7 ms·

A company does not have to give reason to fire in an at-will state. If they don't say 'we fired you because you were discussing pay', then there is no means to

A company does not have to give reason to fire in an at-will state. If they don't say 'we fired you because you were discussing pay', then there is no means to prove that was the case.

duaneb 11y ago
> then there is no means to prove that was the case. It's called court. No provided reason does not imply a lack of reason, and (say) discussing pay on a public forum would certainly be relevant evidence, if highly circumstantial.
tptacek 11y ago
No. It's nowhere nearly that simple; you can say exactly the same thing about firing someone because they're black, or because they complained about sexual harassment. From experience (as a bystander), what really happens in a case like this is: * Employee is terminated * Employee believes they were terminated for a reason forbidden by state or federal law * Employee retains an employment lawyer, who drafts a letter demanding compensation for the improper termination, citing specific claims of (say) sexual harassment, complaints articulated to superiors and to HR, and subsequent retaliatory firing. * Employee does not necessarily prove those claims; they need only demonstrate sufficient facts and allegations to ensure that a lawsuit would not easily be dismissed. * Employer almost invariably settles. The two cases where employers don't settle: * Employer is stupid, and believes that they will pay less to litigate a wrongful termination case than to settle. * Employer is smart, and has an HR department that keeps excruciatingly careful records of things like sexual harassment complaints, alleged racially-tinged comments, ratio of black/white hires to black/white applications, &c, and is prepared to make it clear to employee's lawyer that the case will cost too much to pursue. If you've ever wondered why smart employers go fucking apeshit when people make racially-tinged jokes, or why it's not necessarily in your best interests to bring your concerns to HR unless your game plan is to bring a wrongful termination complaint, there you go. This is also the reason why, despite at-will status in basically every locale where you can hire people, "Performance Improvement Plan" is a euphemism for "slow-motion termination". The purpose of a PIP is to establish in the written record that an employee is a non-performer, so that when they're terminated, the employer can present evidence that there were reasons other than retaliation or discrimination.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  There is another reason for a PIP: the employer thinks the employee has been doing their job badly but could do acceptably well. The PIP is the last available tool to get them back up to speed.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Most of the time, when your employer truly thinks that about you, they'll work on your improvement informally. I don't like saying this, but I think most people's best interests are served by the assumption that a PIP signals their employer's transition from "working to retain them" to "working to manage them out of the company".
    - meric 11y ago
      On the off-chance they're doing that because your performance is abysmal and you haven't improved enough from their informal intervention, if in PIP you managed to finally recover your performance, maybe they will let you stay a bit longer.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Sure. It's not a guarantee. But personally, I think if you get a PIP, your best next move is to start applying for other jobs.
        a3n 11y ago
        Exactly. "Thank you for letting me know well in advance that you intend to let me go."
        enraged_camel 11y ago
        By the way, you don't have to sign the PIP. In fact, you shouldn't, because if you do, you're basically admitting that, yes, your performance is indeed low and needs improvement. And that goes in your employee file. The right thing to do is to take the paperwork and say, "thanks, can you give me a few days to review this?" and stall as much as possible while looking for another job. If you're feeling especially ballsy (and very confident in your ability to find another job quickly) you can say, "I'm not familiar with these at all, and my grandpa (R.I.P) always told me to get everything reviewed by an attorney before signing it, so that's what want to do. Is that OK?"
st3v3r 11y ago
See, that's why at-will is a terrible end run around worker's rights.
- brashrat 11y ago
  see, rights for any group are always an end run around rights somebody else would naturally have.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    No.
- hodgesrm 11y ago
  How so? At-will cuts both ways. In countries like Finland as well as France it can be quite time-consuming to switch jobs due to the fact you have to give three months or more notice. That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south. If you are looking for an end run try binding arbitration, which allows employers to opt out of the legal system.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > How so? Because the employer is at a massive advantage. For an employee having gaps in employment is a major thing when it comes to future employment, and can have massive effects on personal finances. For the employer, losing an employee a bit earlier is rarely a major issue (and if it is, they can generally convince people to stay a bit longer by throwing cash at the problem). It is less relevant in high-paid positions where employees generally have the ability to put aside more of a cushion, but for lower paid employees it can be dramatic. There's a reason the long notice periods in large parts of Europe are a direct result of decades of union pressure. > That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south. If this was a real concern, then we ought to see a persistent problem of high unemployment across the countries with long notice periods, but to my knowledge we don't.
Spooky23 11y ago
That's even better. You have a lawyer write a letter that it's because of your alcohol/sexual orientation/etc, and you'll end up with a settlement 6/10 times.

A company does not have to give reason to fire in an at-will state. If they don't say 'we fired you because you were discussing pay', then there is no means to prove that was the case.

duaneb 11y ago

> then there is no means to prove that was the case. It's called court. No provided reason does not imply a lack of reason, and (say) discussing pay on a public forum would certainly be relevant evidence, if highly circumstantial.

tptacek 11y ago

No. It's nowhere nearly that simple; you can say exactly the same thing about firing someone because they're black, or because they complained about sexual harassment. From experience (as a bystander), what really happens in a case like this is: * Employee is terminated * Employee believes they were terminated for a reason forbidden by state or federal law * Employee retains an employment lawyer, who drafts a letter demanding compensation for the improper termination, citing specific claims of (say) sexual harassment, complaints articulated to superiors and to HR, and subsequent retaliatory firing. * Employee does not necessarily prove those claims; they need only demonstrate sufficient facts and allegations to ensure that a lawsuit would not easily be dismissed. * Employer almost invariably settles. The two cases where employers don't settle: * Employer is stupid, and believes that they will pay less to litigate a wrongful termination case than to settle. * Employer is smart, and has an HR department that keeps excruciatingly careful records of things like sexual harassment complaints, alleged racially-tinged comments, ratio of black/white hires to black/white applications, &c, and is prepared to make it clear to employee's lawyer that the case will cost too much to pursue. If you've ever wondered why smart employers go fucking apeshit when people make racially-tinged jokes, or why it's not necessarily in your best interests to bring your concerns to HR unless your game plan is to bring a wrongful termination complaint, there you go. This is also the reason why, despite at-will status in basically every locale where you can hire people, "Performance Improvement Plan" is a euphemism for "slow-motion termination". The purpose of a PIP is to establish in the written record that an employee is a non-performer, so that when they're terminated, the employer can present evidence that there were reasons other than retaliation or discrimination.

dsr_ 11y ago
There is another reason for a PIP: the employer thinks the employee has been doing their job badly but could do acceptably well. The PIP is the last available tool to get them back up to speed.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Most of the time, when your employer truly thinks that about you, they'll work on your improvement informally. I don't like saying this, but I think most people's best interests are served by the assumption that a PIP signals their employer's transition from "working to retain them" to "working to manage them out of the company".
  - meric 11y ago
    On the off-chance they're doing that because your performance is abysmal and you haven't improved enough from their informal intervention, if in PIP you managed to finally recover your performance, maybe they will let you stay a bit longer.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Sure. It's not a guarantee. But personally, I think if you get a PIP, your best next move is to start applying for other jobs.
      - a3n 11y ago
        Exactly. "Thank you for letting me know well in advance that you intend to let me go."
      - enraged_camel 11y ago
        By the way, you don't have to sign the PIP. In fact, you shouldn't, because if you do, you're basically admitting that, yes, your performance is indeed low and needs improvement. And that goes in your employee file. The right thing to do is to take the paperwork and say, "thanks, can you give me a few days to review this?" and stall as much as possible while looking for another job. If you're feeling especially ballsy (and very confident in your ability to find another job quickly) you can say, "I'm not familiar with these at all, and my grandpa (R.I.P) always told me to get everything reviewed by an attorney before signing it, so that's what want to do. Is that OK?"

st3v3r 11y ago

See, that's why at-will is a terrible end run around worker's rights.

brashrat 11y ago
see, rights for any group are always an end run around rights somebody else would naturally have.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  No.
hodgesrm 11y ago
How so? At-will cuts both ways. In countries like Finland as well as France it can be quite time-consuming to switch jobs due to the fact you have to give three months or more notice. That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south. If you are looking for an end run try binding arbitration, which allows employers to opt out of the legal system.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > How so? Because the employer is at a massive advantage. For an employee having gaps in employment is a major thing when it comes to future employment, and can have massive effects on personal finances. For the employer, losing an employee a bit earlier is rarely a major issue (and if it is, they can generally convince people to stay a bit longer by throwing cash at the problem). It is less relevant in high-paid positions where employees generally have the ability to put aside more of a cushion, but for lower paid employees it can be dramatic. There's a reason the long notice periods in large parts of Europe are a direct result of decades of union pressure. > That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south. If this was a real concern, then we ought to see a persistent problem of high unemployment across the countries with long notice periods, but to my knowledge we don't.

Spooky23 11y ago

That's even better. You have a lawyer write a letter that it's because of your alcohol/sexual orientation/etc, and you'll end up with a settlement 6/10 times.