. IN a case coming out of Fresno, a public university cannot fire a female coach for fighting for Title 9 compliance for equality of women's sports programs. On the other hand, they CAN fire a female coach for scoring prescription pain meds from players. The issue is, can a public university fire a hot female women's basketball coach who fought for program equality, fought off athletic director sexual advances, and scored painkillers from players? The issue is "Why" was she fired. p.s. Fresno ROCKS for scandal. The bummer is I'm waiting on a judgment from the trial court judge, and he's been delayed for 6 weeks because of this case. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #18 November 27, 2007 That's how it is in Arkansas. I kind of like it myself. Puts the onus on an employee to work for a living if he/she want to keep a job. :) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #19 November 27, 2007 Quote There was a Time along time ago when Unions were necessary, But that was before we had Labor laws to protect us. I much prefer the ability to negotiate my own employment contract than to depend on others to do it for me. In practice most of us don't have employment contracts. We just get an offer letter specifying title, salary, and other benefits (all of which are negotiable) that last until we or the company decide to part ways for any reason. The company can arbitrarily change what we're working on (fun to boring), who we're working with (more experienced people we can learn from to people we know more than), and the work conditions (work that ends after 8-10 hours in front of a desk to being on-call 24x7 with pages at 12,1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 am) which are IMHO the work related reasons to work some place (you may also move to be near family or for better weather). They can incur substantial costs getting you there that you're liable for if you leave within a specified time period because you don't like those changes which aren't detailed until you want to leave. When I relocated to the pacific Northwest the tab came to $60,000 including things I knew about (Realtor commissions using an approved agent) and things I didn't ($6000 for temporary housing in a 1-bedroom apartment which becomes $9000 after you pay tax on it). Two-income households that relocate can be without the second income for a long time while the costs of living aren't any lower. You're completely out of luck on any restricted stock or options you left to get the new job which constitute over half the compensation package for senior positions at large companies. This completely disregards non-monetary costs like moving away from friends and family or a job with coworkers you've been with for over a decade. At-will employment means the employees below C-level usually bear more of the risks if things change than the employer. Unions writing the contracts instead of individuals is an orthogonal issue. I'd be curious about rank-and-file employees who've successfully negotiated employment contracts with penalties if the company changes what its doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #20 November 27, 2007 Quote Because a valuable employee doesn't really need protection? A valuable employee doesn't need protection to keep _a_ job at the company for as long as there's money, but the company's losses can be a lot less than the employee's when the unique aspects of the position which caused the employee to take the job fail to materialize or disappear. A company promises you interesting work with some really smart people you could learn from. You move away from family, friends, good weather, and a decent job + stock package to get there incurring $60K in relocation costs to get there. The work isn't there, you're back filling for people who quit and won't be replaced because the project has been de-prioritized, and the guy you were going to work with got promoted to a position in a foreign country. You have a wonderful job creating a novel product, work with great people you've known for ten years, and have stock options on .25% of the company which will become very interesting if the product sells well creating an expected nine figure market cap. The senior executives get replaced, the new executive team cancels your project, lays off most of your co-workers, and brings in their own people to run the new projects. Even though you have the same salary and office you've taken a ten year step back in your job responsibilities, you loose your co-workers, and your options are going to be worthless. QuoteI don't see working for a particular employer as a right... it's a privilege that an employee must earn, and if the employer decides the employee is no longer the right person for the job, the employer should be able to terminate the employer/employee relationship and find someone better. The employee also has the same freedom. It would be nice if the employer risked the same monetary losses as the employee if the position changed. If I move to another company in the near future because of reorganizations I'll give up stock currently valued around 2.5 years' salary. If I move to a position which isn't as promised the new company will only be out the .25 year's salary I spend figuring that out. The new employer has 1/10th my risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #21 November 27, 2007 The phosphate mines used to do it to the truckers. An employee with 20 years driving a truck would suddenly be told that they didn't need them driving. They would be needed to handle a shovel. It was the way to get rid of people close to collecting pensions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #22 November 27, 2007 Which is exactly why NO-ONE should ever depend on a Company for a Pension. A good 401K is much better and you are NOT depending on your company still being around after you retire. I have always had the attitude with any employer "Come Payday, We are even". I will save for my own retirement. If I agree to a Job and that Job changes, I am free to find another. In all honesty I always got screwed around allot more at Union Plants that I ever did at Non Union Plants. At Non-union plants I could get things done and not have to deal with grievances being filed constantly. Job performance carried much more weight than seniority. Union Plants were the exact opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #23 November 27, 2007 Some of you are confusing "employment at will" with "right to work". They're 2 different concepts. Speaking most broadly, there are 2 types of employment (other than self-employment): employment by contract, and employment at will. That's it. (And that's regardless of whether you're considered "labor" or "management".) In most states, if you don't have a written employment contract, then by default you're deemed an "employee at will". That's all there is to it. This applies not just to union contracts, but any kind of employment contract - for example, an executive who is hired by means of a written employment contrcat. In most states, if you're an employee at will (which accounts for about 90+% of employed people), as long as your employer is not firing you for some illegal reason such as discrimination, your employer may fire you for (quoting the general rule of caselaw) "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." Which means that if you're not under an employment contract, and not discriminted against, you probably won't win a "wrongful termination" lawsuit, even if the reason you were fired is total horseshit, like because your boss didn't like the color of the tie you wore on Tuesday. On the other hand, if you're working pursuant to a written contract, that contract might provide that your employer may only fire you (before the contract expires) for "cause", such as willful misconduct or something like that, but not for an arbitrary reason that might pass muster if you were an employee at will. By contrast, "right to work" is simply a euphemism for states that have statutes that prohibit forcing a person to join a union just to be employed somewhere. I remember as a teen growing up in NY State, there was one particular supermarket where if you wanted a job as a stock clerk, you were required to join the union. In a "right to work" state, that requirement would be prohibited. Nothing more, nothing less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RkyMtnHigh 0 #24 November 27, 2007 Thanks for the clarification of the difference between the two. I wish I could share my current situation but your PMs are turned off. My performance review which had high marks was done on 9/26/07 and only because I insisted on having a signed copy, I got it today, 11/26/07..there's much more but I don't have the energy to post it all here. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #25 November 27, 2007 Quote"At Leisure" would be Union. Meaning if your in a Union your obviously lazy??? I take offense to that. I work hard everyday I am at work. I am a PROUD IAFF member. My wife is a union member. She DEFINITELY works hard. and she is proud to be a member of NEA. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
RkyMtnHigh 0 #11 November 27, 2007 There's a difference between Employment at Will and Right to Work: http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm The Right to Work definition on the above attachment includes the affiliation with the union or not. I never knew the difference. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #12 November 27, 2007 Sorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #13 November 27, 2007 QuoteSorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. It's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #14 November 27, 2007 QuoteIt's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. It's really simple! Because some companies wanted it that way and they had more power at the time than the little guys.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #15 November 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteSorry... What I was trying to say is that union contracts in non-right-to-work states tend to get in the way of "at will" employment. My previous post wasn't too clear... I need coffee. It's still really confusing to me as to why a State would implement Employment at Will. There isn't any protection for the employee at all. Because a valuable employee doesn't really need protection? I don't see working for a particular employer as a right... it's a privilege that an employee must earn, and if the employer decides the employee is no longer the right person for the job, the employer should be able to terminate the employer/employee relationship and find someone better. The employee also has the same freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 November 27, 2007 The only reason that some states are "at will" and others are not are that different states have different philosophies and laws. Look at the East coast - no marital "community property" states, though there are plenty on the west coast. Both just come from different perspectives. Different strokes for different folks - it's the way it should be, says I. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 November 27, 2007 QuoteThere isn't any protection for the employee at all. A coupl eof things. First, there is no protection for the employer, either. A valuable employee can quit and take a different job in the absence of an employment contract. Second - an employee can be fired for no reason at all, but employers get in trouble for firing people for bad reasons. Take California, for example. IN a case coming out of Fresno, a public university cannot fire a female coach for fighting for Title 9 compliance for equality of women's sports programs. On the other hand, they CAN fire a female coach for scoring prescription pain meds from players. The issue is, can a public university fire a hot female women's basketball coach who fought for program equality, fought off athletic director sexual advances, and scored painkillers from players? The issue is "Why" was she fired. p.s. Fresno ROCKS for scandal. The bummer is I'm waiting on a judgment from the trial court judge, and he's been delayed for 6 weeks because of this case. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #18 November 27, 2007 That's how it is in Arkansas. I kind of like it myself. Puts the onus on an employee to work for a living if he/she want to keep a job. :) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #19 November 27, 2007 Quote There was a Time along time ago when Unions were necessary, But that was before we had Labor laws to protect us. I much prefer the ability to negotiate my own employment contract than to depend on others to do it for me. In practice most of us don't have employment contracts. We just get an offer letter specifying title, salary, and other benefits (all of which are negotiable) that last until we or the company decide to part ways for any reason. The company can arbitrarily change what we're working on (fun to boring), who we're working with (more experienced people we can learn from to people we know more than), and the work conditions (work that ends after 8-10 hours in front of a desk to being on-call 24x7 with pages at 12,1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 am) which are IMHO the work related reasons to work some place (you may also move to be near family or for better weather). They can incur substantial costs getting you there that you're liable for if you leave within a specified time period because you don't like those changes which aren't detailed until you want to leave. When I relocated to the pacific Northwest the tab came to $60,000 including things I knew about (Realtor commissions using an approved agent) and things I didn't ($6000 for temporary housing in a 1-bedroom apartment which becomes $9000 after you pay tax on it). Two-income households that relocate can be without the second income for a long time while the costs of living aren't any lower. You're completely out of luck on any restricted stock or options you left to get the new job which constitute over half the compensation package for senior positions at large companies. This completely disregards non-monetary costs like moving away from friends and family or a job with coworkers you've been with for over a decade. At-will employment means the employees below C-level usually bear more of the risks if things change than the employer. Unions writing the contracts instead of individuals is an orthogonal issue. I'd be curious about rank-and-file employees who've successfully negotiated employment contracts with penalties if the company changes what its doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #20 November 27, 2007 Quote Because a valuable employee doesn't really need protection? A valuable employee doesn't need protection to keep _a_ job at the company for as long as there's money, but the company's losses can be a lot less than the employee's when the unique aspects of the position which caused the employee to take the job fail to materialize or disappear. A company promises you interesting work with some really smart people you could learn from. You move away from family, friends, good weather, and a decent job + stock package to get there incurring $60K in relocation costs to get there. The work isn't there, you're back filling for people who quit and won't be replaced because the project has been de-prioritized, and the guy you were going to work with got promoted to a position in a foreign country. You have a wonderful job creating a novel product, work with great people you've known for ten years, and have stock options on .25% of the company which will become very interesting if the product sells well creating an expected nine figure market cap. The senior executives get replaced, the new executive team cancels your project, lays off most of your co-workers, and brings in their own people to run the new projects. Even though you have the same salary and office you've taken a ten year step back in your job responsibilities, you loose your co-workers, and your options are going to be worthless. QuoteI don't see working for a particular employer as a right... it's a privilege that an employee must earn, and if the employer decides the employee is no longer the right person for the job, the employer should be able to terminate the employer/employee relationship and find someone better. The employee also has the same freedom. It would be nice if the employer risked the same monetary losses as the employee if the position changed. If I move to another company in the near future because of reorganizations I'll give up stock currently valued around 2.5 years' salary. If I move to a position which isn't as promised the new company will only be out the .25 year's salary I spend figuring that out. The new employer has 1/10th my risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #21 November 27, 2007 The phosphate mines used to do it to the truckers. An employee with 20 years driving a truck would suddenly be told that they didn't need them driving. They would be needed to handle a shovel. It was the way to get rid of people close to collecting pensions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #22 November 27, 2007 Which is exactly why NO-ONE should ever depend on a Company for a Pension. A good 401K is much better and you are NOT depending on your company still being around after you retire. I have always had the attitude with any employer "Come Payday, We are even". I will save for my own retirement. If I agree to a Job and that Job changes, I am free to find another. In all honesty I always got screwed around allot more at Union Plants that I ever did at Non Union Plants. At Non-union plants I could get things done and not have to deal with grievances being filed constantly. Job performance carried much more weight than seniority. Union Plants were the exact opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #23 November 27, 2007 Some of you are confusing "employment at will" with "right to work". They're 2 different concepts. Speaking most broadly, there are 2 types of employment (other than self-employment): employment by contract, and employment at will. That's it. (And that's regardless of whether you're considered "labor" or "management".) In most states, if you don't have a written employment contract, then by default you're deemed an "employee at will". That's all there is to it. This applies not just to union contracts, but any kind of employment contract - for example, an executive who is hired by means of a written employment contrcat. In most states, if you're an employee at will (which accounts for about 90+% of employed people), as long as your employer is not firing you for some illegal reason such as discrimination, your employer may fire you for (quoting the general rule of caselaw) "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." Which means that if you're not under an employment contract, and not discriminted against, you probably won't win a "wrongful termination" lawsuit, even if the reason you were fired is total horseshit, like because your boss didn't like the color of the tie you wore on Tuesday. On the other hand, if you're working pursuant to a written contract, that contract might provide that your employer may only fire you (before the contract expires) for "cause", such as willful misconduct or something like that, but not for an arbitrary reason that might pass muster if you were an employee at will. By contrast, "right to work" is simply a euphemism for states that have statutes that prohibit forcing a person to join a union just to be employed somewhere. I remember as a teen growing up in NY State, there was one particular supermarket where if you wanted a job as a stock clerk, you were required to join the union. In a "right to work" state, that requirement would be prohibited. Nothing more, nothing less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #24 November 27, 2007 Thanks for the clarification of the difference between the two. I wish I could share my current situation but your PMs are turned off. My performance review which had high marks was done on 9/26/07 and only because I insisted on having a signed copy, I got it today, 11/26/07..there's much more but I don't have the energy to post it all here. _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #25 November 27, 2007 Quote"At Leisure" would be Union. Meaning if your in a Union your obviously lazy??? I take offense to that. I work hard everyday I am at work. I am a PROUD IAFF member. My wife is a union member. She DEFINITELY works hard. and she is proud to be a member of NEA. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
