5 ms·

It means the employee can leave, or be terminated, for any reason without legal repercussions in that state.

xoa 5y ago
>It means the employee can leave, or be terminated, for any reason without legal repercussions in that state. Just to be clear, for any LEGAL reason. "At-will" in no way negates statutory rights such as anti-discrimination law or refusal to commit illegal acts. Retaliation against certain protected acts is forbidden. Also, like almost everything under state law there is significant variety even within a given category. There are many states which are at-will overall but also have state level exceptions for things like public policy (this is where whistle blowing can fall under, though that involves some complicated questions too), implied covenants, etc. Finally, at-will is just a legal default, someone could still negotiate a contract that required some different higher level of cause. So as always, need to consult the specific state law and contract in question unless it's a clear violation of something federal like the Civil Rights Act.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Doesn't that feel more like it should be described as "not explicitly illegal"? Saying that the reason must be legal gives it the sense that there is a list of valid reasons you could fire someone when, as I understand it, that list doesn't exist, and there's strictly a list of reasons you can't. "You wore green shoes so you're fired" is a reason that someone can be fired, but to say it's a legal reason gives it weight such a frivolous dismissal doesn't deserve.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Honestly that just seems crazy. Unless management/HR are stupid, how exactly do you prove you were let go because of X protected thing instead of Y? You hope they settle out of court? And of course, not everyone will have the time or resources for a potentially multi-year legal battle. That's one of those American things that when you first hear about them, they sound weird/wrong or "okay, why not", but on second thought are just downright crazy and screw over the common people. Like no paid leave by default, even for maternity.
  - mysterydip 5y ago
    Because all the HR departments adopted the same policy, you don't really have a choice in the matter unfortunately.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    What is your preferred alternative? Make employment itself a right? How do you unload poor performers (who exist in great quantity)? It is already hard enough to do that, given the direct costs of replacing an employee. And what effect would this have on people who are looking for a new job? Companies would have fewer openings, and more reluctance to fill them.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      > What is your preferred alternative? How about the way most of the rest of the civilized world handles it? Termination must have a cause, be backed up with documentation, and ideally display the company's attempts at remediation (i.e. the PIP).
      - recursive 5y ago
        This makes termination more expensive. That adds a risk to every new hire. Which slightly depresses the totally amount of hiring. Or so the argument would go.
        mc32 5y ago
        We can compare against public sector employees. I think we can see a difference. It’s not that we don’t end up with “corruption” with at will policies, but it’s better for the economy to have a more dynamic workforce. As an individual though, of course I’d like to have a guaranteed job, but… I mean then you get government performance. Yes some people will excel despite the lack of incentive, but most will prefer to just be mediocre and get by —why not? You won’t get in trouble.
        deleted 5y ago
- duped 5y ago
  At-will employment effectively negates any legal protections for termination, except in the rare circumstances where you can prove that you were illegally fired.
falcolas 5y ago
Slight tangent, but boy do some companies take offense when an employee exercises that right, even as they hold the threat of termination over their employees.
- paxys 5y ago
  I had such a time quitting my first job. Me – I have decided to part ways with the company. Here's my 2 week notice. Let's work out a transition plan. Manager – You can't do that! We have to ship this project by end of quarter. There's no way we will be able to find a replacement in time. Me – Well that's unfortunate, but my end date isn't flexible. Manager – Let me discuss this with [director] and get back to you. Me – There is nothing to discuss. I'm not asking for permission. And then he had the audacity to switch up the project dates and suggest that I work overtime and finish all the work before leaving.

xoa 5y ago

>It means the employee can leave, or be terminated, for any reason without legal repercussions in that state. Just to be clear, for any LEGAL reason. "At-will" in no way negates statutory rights such as anti-discrimination law or refusal to commit illegal acts. Retaliation against certain protected acts is forbidden. Also, like almost everything under state law there is significant variety even within a given category. There are many states which are at-will overall but also have state level exceptions for things like public policy (this is where whistle blowing can fall under, though that involves some complicated questions too), implied covenants, etc. Finally, at-will is just a legal default, someone could still negotiate a contract that required some different higher level of cause. So as always, need to consult the specific state law and contract in question unless it's a clear violation of something federal like the Civil Rights Act.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Doesn't that feel more like it should be described as "not explicitly illegal"? Saying that the reason must be legal gives it the sense that there is a list of valid reasons you could fire someone when, as I understand it, that list doesn't exist, and there's strictly a list of reasons you can't. "You wore green shoes so you're fired" is a reason that someone can be fired, but to say it's a legal reason gives it weight such a frivolous dismissal doesn't deserve.
sofixa 5y ago
Honestly that just seems crazy. Unless management/HR are stupid, how exactly do you prove you were let go because of X protected thing instead of Y? You hope they settle out of court? And of course, not everyone will have the time or resources for a potentially multi-year legal battle. That's one of those American things that when you first hear about them, they sound weird/wrong or "okay, why not", but on second thought are just downright crazy and screw over the common people. Like no paid leave by default, even for maternity.
- mysterydip 5y ago
  Because all the HR departments adopted the same policy, you don't really have a choice in the matter unfortunately.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  What is your preferred alternative? Make employment itself a right? How do you unload poor performers (who exist in great quantity)? It is already hard enough to do that, given the direct costs of replacing an employee. And what effect would this have on people who are looking for a new job? Companies would have fewer openings, and more reluctance to fill them.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    > What is your preferred alternative? How about the way most of the rest of the civilized world handles it? Termination must have a cause, be backed up with documentation, and ideally display the company's attempts at remediation (i.e. the PIP).
    - recursive 5y ago
      This makes termination more expensive. That adds a risk to every new hire. Which slightly depresses the totally amount of hiring. Or so the argument would go.
      - mc32 5y ago
        We can compare against public sector employees. I think we can see a difference. It’s not that we don’t end up with “corruption” with at will policies, but it’s better for the economy to have a more dynamic workforce. As an individual though, of course I’d like to have a guaranteed job, but… I mean then you get government performance. Yes some people will excel despite the lack of incentive, but most will prefer to just be mediocre and get by —why not? You won’t get in trouble.
        deleted 5y ago
duped 5y ago
At-will employment effectively negates any legal protections for termination, except in the rare circumstances where you can prove that you were illegally fired.

falcolas 5y ago

Slight tangent, but boy do some companies take offense when an employee exercises that right, even as they hold the threat of termination over their employees.

paxys 5y ago
I had such a time quitting my first job. Me – I have decided to part ways with the company. Here's my 2 week notice. Let's work out a transition plan. Manager – You can't do that! We have to ship this project by end of quarter. There's no way we will be able to find a replacement in time. Me – Well that's unfortunate, but my end date isn't flexible. Manager – Let me discuss this with [director] and get back to you. Me – There is nothing to discuss. I'm not asking for permission. And then he had the audacity to switch up the project dates and suggest that I work overtime and finish all the work before leaving.