Small corrdction, that's 'at will' not 'right to work'. Right to work is about being able to force you to join a union to work at a place.

> Right to work is about being able to force you to join a union to work at a place

Isn't it more accurately described as forcing a union to give you the negotiated benefits without requiring you to pay dues? I don't think anybody, on either side of the issue, is under any illusions, it is intended to break unions.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure, possibly because it probably varies by state. My understanding was that the main thing it did was make it so that you didn't have to join the union and pay dues to them to be able to get a job at a workplace. I'm not sure if it requires that you get the same benefits or not but I'd definitely agree the intent is to cripple union's bargaining power and resources.

And, I thought basically all states were at will, except sort of Montana?

Correct

At-will is per job and most states allow that sort of arrangment: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-e...

Right-to-work is a specific anti-union campaign: https://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states/

You are right; thank you. (And that is not such a small correction, since I did not just use the wrong phrase, but used a phrase that means something totally different in the same domain.) I am now outside the edit window, so unfortunately cannot fix it.

That's generally the strategy, but if you're fired without cause then you can collect unemployment. The unemployment insurance premiums can get pretty expensive, so there is a small counterweight to discourage at will firing

> That's generally the strategy, but if you're fired without cause then you can collect unemployment.

Thank you. I was not aware of this point.

"sufficiently solid reason to fire you." is the important piece.

As a person, who at one point had to deal with suddenly doing everything wrong, I cannot stress the importance of logging everything you do to ensure you have a leg to stand on if it comes to actual confrontation over unemployment benefits, which under current system in US, one may not be eligible for if the employer proves it was for a 'good' cause. For example, employee did not want to drink with me; is, likely, not a good cause, while 'he is unable to complete basic requests by deadline x' is.

And I do mean log every deliverable, conversation and so on. Memories fade and perceptions vary and your notes will be taken into account should it come to actual confrontation with employer. I was frankly spending more time documenting than a reasonable person should. It was sheer luck that things just kinda worked out and it did not get to that stage.

Good cause is surprisingly narrow. Even stuff like poor performance is NOT good cause. Generally means either insubordination, time theft, actual theft, excessive no-shows

You are likely right ( but people rarely contest performance charges by employer as far as I know ). Apologies. I think I need to add some disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. I am just a guy on the internet. There are 50 states each with their own interpretations so before you do anything, consult a lawyer ( especially now with a potential wave of layoffs if you think you were not treated fairly ).