> In America laws like this are sidestepped by the manager coming up with a sufficiently solid reason to fire you. Suddenly nothing you do will be good enough, and good luck proving in court that it was. Huge hassle.
It's worse than that—at least in "right-to-work" states (ha!), they don't even have to come up with a sufficiently solid reason; they just have to not mention the actual reason. There's this bizarre system of incentives where you can fire someone for no reason (which I think is a bad thing), but you can't fire someone for certain specific reasons (which I think is a good thing), so it is better from the manager's point of view for an unethical manager to pretend to fire a worker for no reason and hope that no-one accidentally documents something.
> Right to work is about being able to force you to join a union to work at a place
Isn't it more accurately described as forcing a union to give you the negotiated benefits without requiring you to pay dues? I don't think anybody, on either side of the issue, is under any illusions, it is intended to break unions.
Honestly I'm not entirely sure, possibly because it probably varies by state. My understanding was that the main thing it did was make it so that you didn't have to join the union and pay dues to them to be able to get a job at a workplace. I'm not sure if it requires that you get the same benefits or not but I'd definitely agree the intent is to cripple union's bargaining power and resources.
You are right; thank you. (And that is not such a small correction, since I did not just use the wrong phrase, but used a phrase that means something totally different in the same domain.) I am now outside the edit window, so unfortunately cannot fix it.
"sufficiently solid reason to fire you." is the important piece.
As a person, who at one point had to deal with suddenly doing everything wrong, I cannot stress the importance of logging everything you do to ensure you have a leg to stand on if it comes to actual confrontation over unemployment benefits, which under current system in US, one may not be eligible for if the employer proves it was for a 'good' cause. For example, employee did not want to drink with me; is, likely, not a good cause, while 'he is unable to complete basic requests by deadline x' is.
And I do mean log every deliverable, conversation and so on. Memories fade and perceptions vary and your notes will be taken into account should it come to actual confrontation with employer. I was frankly spending more time documenting than a reasonable person should. It was sheer luck that things just kinda worked out and it did not get to that stage.
Good cause is surprisingly narrow. Even stuff like poor performance is NOT good cause. Generally means either insubordination, time theft, actual theft, excessive no-shows
You are likely right ( but people rarely contest performance charges by employer as far as I know ). Apologies. I think I need to add some disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. I am just a guy on the internet. There are 50 states each with their own interpretations so before you do anything, consult a lawyer ( especially now with a potential wave of layoffs if you think you were not treated fairly ).
That's generally the strategy, but if you're fired without cause then you can collect unemployment. The unemployment insurance premiums can get pretty expensive, so there is a small counterweight to discourage at will firing
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Yes, the correct term is "at-will" and not "right to work". However, that was clearly a typo.
It's important to dispell the myth that it's difficult to fire people without cause. Perpetuating the myth, besides being factually incorrect, changes the conversation that should be had about the topic. Keeping it factual helps keep it objective.
It's simply untrue that it's difficult to fire people. The degree to which it is depends entirely on the integrity of the company and the people involved. Unless it's explicitly said, "we are firing you because you are <insert federally protected class>", and you have that in verifiable form (eg. email) and you're willing to press charges, everything else comes down to integrity. HR will have a cute procedure of warnings and meetings. There is no obligation for an employer to follow that. In fact, the contracts I've been under explicitly say they don't need to follow those procedures. My experience and observation is that they never do follow them.
I'm not sure how to fix that. You certainly can't legislate moral behavior. Maybe bind companies to actually follow their self-determined procedures?
It's worse than that—at least in "right-to-work" states (ha!), they don't even have to come up with a sufficiently solid reason; they just have to not mention the actual reason. There's this bizarre system of incentives where you can fire someone for no reason (which I think is a bad thing), but you can't fire someone for certain specific reasons (which I think is a good thing), so it is better from the manager's point of view for an unethical manager to pretend to fire a worker for no reason and hope that no-one accidentally documents something.