4 ms·
Yeah, most states are "at-will" employment, which means outside any specific contract, either the employer or the employee can terminate the relationship "at wi
by bena 8y ago
Yeah, most states are "at-will" employment, which means outside any specific contract, either the employer or the employee can terminate the relationship "at will".
No specific reason needs to be given. And this is important. Neither side should be beholden to the other. Employees are not beholden to their employer to stay any length of time, and neither should employers be beholden to the employees to keep them employed indefinitely.
Now, no matter what, there is going to be a power imbalance. Currently, the power lies mostly with the employers. Employees are generally replaceable. You can find someone else to do a similar job.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoWorse, if you leave without notice, you may be penalized (won't pay accrued vacation time, final paycheck etc). Further, you may be banned from working in the same field again, if you signed a non-compete. So its symbolic in one sense - sure you can quit, but you can't do it without fallout.
- bena 8y agoThe final paycheck has to be given. They can be sued for not giving you money you actually worked for. And most non-competes are unenforceable as it prevents people from making a living.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoYou'd have to be in a position to sue anybody. Which working-class folks definitely are not. No suit is worthwhile for a few hundred bucks anyway - but that much money matters a lot to an individual working paycheck to paycheck. As usual, there's a system in place and lofty rules about 'right to work' but it functions only for the well-off. The entitled if you will.
- twblalock 8y ago"Right to work" typically refers to laws that prevent union membership being a requirement to work at certain employers. I don't think that's what you mean here.
- pseudalopex 8y agoRequiring union membership is illegal in the US. "Right to work" laws allow non-members not to pay for representation that federal law requires the union to provide.
- bena 8y agoBy the time it gets to court, it's no longer a few hundred bucks. And even if you take it to small claims, you can get the defendant to pay the costs if they lose. And they will lose. Because withholding pay is kind of illegal. The vacation/sick pay issue is more of a grey issue as it's mostly a matter of company policy than any legal issue.
- infinite8s 8y agoPayout of unused vacation time is also a matter of state law (for example, it's required in California)
- throwaway2048 8y agothe awarding of court costs is very rare in the usa.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoOutside of California most non-competes are enforceable as long as they have reasonable time limits and reasonable geographic limits. Some courts have found that North America is a reasonable geographic limit. One year is about the max time limit. The deets may vary around the edges depending on the state (excluding CA which has strong anti-non-compete) /* I used to practice employee-side employment law.
- twblalock 8y agoI've never heard of it being legal to withhold pay for time that has already been worked, regardless of the reason the employee is separated from the company.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoAs far as I can tell, paying out vacation time isn't depending on anything; the company is obligated to pay that no matter what. While there are plenty of workers who don't really have any recourse, I'd imagine highly paid tech workers can afford enough of a lawyer's time for them to draft a scary letter.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoit can depend on whether the "vacation days" are offered as an earned benefit. Sometimes in PTO systems employers structure PTO as a discretionary benefit rather than guaranteed/earned benefit. Discretionary stuff can be held back (usually applies to expected bonuses but could apply to PTO)