5 ms·
You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
by burningChrome 2y ago
You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
- reaperman 2y ago1) 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.