That’s “at-will” though, isn’t it?
Comment on It has nothing to do with your right to work
Etterra@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well if they named it honestly as “Right to Fire” then only 55% of voters would vote for it.
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s a different thing entirely.
“Right to Work” is about the relationship between workers and unions. Specifically, it bans mandatory membership in unions and union-member-exclusive benefits. The most important part of that is it keeps unions from being able to collect union dues.
“At-will employment” is about the relationship between employer and employee, and is what allows someone to be fired for any non-protected reason or no reason at all. It’s also the standard almost everywhere and has little impact most places because firing someone without cause still incurs payment for unemployment benefits.
Trust me, as a former manager, it’s still very hard to get corporate permission to fire someone who shows up on time, sober, in dress code no matter how toxic or lazy they are.
kayazere@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Only in the US.
In Europe there are strict notice periods for both sides around terminating the employment agreement and the employer can’t fire you from one day to the next.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What’s the punishment for it? In the US, the punishment is they have to keep paying you even though you aren’t working any longer, so it’s pretty uncommon to be terminated without cause.
But on the flip side, an employee has ZERO obligation to remain at a job.