5 ms·

Right-to-work laws only affect employees' relationship with a union if one exists in their workplace, not employee<->employer relationships. So “living in a rig

Right-to-work laws only affect employees' relationship with a union if one exists in their workplace, not employee<->employer relationships. So “living in a right-to-work state” has no relevancy to your anecdote.

DoesntMatter22 2y ago
People seem to misunderstand 'right to work' states 99% of the time.
Terr_ 2y ago
I'm guessing OP probably meant an "at-will" employment state [0], which is rather more relevant. Those two terms are frequently confused, and I place a lot of the blame for that on the blandly Orwellian naming of "right to work" laws, which actually take away rights instead. Specifically, it outlaws any group of workers and employers from making a certain kind of voluntary agreement between one-another. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
- tptacek 2y ago
  Unless they lived in Montana, they lived in an at-will state; it's reasonable shorthand to simply say the US is on the whole at-will.
- reaperman 2y ago
  At-will is the counterpart to “just-cause”. “Just cause” contracts like the ones in Montana only bind the employer, not the employee. So this explanation still is irrelevant to the anecdote at hand.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
  - reaperman 2y ago
    1) Can you explain specifically how living in an "at-will" state (or "right to work" state), assisted you in being able to ignore/defeat your non-compete agreement? 2) Do you think that if you were living in the only state that is not an "at-will" state (Montana) that the outcome would have been any different for you? How so, specifically? 3) Are you aware that many people living in an "at-will" state still have just-cause contracts? My dad did as a school administrator. Living in an "at-will" state does not mean that your employer is forced to use at-will employment contracts, it merely allows them to. I'm completely failing to see any connection at all between "at-will", "right-to-work", and non-compete agreements. While at this point I think you're simply wrong, I'm sincerely very open to learning what I might be missing here! For context: 49 states are "at will", which only means that employers can fire you for any (non-protected) reason or no reason at all. The only state that is not, Montana, has a law that employment is categorized as "just cause". Montana's just-cause employment law, unique among U.S. states, requires that after a probationary period, employers can only terminate employees for "good cause." This means that an employer must have a legitimate, job-related reason for firing an employee, such as poor performance, misconduct, or other actions that are detrimental to the business.
kstrauser 2y ago
That's true, but right-to-work states tend to also have lots of other employer-friendly legislation. In theory, you could have a state with a right-to-work law and good employee protections. In practice, I'm not aware that one exists. Right-to-work has become an almost sarcastic shorthand for a state that gives employers strong powers against their workers, and then wonders why they don't have more startups.
- ummonk 2y ago
  It's ironic because one could make similar first principles arguments against both non-competes and union security agreements.

DoesntMatter22 2y ago

People seem to misunderstand 'right to work' states 99% of the time.

Terr_ 2y ago

I'm guessing OP probably meant an "at-will" employment state [0], which is rather more relevant. Those two terms are frequently confused, and I place a lot of the blame for that on the blandly Orwellian naming of "right to work" laws, which actually take away rights instead. Specifically, it outlaws any group of workers and employers from making a certain kind of voluntary agreement between one-another. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

tptacek 2y ago
Unless they lived in Montana, they lived in an at-will state; it's reasonable shorthand to simply say the US is on the whole at-will.
reaperman 2y ago
At-will is the counterpart to “just-cause”. “Just cause” contracts like the ones in Montana only bind the employer, not the employee. So this explanation still is irrelevant to the anecdote at hand.
burningChrome 2y ago
You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
- reaperman 2y ago
  1) Can you explain specifically how living in an "at-will" state (or "right to work" state), assisted you in being able to ignore/defeat your non-compete agreement? 2) Do you think that if you were living in the only state that is not an "at-will" state (Montana) that the outcome would have been any different for you? How so, specifically? 3) Are you aware that many people living in an "at-will" state still have just-cause contracts? My dad did as a school administrator. Living in an "at-will" state does not mean that your employer is forced to use at-will employment contracts, it merely allows them to. I'm completely failing to see any connection at all between "at-will", "right-to-work", and non-compete agreements. While at this point I think you're simply wrong, I'm sincerely very open to learning what I might be missing here! For context: 49 states are "at will", which only means that employers can fire you for any (non-protected) reason or no reason at all. The only state that is not, Montana, has a law that employment is categorized as "just cause". Montana's just-cause employment law, unique among U.S. states, requires that after a probationary period, employers can only terminate employees for "good cause." This means that an employer must have a legitimate, job-related reason for firing an employee, such as poor performance, misconduct, or other actions that are detrimental to the business.

kstrauser 2y ago

That's true, but right-to-work states tend to also have lots of other employer-friendly legislation. In theory, you could have a state with a right-to-work law and good employee protections. In practice, I'm not aware that one exists. Right-to-work has become an almost sarcastic shorthand for a state that gives employers strong powers against their workers, and then wonders why they don't have more startups.

ummonk 2y ago
It's ironic because one could make similar first principles arguments against both non-competes and union security agreements.