4 ms·

Except in at-will states your employer doesn't need to state a justification to fire you. This means if you discuss your salary and get caught, you have to prov

by enjo 16y ago

Except in at-will states your employer doesn't need to state a justification to fire you. This means if you discuss your salary and get caught, you have to prove that to be the cause (which is nearly impossible).

latch 16y ago
Not sure why you say "Except..." since that's exactly what I meant and said. Beyond this though, At-will isn't practiced outside of the US (as far as I know). I am curious though with whom the burden of proof lies. If your employer says they fired you for no reason (as they can), but you say they fired you because you discussed your salary...something's gotta give. If you can prove that you discussed your salary before being fired, I would think it would look very badly on your employer. At-will might mean that they can fire you for no reason, but it doesn't mean that they can fire you for any reason.
- masterzora 16y ago
  Actually, that's exactly what it means. At-will means that either party (the employer or employee) can end the employment for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. Anti-discrimination laws have amended this, so the reasons aren't allowed to be "because the person belonged to a protected class", and there are a few exceptions for things such as employers not being allowed to fire employees for refusing to take part in illegal activities, but it is otherwise largely intact and very well can be used to fire somebody discussing their salary.
  - latch 16y ago
    Again, INAL, but.. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled numerous time on this..and the termination of employees who disclose salary information is unlawful. Examples: Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004) NLRB v. Main Street Terrace Care Center 18 F.3d 531 There's also state-specific clauses, like California's Labor Code is #232. As silly as it sounds, At-will employment lets you fire someone for no reason, but it doesn't let you fire someone for an illegal reason. You can't fire someone for taking a lunch break or vacation time which is protected by various labor laws, just like you can't fire someone for being black. Again, to me, the question is with whom does the burden of proof rest?
    - masterzora 16y ago
      I apologise; I am clearly not familiar with the current state of exceptions. I'm sure it's obvious that IANAL as well, but, outside of specific exceptions (of which salary disclosure is apparently one as of the last decade) at-will still means "any reason or no reason" (though, California isn't exactly the best example of "at-will"....). Unless my knowledge in this case also happens to be woefully out of date, the burden of proof lies on the allegedly wrongfully terminated employee.
    - danssig 16y ago
      Well, the issue is that the company in an At-will state will never give any official reason for a termination. They will resist even giving a reason as long as they can and if forced there will always be something they can use.
danssig 16y ago
One of many reasons to never work in a backwards "At-will" state.

by enjo 16y ago

latch 16y ago

Not sure why you say "Except..." since that's exactly what I meant and said. Beyond this though, At-will isn't practiced outside of the US (as far as I know). I am curious though with whom the burden of proof lies. If your employer says they fired you for no reason (as they can), but you say they fired you because you discussed your salary...something's gotta give. If you can prove that you discussed your salary before being fired, I would think it would look very badly on your employer. At-will might mean that they can fire you for no reason, but it doesn't mean that they can fire you for any reason.

masterzora 16y ago
Actually, that's exactly what it means. At-will means that either party (the employer or employee) can end the employment for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. Anti-discrimination laws have amended this, so the reasons aren't allowed to be "because the person belonged to a protected class", and there are a few exceptions for things such as employers not being allowed to fire employees for refusing to take part in illegal activities, but it is otherwise largely intact and very well can be used to fire somebody discussing their salary.
- latch 16y ago
  Again, INAL, but.. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled numerous time on this..and the termination of employees who disclose salary information is unlawful. Examples: Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004) NLRB v. Main Street Terrace Care Center 18 F.3d 531 There's also state-specific clauses, like California's Labor Code is #232. As silly as it sounds, At-will employment lets you fire someone for no reason, but it doesn't let you fire someone for an illegal reason. You can't fire someone for taking a lunch break or vacation time which is protected by various labor laws, just like you can't fire someone for being black. Again, to me, the question is with whom does the burden of proof rest?
  - masterzora 16y ago
    I apologise; I am clearly not familiar with the current state of exceptions. I'm sure it's obvious that IANAL as well, but, outside of specific exceptions (of which salary disclosure is apparently one as of the last decade) at-will still means "any reason or no reason" (though, California isn't exactly the best example of "at-will"....). Unless my knowledge in this case also happens to be woefully out of date, the burden of proof lies on the allegedly wrongfully terminated employee.
  - danssig 16y ago
    Well, the issue is that the company in an At-will state will never give any official reason for a termination. They will resist even giving a reason as long as they can and if forced there will always be something they can use.

danssig 16y ago

One of many reasons to never work in a backwards "At-will" state.