Re:Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees
by unanswered on Thursday February 25, 2021 @01:22PM
(#26266186)
That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law because ____?
Re:Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees
by whydoibother on Thursday February 25, 2021 @01:59PM
(#26266683)
How is that the most important part? Slavery is already illegal outside of prisons. You know very well this is so companies can cut employees whenever they need to and not face legal repercussions.
Re:Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees
by tablespoon on Thursday February 25, 2021 @02:01PM
(#26266704)
> That is an incomplete and misleading definition of "at-will employment". The most important part of at-will employment is that the employee is allowed to leave their employer for any time, for any reason; i.e., they can't be forced to work for their employer even by contract. It is literally just an anti-slavery law, and yet somehow some folks have turned it into a bogeyman. Imagine being against an anti-slavery law because ____?
Honestly, I'd say you're being more hyperbolic and misleading. At-will employment is "just an anti-slavery law?" I'm pretty sure that was already illegal before these laws, and at-will employment wasn't the mechanism for its abolition.
My understanding is that the actual effect of at-will employment laws wasn't to free employees from jobs they didn't want, but to make their positions more precarious (e.g. previously employers had to give a good reason for termination or it was invalid, or at least give notice).
“In the context of U.S. labor politics, "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which force employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.”
So, in such states, the (union, employer) combo cannot force every employee to pay the union (employees can choose not to become a member, but still would have to pay them)
I don’t understand how that fits in the story, though. I guess the OP meant “at will”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment): “In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal.”